-1-
IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
(FTC) MANCHERIAL
PRESENT: SRI M. SRINIVAS II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mancherial
Tuesday, this the 29th day of October, 2019
S.C.No. 97 of 2016
(On committal by the I Addl JFCM, Mancherial in PRC.No.13/2015 in Cr. No. 62/2015 of P.S. Ramakrishnapur)
NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : State of Telangana through the Circle Inspector of Police, Mandamarri (P.S. Ramakrishnapur).
NAME OF ACCUSED : A1: Pendyala Nagalaxmi, W/o Late Sudhakar, Age: 31 years, Occ: Ladies Tailor, R/o H.No.38-134/1, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Ramakrishnapur.
(As A2/Dasari Govardhan died case abated against him on 14-03-2018)
OFFENCES UNDER SECTION : 302, 201 and 182 IPC
PLEA OF THE ACCUSED :Not guilty
FINDING OF THE COURT : Found not guilty
RESULT/SENTENCE : IN THE RESULT, the A1 is found not guilty for the charges U/Secs. 302, 201 and 182 IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of A1 shall remain in force for six months from the date of this judgment, in compliance of Sec.437- A Cr.P.C. The M.Os. 1 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION : Addl. Public Prosecutor
COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED : Sri Jella Shankaraiah, Sri D. Thirupathi and Sri Mekala Rajanna, Advocates
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 30-09-2019 in the presence of Sri N. Rajkumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Jella Shankaraiah, Sri D. Thirupathi and Sri Mekala Rajanna, Advocates for the accused, after perusing the material on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
2
The brief facts of the case according to the prosecution story and as per the averments of charge sheet are that, on 14-05-2019, since the A1 who is a ladies tailor, was abused by her customers for incompletion of wedding clothes stitching, as such the A1 got sent her son/deceased boy namely
Pendyala Vinay to a nearby Kangan hall shop for bringing long thread for petty coats and since the deceased boy did not come back for about one hour, she became angry after his arrival at 16.00 hours for causing delay and slapped him indiscriminately on his both cheeks, due to which the deceased boy slept on the bed by weeping and since he continued weeping, the A1 became ferocious, closed his mouth and nose firmly with her hands to stop the weeping and threatened him to kill, resulting which the boy died due to smothering. After sometime, since the deceased boy remained silent without any moments in his body, the A1 observed his death and due to fear, she made phone call to a known person/LW12 namely Bommanaveni
Thirupathi, informed him that her elder son was found missing and requested him to bring her father/A2 from Mandamarri on his motorcycle and that
before arrival of her father/A2 and LW12, the A1 tagged an iron wire around
the neck of deceased boy to give an impression that somebody killed him by strangulation with the iron wire and kept his body in a 25 kg plastic rice bag and placed the same beside the almirah in her two rooms house, with a fear from her in-laws and relatives and that after arrival of A2 and LW12, she narrated the incident of her manner of causing death of her son and asked them to help her, upon which the LW12 scolded the A1 and suggested her to inform the same to the police and by saying so, he left their house and subsequently, the A1 and A2 tried to throw the plastic bag containing the dead body of deceased boy at any place, but they could not succeed as her father-in-law/LW2 saw infront of his house during the mid night and observing towards the house of A1.
However, on the next day on 15-05-2015, the A1 and great grandmother of deceased boy/LW4/namely Pendyala Kamalamma, went to 3 police station Ramakrishnapur and gave a false report saying that the deceased boy left her house for playing and found missing and she later returned to her house. During the noon time on 15-05-2015, several neighbours including LW8 namely Peddi Ammakka and LW9 namely
Kethapaka Bhagyalaxmi etc. came to her house to console her on the eve of missing of her son/deceased boy and observed bad smell from the house of
A1 and upon questioning for the same, the A1 gave an evasive answer stating that due to found missing of her son/deceased boy, she could not clean up her house from two days, so that the bad smell was emanated and thus managed them not to enter inside the house. Be that as it may, on the early morning hours of 16-05-2015 at about 5.00 A.M., the A1 with the help of A2, brought out the plastic bag containing the dead body of deceased boy from the house of A1 along with chappals of son of LW13 namely Sravani
Bonsai who is a learner of tailoring work in her house, thrown the dead body in the open place behind the house of LW6 namely Uppu Laxmi and also thrown the chappals inside the fencing of water tank and while returning to the house of A1, the LW11 namely Tallapalli Buchamma witnessed the A1 and A2 and asked them as to where they were going, upon which the A1 and
A2 replied her that they have been searching for the missing boy and on the next day morning, when the matter of appearing dead body of the deceased boy was known to the locality people, public gathered and after arrival of police, the A1 also came there and pretended as innocent by weeping and gave a fabricated story to the police that the deceased boy was also killed by the persons who earlier killed her husband namely Sudhakar.
