1
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), SATHUPALLY
Date this the 2nd day of May, 2022
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi, IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Sathupally.
SC. No.122 of 2021
===============================================
1.Complainant:The State Circle Inspector of Police, Wyra.
2.Name of the accused:A1–Magam Suresh S/o Sreenu, Age: 25 yeas, Yadav, Auto driver, A2–Magam Venkatesh S/o Sreenu, Age: 27 years, Yadav, Agriculture, A3–Magam Sreenu S/o Veeraiah, Age: 49 years, Yadav, Agriculture (died), A4-Magam Laxmi Bai W/o Sreenu, Age: 46 years, Yadav, Coolie, All are R/o Annarugudem Village of Thallada Mandal, Khammam district.
3.Crime No.:192 of 2019 of P.S Thallada
4.P.R.C No.:3 of 2020
5.Name of the Officer who:Sri.Dheeraj Kumar committed the caseAddl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira.
6.Prosecution conducted by :Addl. Public Prosecutor, Sathupally.
7.Defence conducted by:Sri.Sk.Latheef, Advocate for A1, A2 and A4
8.Charges :Under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A1, A2 and A4.
9.Plea of the accused:Not guilty 10Finding of the court:Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are found not guilty 11Sentence of order: In the result, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The case against accused No.3 is abated since he died. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
2
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 28.04.2022 and after hearing the arguments of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri.Sk.Latheef, Advocate for accused Nos.1 to 4; upon perusing the material papers available on record; upon hearing arguments of both sides; this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. The Circle Inspector of Police, Wyra laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Cr. No.192/2019, U/Sec.302 r/w 34 of
IPC of P.S Thallada alleging that the accused are liable to be punishable
U/Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC.
2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows;
On 13.09.2019 at 22.00 hours, Pw.1 lodged a Telugu written petition stating that on 13.09.2019 night about 7.00 hours her husband
Magam Veeraiah was present in the house and in the meantime Magam
Suresh, Magam Venkatesh, Magam Srinu, Magam Laxmibai abused her husband in filthy language as ‘Lanjakodaka nuvvu chasthene maku polam vasthundi’ and beat him indiscriminately with sticks, resulting which her husband sustained bleeding injuries on his chest, backside and other parts of body and forceably got out from the house and also again got out from outside to the house and on seeing the incident
Kalasani Naresh, Duddukuri Narasimha Rao, Kalasani Gopiraju, Ragam
Seetharamulu rushed there and rescued him and requested him to take necessary action.
On receipt of the petition on 13.09.2019 at 22.00 hours,
Lw.33/A.Vishnumurthy, ASI registered a case in Cr. No.192/2019,
U/Secs.294 (b), 324 r/w 34 of IPC, since Lw.34/V.Srinivas, S.I of Police went to Ganesh festival bandhobasthu at Hyderabad and sent F.I.R to the court and all concerned officers and took up the investigation.
During the course of investigation, Lw.33/A.Vishnu Murthy, ASI examined and recorded the statement of Pw.1. On 14.09.2019,
Lw.33/A.Vishnumurthy, A.S.I along with staff proceeded to Annarugudem 3
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
and visited the scene of offence, drafted CDF in the presence of Pw.19 and Pw.20 and incorporated the details in CDF, secured the presence of
Pws.2, 3, 7, 14 and 18, examined and recorded their statements.