That subsequently on 30-05-2015 at 6.00 hours, the LW10 namely Jadi
Srinivas/Sarpanch of Kyatanpally village produced the A1 before the Circle
Inspector of police, Mandamarri/LW13 namely P. Sadaiah and gave a statement to the effect that the A1 made extra judicial confession before him that, she herself killed her son/deceased boy in sudden and gave provocation since he brought the petty coat thread very late, due to which her customers 4 abused her and took away the wedding clothes and that she also confessed about giving of false report in police station about the missing of her son and subsequently thrown out the putrefied dead body in the locality to give an impression that somebody killed her son as that of her husband. The doctor/LW24 namely Dr. S. Laxman, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Govt, area hospital, Mancherial who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased boy, opined that the said boy died due to mechanical asphyxia-respiratory failure.
On receipt of the above report, the LW.28 namely Sk. Fareed, A.S.I. of police, registered a case in Cr.No.62/2015, under the Head “boy missing” and issued F.I.R.s to all concerned officers and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.28 examined the LW.1 namely Pendyala
Nagalaxmi and LW.4 namely Pendyala Kamalamma and recorded their statements. Later LW.29 namely A. Devidas, Sub Inspector of police took up further investigation of this case, verified the investigation done by LW.28 and found it on correct lines, visited the scene of offence situated at
Mallikarjuna Nagar, secured the presence of LW.18 namely Koduri Shankar and LW.19 namely Gurshakurthi Ramulu, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn a rough sketch. On 16-05-2015 on receipt of another complaint from LW.3 namely Pendyala Surender, the LW.29 examined and recorded his statement, altered the section of law from under the Head of boy missing to Sec.302 and 201 IPC. As the case facts are grave in nature, the LW.30 namely P. Sadaiah, Circle Inspector of police,
Mandamarri took up case file from LW.29, verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines. During the course of his investigation, the
LW30 visited the scene of offence situated at Mallikarjuna Nagar,
Ramakrishnapur beside the house of LW.6, observed the scene of offence and dead body of deceased boy, got photographs of crime scene and dead body of deceased through LW.17/Siddam Sathish, photographer, utilized the services of dog squad, where the dog went to the house of A1 after smelling 5 the dead body. Later LW30 examined and recorded the statements of LW.2 namely Pendyala Ramesh, LW.16 namely Ch.Venkat Rao and LW.17 namely
Siddam Sathish, secured the presence of mediators LW.20 namely Ramadugu
Laxman and LW.21 namely Vaidya Srinivas, incorporated the details in crime details form and seized a plastic bag, two pieces of iron wire and a thread under cover of panchanama, held inquest over the dead body of deceased
before the same mediators, seized the clothes of deceased and subjected it
for PME to the Government Hospital, Mancherial. The LW.24 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME report. On 30- 05-2015 LW.10/Jadi Srinivas/extra judicial witness produced the A1 before
LW.30 who in turn recorded the confessional statement of the A1 before the mediators LWs.22 namely Kola Narshimhulu and LW.23 namely Satharaji
Thirupathi and thereafter, she led the police to Mallikarjuna Nagar,
Ramakrishnapur near water tank where she thrown chappals of son of LW.13 wore by the deceased at the time of offence. Then LW30 seized the chappals
before the same mediators, apprehended the A1 and after completing legal
formalities, sent her to court for judicial remand. The LW.30 also got recorded the statements of LWs.11 to 14 viz Thallapalli Buchamma,
Bommanaveni Thirupathi, Bonasi Sravani and Dasari Rajitha. On 31-05- 2015, LW.30 apprehended the A2 and after completing legal formalities, sent him to court for judicial remand. LW30 collected the call details particulars of cell numbers of A1 (7032692145), LW.12 (9963031448) and LW.14 (9963602630) and got recorded the statements of LWs.10 to 12 U/Sec.164
Cr.P.C., through LW.27 namely Sri Kannaiahlal, J.M.F.C., Luxettipet and after completion of further investigation, he filed charge sheet into court for offences U/Secs. 302, 201 and 182 IPC against A1 and Sec.201 IPC against
A2.
2.Charge sheet was taken on file by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Mancherial as PRC No.13/2015, U/Secs. 302, 201 and 182 IPC against
A1 and Sec.201 IPC against A2. After complying with all the formalities, case 6 was committed to the court of sessions where it was numbered and made over to this court for disposal according to Law.
3.As A2/Dasari Govardhan died case abated against him on 14-03-2018.
After appearance of the accused No.1 before this court, charges U/Secs. 302, 201 and 182 IPC are framed against A1. The charges are read over and explained to her in Telugu for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.After appearance of A1 before this court, trial was conducted, during which PWs-1 to 19 are examined, Exs.P1 to P.32 are exhibited, and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. Evidence of LWs.1, 4, 9, 11, 13 to 15, 21, 25 to 27 was given up by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
5.The accused No.1 was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material appearing was explained to her in Telugu for which she denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
6.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.
7.Now the point for consideration is,whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilty of accused No.1 for offences U/Secs. 302, 201 and 182
I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
POINT:
8.The charges framed against accused No.1 are U/Secs.302, 201 and 182
IPC. It is to be noted here that the case against A2 was abated since he died
before framing charges. It is reiterated that, to substantiate the guilty of A1
for the aforesaid charges, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19. Out of the said witnesses, PW1 and 2 are the grandfather and junior paternal uncle of deceased boy and circumstantial witnesses. PWs.3 to 5 are the other 7 circumstantial witnesses. PW.6 is the person who brought the A2 to the house of A1 at her request and another circumstantial witness. PWs. 7 and 15 are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama of A1.
PW8 is the handler of sniffer dog. PW9 is the photographer who took the photographs of the dead body of deceased boy and confession of A1 and scene of offence No.2. PWs.10 and 11 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama No.1 which was conducted at the house of A1. PW12 is one of the panch witnesses for scene of offence No.2 and also inquest which were conducted at the place where the dead body was found. PW13 is the medical officer who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased boy and issued P.M.E. report. PW14 is the Sarpanch of Kyatanpalli village
before whom the A1 allegedly made extra judicial confession and requested
him to produce her before the police. PW18 is the Nodal Officer of Airtel cellular services provider who furnished the call data particulars of mobile numbers of A1, PW6 and LW14 namely Dasari Rajitha/sister-in-law of A1.
Lastly, the PWs.16, 17 and 19 are the first, second and third investigation officers. This court has gone through the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, exhibits marked and the other material available on record.
9.The testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses are very much available on record in the shape of depositions and there is no need to re- produce the same in this judgment, to avoid repetition. Hence the appreciation of evidence of such prosecution witnesses is directly proceeded with as follows under different heads:-
(a) Proving the charges against A1 by prosecution through circumstantial evidence:-
Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident of killing the deceased boy by the A1 by smothering and the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence only. It is a settled law and even as per the judgment in Sunil Clifford Daniel Vs State of Punjab reported in 2013(1) SCJ 903 wherein it was held that, prosecution must establish 8
each instance of incriminating circumstances, by way of reliable and
clinching evidence in a case of circumstantial evidence. Similarly, in another judgment in Babu Vs State of Kerala reported in 2011 (4) SCJ it was held that, in the case of circumstantial evidence, the burden on prosecution is always greater. It therefore just and necessary to scrutinize the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution in this case carefully for proving the guilty of A1.
10.It is borne by record that, initially the A1 herself gave report in police station about missing of her son/deceased boy and subsequently after investigation, she was transposed as an accused. In addition to it, the junior paternal uncle of deceased boy/PW2 also gave another report during the course of investigation, but it was not exhibited on the finding given on it since it was hit by Sec.162 Cr.P.C. So admittedly, there is no defacto complainant in this case as examined by the prosecution and even the report given by A1 and F.I.R. issued thereupon were also marked through the 1st investigation officer/PW17.