On 15.09.2019 in the evening Lw.34/V.Srinivas, S.I of Police returned from bandobasthu duties and took up investigation from A.S.I and verified, secured the presence of Pws.1, 2, 3, 7, 14 and 18 and examined them, but did not record their statements as they stated the same before Lw.33/A.Vishnumurthy, A.S.I, visited the scene of offence and observed the scene of offence. On 16.09.2019 in the morning,
Lw.34/V.Srinivas, S.I along with staff proceeded to Khammam and visited
Swathi Hospital, secured the witnesses Pw.13 and Pw.14, examined and recorded their statements. The condition of injured was serious and blood was clotted and he went to koma and unconscious and due to that
S.I did not examine the injured. Basing on the statements of witnesses,
Lw.34/V.Srinivas, S.I altered the section of law to Sec.448, 294 (b), 307r/w 34 of IPC on 16.09.2019 and filed alteration memo before court and sent the same to all concerned officers. On 17.09.2019 at 11.30 hours, Lw.34/V.Srinivas, S.I received the death intimation from
Dr.K.Maruthi Babu through telephonic message and altered the section of law to 302 r/w 34 of IPC from Secs.448, 294 (b) and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and filed alteration memo before court and sent alteration memos to all concerned and informed the fact to Lw.35/J.Vasantha Kumar, Circle
Inspector and Asst. Commissioner of Police, Wyra through cell phone.
As the offence is grave in nature, the file was handed over to
Lw.35/J.Vasantha Kumar, C.I. On the receipt of memo and express F.I.R,
Lw.35/J.Vasantha Kumar, C.I rushed to Thallada and took up investigation and along with Lw.34/V.Srinivas, S.I and staff proceeded to
Khammam and District Head Quarters Hospital, Mortuary room,
Khammam, secured the presence of Pws.1 to 5, 11 and 12, examined 4
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
and recorded their statements, got photographed the dead body through Pw.26, examined him and recorded his statement, held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of Pw.21 and Pw.22.
After completion of inquest, dead body was sent for postmortem examination on requisition. The Medical Officer conducted autopsy. After completin of inquest and PME, Lw.35/J.Vasantha Kumar, C.I of Police returned to Head Quarters in late night hours. On 18.09.2019 in the morning, Lw.35/J.Vasantha Kumar along with Lw.34/V.Srinivas, S.I and staff visited the scene of offence, drafted CDF in the presence of Pws.19 and 20, incorporated the details in CDF, secured Pws.6 to 10 and 13 to 16, examined and recorded their statements, returned to police station and examined Pw.17 and recorded his statement. On 19.09.2019,
Lw.35/J.Vasantha Kumar, C.I of Police visited Thallada police station, secured the presence of Pws.23, 24 and 25 and Lw.20/Bommagani Nani, examined and recorded their statements. On 21.09.2019, on reliable information, Lw.35/J.Vasantha Kumar, C.I of Police along with
Lw.34/V.Srinivas, S.I and staff proceeded to Annaragudem village and apprehended accused Nos.1 to 4 at the house of accused No.3 at 8.00 hours. On interrogation, the accused confessed the offence,
Lw.35/J.Vasantha Kumar, C.I of Police secured Pws.27 and 28 and interrogated them separately, on interrogation the accused confessed the offence. Lw.35/J.Vasatha Kumar, C.I of Police seized stick under seizure panchanama in the presnce of Pws.27 and 28. The accused were brought to police station at 10.30 hours and Lw.35/J.Vasantha
Kumar, C.I of Police arrested the accused and sent them to court for judicial custody. Lw.30/Dr.Banothu Reddy, who treated the deceased issued medical certificate of cause of death. Lw.31/Dr.E.Venkateswarlu, who conducted autopsy over the dead body opined that the cause of death of deceased is intracranial bleeding. Lw.32/K.Yuva Raja, Addl.
5
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
JFCM, Sathupally recorded the statement of Pw.1, Pw.6 and Pw.7,
U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, Lw.35/J.Vasantha
Kumar, C.I of Police filed charge sheet alleging that the accused are liable to be punishable U/Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC.
3.Basing on the material available on record, the learned Addl.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira took the case on file and took
cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A4 and registered a case vide PRC No.3/2020 and after serving copies of documents to them in compliance of Section 207 of
Cr.P.C. Since, the section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions
Court, Khammam under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.
4.On appearance of the accused, basing on material available on record, the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Court, Khammam was pleased to take over the case for the offence punishable U/Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A4 and registered the case vide S.C No.122/2021 and made over the case to this court for trial and disposal.
5.The police filed the death certificate of accused No.3 and as such the case against accused No.3 is abated.