11.The PWs.1 and 2 are the paternal grandfather and junior paternal uncle of deceased boy and circumstantial witnesses. The evidence of PW1 shows that on 14-05-2015, since the deceased boy was found missing, his mother
Kamalamma/LW4 and A1 went to Ramakrishnapur police station and gave a report/Ex.P23, about the missing of deceased boy namely Vinay and that they made search for the said boy, but in vain and that on 16-05-2015, the dead body of deceased boy/Vinay was found in a tied gunny bag. The PW1 specifically mentioned in his chief examination itself that, he did not know as to how the deceased boy namely Vinay died and who is responsible for it.
The PW1 also explained the reason for suspecting the A1 that, her character was not good, so that he suspected that she might have killed the deceased boy. He also expressed his doubt that the A1 used to beat her children and they used to come to him and accordingly he lastly saw the deceased boy on 9 14-05-2015 at about 12.00 noon. It is to be noted here that, according to the prosecution case, the deceased boy was very much present till 3.00 P.M. in his house and that at about 3.00 P.M., the A1 got sent him to a Kangan hall to bring a long thread for stitching petty coats. In those circumstances, seeing the deceased boy on 14-05-2015 at about 12.00 noon by the PW1 does not arise at all.
12.Apart from it, the prosecution allegation is that evenafter killing the deceased boy, the A1 kept his dead body in her house itself for two days and several persons including the PWs.1, 2 and other family members as well as the neighbours visited the house of A1 to console her about missing of her son/deceased boy. Admittedly, the house of A1 is consisting of only two rooms. In those circumstances and when the very PWs.1, 2 and their family members repeatedly visited the tiny house of two rooms belongs to A1, definitely there would be a chance for them to find out the dead body of the deceased boy there itself. Further, it is interesting to note that on the very next day of giving report in police station i.e. on 15-05-2015 during morning hours, the Sub Inspector of police/PW16 along with two panch witnesses/PWs.10 and 11 who are the neighbours to the house of A1, also visited the house of A1, verified the entire scene of offence, also drawn a rough sketch of the scene of offence and conducted a scene of offence panchanama No.1. It is also evident from the scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P20 and rough sketch under Ex.P21 annexed to it that the house of
A1 is only consisting of two rooms and its sketch was also drawn, clearly notifying the scene of offence from where the deceased boy was missing initially.
13.Even presuming for a while that PWs.1 and 2 and their family members repeatedly visited the house of A1 and though they could not find the dead body of deceased boy, but at least there is a possibility for the Sub Inspector of police and the panch witnesses who visited the entire house of A1 on the 10 very next day on 15-05-2015, searched the entire house of A1 and conducted scene of offence panchanama, could find out the dead body of deceased since by that time, already one day was over and the dead body was in putrefied condition and definitely there was every possibility for emanating foul smell from the dead body if really dead body was kept in the house. Even the other circumstantial witness such as PW4 who deposed that she found bad smell coming out of the house of A1, but did not inform the same either to police or the PW1 or PW2 and their other family members, so that they could be in a position to find out the dead body of deceased and the involvement of the A1 for killing her son. The PW1 also specifically admitted in his cross examination by the learned defence counsel that he did not search for the deceased boy in the house of A1 and that the police also visited the house of A1 on 15-05-2015 at 11-00 A.M. and that he also did not question the A1 about missing of her son, soon after the said fact came to his knowledge.
14.With regard to examining him by the police and recording his statement, it is specifically admitted by PW1 in his cross examination that, police examined him for two or three times. But it is evident from the record that, the same Circle Inspector of police, Mandamarri examined and recorded his statements twice i.e. on 16-05-2015 and 02-06-2015. Similarly, pertaining to the arrest of A1, it is the specific saying of PW1 that the police arrested the A1 on 16-05-2015 itself. Contrary to it, the record shows that and it is also evident from the confession panchanama of A1 that on 30-05- 2015 only, the A1 voluntarily surrendered in police station through a mediator/PW14 and then only her arrest was effected. In the same way, the
PW1 stated that the inquest over the dead body of deceased boy was conducted in the Government hospital, Mancherial. Per contra, the inquest under Ex.P12 and the evidence of panch witnesses/PWs.11 and 12 show that, it was done at the scene of offence No.2 at Ramakrishnapur village where the dead body of deceased was found. In view of the above detailed 11 discussion, it can be safely concluded that the evidence of PW1 is not in consonance with the prosecution case and his testimony did not construct the chain of evidence. In those circumstances, it is not just and proper to believe the evidence of PW1.