6.On the appearance of the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and on hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the accused were examined and charges framed against the accused under section 228 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, read over and explained to them in Telugu. Having understood the same, the accused denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused were defended by their counsel.
6
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
7.Out of (35) witnesses cited by the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 28 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P26. No witnesses were examined from the side of accused and no exhibits were marked from the side of accused. Though sufficient time is granted, the prosecution did not produce witnesses and as such the evidence of Lw.30/Dr.Banoth Reddy,
Lw.31/Dr.E.Venkateswarlu,Lw.32/K.YuvaRaja,Addl.JFCM,
Lw.33/A.Vishnumurthy, ASI, Lw.34/V.Srinivas, S.I and Lw.35/J.Vasantha
Kumar, C.I was closed.
8.After the completion of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu.
Having understood the same the accused denied the evidence and further stated that they have no defence evidence.
9.Heard both sides arguments.
10. Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
POINT:
11. The conspectus of the prosecution case is that Pw.1 is the wife of deceased/Magam Veeraiah and accused No.3 is the elder son of deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of accused Nos.3 and 4 and accused No.4 is the wife of accused No.3 and 20 years ago the deceased performed the marriage of his second son with Pw.13 and they were blessed with Pw.2 and in the year 2015, the son of deceased by name Magam Nageswara Rao died due to ill health and before his death the deceased distributed his land to their sons and daughters as
Ac.1.30 gts. of land to accused No.3 and Ac.1.30 gts. of land to second son of Magam Nageswara Rao and one acre land to daughter Kalasani
Kalavathi and Acs.2.00 gts. of land to another daughter Kalasani 7
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
Nagamani, but the deceased got patta on favour of his daughters
Kalasani Kalavathi and Nagamani and handed over to them, but did not get pattas to the shared property of accused No.3 and Magam
Nageswara Rao and after the death of said Magam Nageswara Rao, the deceased got one acre patta land on the name of Pw.13 without the knowledge of accused persons and total Acs.4.00 gts. of land was got patta on the name of deceased and one acre land was on the name of
Pw.1 and on this issue there were regular disputes between deceased and accused and the accused several times visited the house of deceased and picked up quarrel with deceased and several panchayaths were held with Pws.23, 24 and 25 and Lw.20/Bommagani Nani, but accused Nos.1 to 4 did not change their attitude and the accused
Nos.1 to 4 thought that if the deceased died, they can grab total property and hatched a plan to kill the deceased and on 13.09.2019 at night about 19.00 hours, accused Nos.1 to 4 went to the house of deceased and picked up quarrel with his grandfather to give them their shared property and on that the deceased admonished them and accused No.1 procured a stick and assaulted the deceased indiscriminately and accused No.2 beat the deceased with leg on his side and also indiscriminately and forcibly hit his grandfather to the wall and in the meantime accused Nos.3 and 4 grabbed his grandfather without moving and accused Nos.1 and 2 beat his grandfather on his back side and other parts of body with forcibly and fisted with hands and on that the deceased made cries and fell down on the ground and also they dragged him in mud water and Pw.1 made hue and cries and accused No.1 thrown the stick on the spot and accused Nos.1 to 4 forcibly dragged the deceased to CC road and the deceased fell unconscious and later Pw.1, Pw.3 and Pw.18 tried to shift the injured to hospital through auto, but the accused persons obstructed the auto and 8
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
later Pws.5 and 12 rescued the deceased and shifted to Thallada in an auto and from there the deceased was sent to Khammam through 108 ambulance and he was admitted in Govt. Hospital, Khammam and later he was shifted to Swathi Hospital, Khammam for better treatment and while undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 17.09.2019 at 10.45 hours.
12. PW.1 is the defacto-complainant as well as wife of the deceased. Pws.2, 11 and 12 are grandsons of deceased, Pws.3 and 4 are sons-in-law of deceased. Pw.5 is the relation of grandson of deceased and Pws.1, 2, 5 are eye witnesses. Pw.26 is the photographer and through him Ex.P24-Photographs (8) in number without CD were marked. Pws.6, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 18 are eye witnesses. Pws.9, 14, 15 and 17 are circumstantial witnesses. Pw.23, Pw.24 and Pw.25 are panchayath elders and circumstantial witnesses. Pws.19 and 20 are panch witnesses for CDF and through them their signatures on CDF are marked as Exs.P19 and P20. Pws.21 and 22 are panch witnesses for inquest and through them their signatures on inquest were marked as
Exs.P21 and P22. Pw.27 and 28 are panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama and through them their signatures on confession and recovery panchanama were marked as Exs.P25 and P.26.
13. Pw.1, who is the wife of the deceased/Magam Veeraiah, deposed in her evidence that accused No.3 is her son and accused
Nos.1 and 2 are her grandsons and accused No.4 is her daughter-in-law, who is the wife of accused No.3 and that she does not know the death of the deceased and does not know anything about the facts of the case and she did not give any report to police and somebody obtained her thumb impression on paper while she was in the hospital, Khammam due to carona and the Magistrate recorded her 164 Cr.P.C statement and she does not know the contents of her 164 Cr.P.C statement. Pw.3, who 9
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
is the son-in-law of deceased and Pws.2, 11 and 12, who are the grandsons of the deceased and Pw.2, who is said to be eye witness and
Pws.11 and 12, who are said to be the circumstantial witnesses to the alleged incident, deposed in their evidence that they do not know the reason for the death of the deceased and they do not know anything about the facts of the case. Pw.1, who is no other than the wife of deceased and Pw.3, who is no other than son-in-law and Pws.2, 11 and 12, who are no other than the grandsons of the deceased did not depose in their evidence that accused Nos.1 to 4 quarreled with the deceased by demanding him to give one acre of land to them and that
A1 beat the deceased with stick and A2 hit the head of the deceased to the wall and that A1 to A4 dragged him and abused him and caused the death of the deceased. Moreover, Pw.1 categorically deposed that she was in the hospital due to carona while obtaining her thumb impression on a paper by somebody. Pws.1 to 3, 11 and 12 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in their cross-examination that they stated before the police as in Exs.P1 to P3, P11 and P12.
Pw.1 further denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in her cross- examination that she knows the contents of police report.
The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of Pws.1 to 3, 11 and 12 against the accused. The evidence of
Pws.1 to 3, 11 and 12 is no way helpful to he case of the prosecution.
14.Pw.4, who is said to be son-in-law and Pw.5, who is the relative of the grandson of deceased, deposed in their evidence that they do not know the reason for the death of the deceased and the deceased died about three years ago and they do not know anything about the facts of the case. Pws.4 and 5 did not depose in their evidence that accused Nos.1 to 4 quarreled with the deceased by demanding him to give one acre of land to them and that A1 beat the 10
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
deceased with stick and A2 hit the head of the deceased to the wall and that A1 to A4 dragged him and abused him and caused the death of the deceased.. Pws.4 and 5 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in their cross-examination that they stated before the police as in Exs.P4 and P5. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of Pws.4 and 5 against the accused. The evidence of Pws.4 and 5 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
15. Pws.6, 7, 8 and 13, who are said to be the eye witnesses to the alleged incident, deposed in their evidence that they know all the accused and deceased Veeraiah and they do not know the reason for the death of the deceased and they do not know anything about the facts of the case and according to Pw.6, the deceased died about three years ago and according to Pws.6 and 7 the Magistrate recorded their 164 Cr.P.C statement which bears their signatures and they do not know the contents of his 164 Cr.P.C statement and according to Pw.8, the deceased Veeraiah died about two years ago. Pws.6, 7, 8 and 13 never deposed in their evidence that accused Nos.1 to 4 quarreled with the deceased by demanding him to give one acre of land to them and that A1 beat the deceased with stick and A2 hit the head of the deceased to the wall and that A1 to A4 dragged him and abused him and caused the death of the deceased. Pws.6, 7, 8 and 13 turned hostile and they denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in their cross-examination that they stated before the police as in Exs.P6, P7, P8 and P13. Pws.6, 7, 8 and 13 further deposed in their cross-examination that they know the contents of their 164 Cr.P.C statements. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of Pws.6, 7, 8 and 13 against the accused. The evidence of Pws.6, 7, 8 and 13 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