15.PW2 is junior paternal uncle of deceased boy and younger son of PW1, as well as younger brother-in-law to the A1. As per the prosecution story, after coming to know about the missing of deceased boy from his family members, the PW2 who was doing a software job at Hyderabad, came to
Ramakrishnapur on 15-05-2015 and also participated in searching for the deceased boy. The evidence of PW2 reveals that on 14-05-2015 at 5.00 P.M., his mother called him over phone and told him about missing of the deceased boy from 3-00 P.M. onwards, so that he came to Ramakrishnapur in the next morning and searched for the said boy and that on 16-05-2015 at 6.00 A.M. the dead body of deceased boy was found in a gunny bag in open place near the house of PW3 and an iron wire was found tied around the neck of the body and then he gave a complaint to the police. On perusal of the statement of PW2, which is the replica of his subsequent report given to the police, it is noticed that after finding the dead body of deceased boy in putrefied condition, he expressed his doubt about chastitity of A1 and the persons on the side of A1 might have killed the deceased boy by hanging and thrown the dead body in the open place. Whatever it may be, since either the subsequent report given by PW2 or his statement given to police were not exhibited, those documents cannot be considered at all.
16. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW2 in court was all together different and he expressed his suspicion against the A1 saying that the A1 was beating her children since the time of death of her husband, so that he suspected that A1 and her relatives were responsible for the death of deceased boy. Thus the evidence of PW2 could only disclose a mere suspicion against the A1 that she might have killed her son since she always 12 used to beat her children. It is to be noted here that, just because a mother beats her children repeatedly for the acts done by them, it does not mean that she may go the extreme extent of killing her children. However during the cross examination, the PW2 admitted several aspects, in contrary to the prosecution case. The PW2 admitted in cross examination that, he met the
A1 on 15-05-2015 in the morning and enquired her and how the deceased boy was missed from the house and that the police also visited the house of
A1 on that day at 11.00 A.M. In either of the aforesaid case of visiting the house of A1 by PW2 and police, there was every possibility to found a foul smell from the dead body if really it was kept in the house of A1 as alleged and also to find out the dead body, for the reason that, for conducting the scene of offence panchanama, the 2nd investigation officer/PW16 and two panch witnesses/PWs.10 and 11 inspected the entire house of A1 consisting of only two rooms. Further, the evidence of PW2 shows that on finding a gunny bag at 6.00 A.M., he immediately informed the same to the police who came there at 7.00 A.M. and opened it and then found the dead body of deceased boy. However, as per the prosecution story, upon finding the dead body of deceased boy only, the matter was informed to the police.
17.With regard to examining him and recording his statement by the police, it is admitted by PW2 in cross examination that, one week after tracing out the dead body of deceased boy, police examined him and recorded his statement. Contrary to it, his statement given before the Sub
Inspector of police/PW16 could disclose that on the same day of finding the dead body of deceased boy i.e. on 16-05-2015 itself, his statement was recorded. Similarly, with regard to arrest of A1, it is the specific admission of
PW2 that, the police arrested the A1 on 16-05-2015 itself. Whereas the prosecution case and more particularly the confession panchanama under
Ex.P1 and P30 disclose that, on 30-05-2015 at 7.30 A.M. i.e. (14) days after tracing out the dead body of deceased boy on 16-05-2015, the A1 herself voluntarily surrendered in the office of circle Inspector of police, 13
Mandamarri/PW19. Therefore, on close scrutiny of the entire evidence of
PW2, it can be held that the same is also not in corroboration with the prosecution case, so also with the evidence of other witnesses and the same is not in a position to build up the chain of evidence for prosecution, as such his testimony appears to be un-trustworthy.
18.PW3 is another circumstantial witness whose house is situated beside the second scene of offence where the dead body of deceased boy was found and she is the person who firstly saw the gunny bag containing dead body/M.O.2 and called the neighbours. So she is also an important witness and her evidence is to be closely scrutinized since she is a circumstantial witness. However, the PW3 gave evidence in court, contrary to the prosecution case, though admitted the case facts to some extent. Her evidence shows that, about four years ago on one day at about 6.00 A.M., while she was sweeping the floor infront of her house, she noticed a bag in the vacant site which contains something in it and in the meanwhile, the neighbours gathered there who went near the bag and found some bad smell emanating from the said bag and sometime thereafter, police came there, opened it and found a dead body of a boy in it, but she did not know about that boy, whereas the persons gathered there talked with each other that the boy was the son of A1.