11
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
16.Pws.9, 10, 14 to 16, who are said to be the circumstantial witnesses, deposed in their evidence that they know all the accused and deceased/Veeraiah and Pw.17, who is said to be another circumstantial witness, deposed in his evidence that he knows all the accused and does not know the deceased/Veeraiah and that they do not know the reason for the death of the deceased and they do not know anything about the facts of the case. Pws.9, 10, 14 to 17 did not depose in their evidence that accused Nos.1 to 4 quarreled with the deceased by demanding him to give one acre of land to them and that A1 beat the deceased with stick and A2 hit the head of the deceased to the wall and that A1 to A4 dragged him and abused him and caused the death of the deceased. Pws.9, 10, 14 to 17 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in their cross-examination that they stated
before the police as in Exs.P9, P10, P14 to P17. The prosecution could
not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of
Pws.9, 10, 14 to 17 against the accused. The evidence of Pws.9, 10, 14 to 17 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
17. Pw.18, who is said to be the eye witness to the alleged incident, deposed in his evidence that he knows all the accused and deceased/Veeraiah and he does not know the reason for the death of the deceased and he does not know anything about the facts of the case. Pw.18 did not depose in his evidence that accused Nos.1 to 4 quarreled with the deceased by demanding him to give one acre of land to them and that A1 beat the deceased with stick and A2 hit the head of the deceased to the wall and that A1 to A4 dragged him and abused him and caused the death of the deceased. Pw.18 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in his cross-examination that he stated before the police as in Ex.P18. The prosecution could not elicit 12
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
any incriminating evidence from the version of PW.18 against the accused. The evidence of PW.18 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
18.Pw.23, who is said to be the panchayath elder, deposed in his evidence that he knows all the accused and deceased/Veeraiah and about two years ago the deceased died and he has no personal knowledge about the death of the deceased, but the police informed him that the deceased was murdered and while the accused were in the custody of police he went to the police station and enquired the police why they were taken into custody and he acted as elder to the panchayath about the dispute between the deceased/Veeraiah and accused No.3 with regard to lands and the matter was not settled and was pending and later on he never enquired into that dispute and he does not know anything about the facts of the case and who are responsible for the death of the deceased. Pw.23 never deposed in his evidence that the accused are the persons who committed the murder of the deceased. Pw.23 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in his cross-examination that he stated before the police as in Ex.P23. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of PW.23 against the accused. The evidence of PW.23 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
19.Pw.24, who is said to be other panchayath elder, deposed in his evidence that he knows all the accused and the deceased/Veeraiah and about two years ago the deceased died and he came to know from the villagers that the accused beat the deceased and he died and about three years ago he acted as elder of the panchayath between the accused and deceased/Veeraiah with regard to their landed properties and the matter was not settled before the panchayath and panchayath was held for twice and the matter was not settled and accused Nos.1 13
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
and 2 threatened the deceased with dire consequences that if he would be killed the matter would be settled. Pw.25, who is said to be another panchayath elder, deposed in his evidence that he knows all the accused and deceased/Veeraiah and accused No.4 is the elder daughter- in-law of deceased/Veeraiah and at the time of her marriage, the said
Veeraiah gave cash of Rs.20,000/- towards dowry and after five or six years ago the marriage of younger son of the said deceased/Veeraiah was performed and at the time of his marriage Rs.80,000/- was given to him and the deceased/Veeraiah had given one acre of land to his younger son and after that the marriage of the younger daughter of deceased/Veeraiah was performed and that the said Veeraiah gave two acres of land to her and there was a dispute in the family that the deceased/Veeraiah gave one acre of land to his younger son-in-law and gave two acres of land to his younger daughter and that according to accused No.3 one acre of land is sufficient to the younger daughter instead of two acres and with regard to that dispute two or three times panchayath was held and he was also present as panchayath elder and the matter was not settled before the panchayath and thereafter
Veeraiah died and he does not know the reason for the death of the deceased/Veeraiah.
20.Pws.1 to 4, 11 and 12, who are the family members of the deceased, never deposed in their evidence that panchayaths were conducted in the presence of Pws.23 to 25 at any time as deposed by
Pws.23 to 25. Pws.1 to 4, 11 and 12 did not corroborate the version of
Pws.23 to 25 with regard to conducting of alleged panchayaths between their family and not supported the version of prosecution. In view of the hostility of Pws.1 to 4, 11 and 12 no reliance has been placed on the evidence of Pws.23 to 25 and the evidence of Pws.23 to 25 do not inspire confidence.
14
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
21.Pw.19 and Pw.20, who are said to be the panch witnesses for
CDF, deposed in their evidence that according to Pw.19 more than one year ago while he was driving his auto police obtained his signature on a white paper and according to Pw.20 about three years ago he went to the police station, Thallada on his personal work and where police obtained his signature on a white paper and they do not know for what purpose police obtained their signatures and Ex.P19 and Ex.P20 are their signatures on CDF. Pws.19 and 20 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in their cross-examination that on 18.09.2019 police called them to the house of deceased situated at
Annarugudem village and where police conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence and that on knowing the contents they signed on it. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of Pws.19 and 20 against the accused. The evidence of
Pws.19 and 20 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
22.Pw.21 and Pw.22, who are said to be the panch witnesses for inquest, deposed in their evidence that according to Pw.21 police never conducted inquest in his presence and about three years ago he went to the police station Thallada on his personal work and where police obtained his signature on a white paper and according to Pw.22 about 3 years ago when he went to the police station, Wyra police obtained his signature on a white paper and that they do not know for what purpose police obtained their signatures and Ex.P21 and Ex.P22 are their signatures on inquest. Pws.21 and 22 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in their cross-examination that on 17.09.2019 police called them to the Govt. Hospital, Khammam mortuary room and where police conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased/Veeraiah in their presence and on that on knowing the 15
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
contents they signed on it. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of Pws.21 and 22 against the accused. The evidence of Pws.21 and 22 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
23. Pw.26, who is said to be the outdoor photographer, deposed in his evidence that about two or three years ago, he went to mortuary of
Govt. Hospital at Khammam at the request of police, Thallada and he took the photographs of male dead body and handed over photographs along with CD to police and Ex.P24 is the eight (8) photographs without
CD. He deposed in his cross-examination that there is no digital date mentioned on the photographs and he did not state before police about the designation of police officer who called him. Since the prosecution did not produce compact disc of the photographs, they are marked subject to objection.
24.Pws.27 and 28, who are said to be panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama of accused, deposed in their evidence that police never called them to anywhere and never conducted any confession panchanama of any person in their presence and that the accused never confessed any offence in their presence and that no property was recovered in their presence and that according to
Pw.27 about one year ago and according to Pw.28 about two years ago they went to Govt. Hospital, Khammam and police called them and obtained their signatures on a white paper and Exs.P25 and P26 are their signatures on confession and recovery panchanama. Pws.27 and 28 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in their cross-examination that on 21.09.2019 police called them to the house of accused at Annarugudem village and the accused confessed the offence before them and police recovered a stick in their presence 16
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
and that one knowing the contents they signed on the confession and recovery panchanama. Pws.27 and 28 never deposed in their evidence that accused Nos.1 to 4 confessed before them and police seized stick from the accused in their presence. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of Pws.27 and 28 against the accused. The evidence of Pws.27 and 28 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
25.Since Pws.1 and 6 turned hostile, their statements recorded by Magistrate U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C have no evidentiary value in the eye of law. The prosecution could not elicit any reason for the hostility of
Pws.1 to 23 and 27 and 28 against the prosecution. The evidence placed by the prosecution has not established any incriminating evidence to fasten the liability of accused to the charge levelled against the accused to prove the offence. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the above discussion, I have no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable
U/Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered.
26.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.
The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The case against accused No.3 is abated since he died.
The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of May, 2022.
IV Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Sathupally.
17
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
Appendix of Evidence
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW.1: Magam Ammakka -None- PW.2: Magam Sai Sandeep PW.3: Kalasani Srinivasa Rao PW.4: Gosu Saidulu PW.5: Kalasani Goparaju PW.6: Ragam Gopamma PW.7: Kalasani Naresh PW.8: Bonthu Gopi PW.9: Bezawada Gopi PW.10: Bonthu Venu PW.11: Bezawada Thirupathi Rao PW.12: Bezawada Narasimha Rao PW.13: Magam Vijaya Laxmi PW.14: Ragam Seetha Ramulu PW.15: Sadu Srinivasa Rao PW.16: Bonthu Gopal PW.17: Mohammad Mustafa PW.18: Duddukuri Narasimha Rao PW.19: Sode Ramesh PW.20: Kalasani Krishna PW.21: Kalasani Krishna PW.22: Ragam Soma Raju PW.23: Dodda Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao PW.24: Govindu Srinu PW.25: Kosuri Ranga Rao @ Ranga PW.26: Mekala Rajesh PW.27: Govinda Srinivasa Rao PW.28: Suda Krishna Rao
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution: For Defence:
Ex.P1: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 -NIL- Ex.P2: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2 Ex.P3: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3 Ex.P4: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4 Ex.P5: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW5 Ex.P6: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW6 Ex.P7: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW7 Ex.P8: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW8 Ex.P9: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW9 Ex.P10: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW10 Ex.P11: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW11 18
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
Ex.P12: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW12 Ex.P13: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW13 Ex.P14: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW14 Ex.P15: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW15 Ex.P16: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW16 Ex.P17: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW17 Ex.P18: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW18 Ex.P19: is the signature of Pw.19 on CDF Ex.P20: is the signature of Pw.20 on CDF Ex.P21: is the signature of Pw.21 on Inquest Ex.P22: is the signature of Pw.22 on Inquest Ex.P23: is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW23 Ex.P24: Photographs (8) in number without CD (Marked subject to objection) Ex.P25: Signatures of Pw.27 on Confession and recovery panchanama
Ex.P26: Signatures of Pw.28 on Confession and recovery panchanama
Material Objects: -NIL- IV Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Sathupally.
19
SC No.122/2021, Dt: 02.05.2022
CALENDER
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST
TRACK COURT) AT SATHUPALLY.
SESSION CASE No.122 of 2021 Between:- The State Circle Inspector of Police, Wyra …Complainant
And
1) Magam Suresh S/o Sreenu, Age: 25 years, Yadav, Auto driver,
2) Magam Venkatesh S/o Sreenu, Age: 27 years, Yadav, Agriculture, A3–Magam Sreenu S/o Veeraiah, Age: 49 years, Yadav, Agriculture (died), A4-Magam Laxmi Bai W/o Sreenu, Age: 46 years, Yadav, Coolie, All are R/o Annarugudem Village of Thallada Mandal, Khammam district. …Accused
Charges Under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC PRC No.3/2020 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madhira. Committed by : Sri. Dheeraj Kumar Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Madhira. Crime No.192/2019 of P.S Thallada
Description of the accused : As mentioned above.
Occurrence 13.09.2019 13.09.2019 Complaint or Report
Apprehension of accused 21.09.2019
Release of accused A1 on 07.12.2019, A2 to A4 on 28.11.2019
Commencement of Trial 20.04.2022
Closure of Trial 27.04.2022
Judgment 02.05.2022
Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty
Finding of the CourtAccused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are found not guilty
Order and Sentence In the result, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The case against accused No.3 is abated since he died. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
IV Addl. Sessions Judge,(FTC-III) Sathupalli