19.Admittedly the PW3 is a nearby house owner to the house of A1 and she also knows the A1 and her children, including the deceased boy. In such case, when she saw dead body of deceased boy she could have identified the deceased boy as the son of A1. But PW3 categorically stated in her chief examination itself tha, she did not know the said boy and only through the talkings of persons gathered there, she came to know that the dead body belongs to the son of A1. Thus in the above said manner, since the PW3 denied the very identification of dead body of deceased boy, so also her 14 acquaintance with the family members of A1, so that it can be concluded that her evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case.
20.PW4 is another circumstantial witness and neighbouring house owner to the house of A1. The prosecution story is that, the PW4 and some other neighbouring women visited the house of A1 on the next day of missing of deceased boy and consoled her and when they went to the house of A1, they felt some foul smell in the house of A1 and upon asking, the A1 told them including PW4 that, due to missing of her son, she could not kept her house clean, so that they found bad smell. Whereas in her evidence, the PW4 deposed that, two days after she came to know about the missing of son of
A1, she went to the house of A1 along with her neighbours to console her. It is to be noted here that, the alleged incident of missing of deceased boy occurred on 14-05-2015. When the version of PW4 that she visited the house of A1 two days after missing of the said boy, is believed to be true and correct, it could be obviously on 16-05-2015 only and by that time, the dead body of deceased boy was already found. In such case, the question of visiting the house of A1 by the PW4 and her neighbours to console the A1 for missing of her son etc. does not arise at all.
21.Further, it is interesting to note here that, the PW1 deposed that, she found some foul smell at the dead body on the next day when she visited the scene of offence. Admittedly, the PW4 is a coolie lay and she is not an expert to identify the particular nature of foul smell and finding the same foul smell subsequently. It is admitted fact by PW4 that she found some foul smell inside the house of A1 two days after the missing of the boy and that she felt the same foul smell even at the dead body of the deceased boy on the next day at the scene of offence No.2 which is an open place. If at all the dead body of deceased boy was presumed to be kept in the house of A1 when the PW4 and others visited her house, it was not at all in putrefied condition, so that the foul smell emanated from the dead body in the house 15 of A1 could be absolutely all together different from that of the foul smell found at the dead body two days thereafter which was in putrefied condition.
As such, the evidence of PW4 to the effect that the foul smell found in the house of A1 on the previous day and the foul smell found at the dead body on the next day in open place are one and the same etc. appears tobe un- trustworthy.
22.Apart from it, during the cross examination, the PW4 specifically admitted that she cannot say the names of persons who accompanied her to the house of A1 at 4.00 P.M. Admittedly, the persons accompanied the PW4 are her neghbours only and obviously she is aware of their names. But the admission of PW4 shows that, she did not know the names of persons accompanied her to the house of A1. Even the evidence of PW4 shows that,
before she and others went to the house of A1 to console her , police already
visited the house of A1. When the evidence of PW4 that she found some foul smell in the house of A1 and the police also visited the house of A1 prior to the visit of PW4 and others, could also identify the same foul smell, but in vain. In view of the above discussion, it can be concluded that the evidence of PW3 is not in consonance with the prosecution case and it also fails in building up the chain of evidence for prosecution case.
23.PW5 is another circumstantial witness who is the owner of Kangan hall in Ramakrishnapur and his evidence shows that on 14-05-2015 at about 3.00
P.M., the deceased boy came to his shop and purchased tape roll which is used by women for innerwear. However, as per the prosecution story and averments of his statement, the deceased boy was started from his house at 3.30 P.M., to purchase tailoring material from the shop of PW5. Further, the
PW5 could not identify the tape roll/M.O.5 found at the dead body of deceased boy. No identification parade of property was conducted through the PW5, for establishing the purchased the tape roll in the shop of PW5 by confronting the M.O.5 to him. Admittedly, the said tape roll is also available 16 in the open market. Thus the evidence of PW5 is not in a corroborating manner, to strengthen the case of prosecution.
24.PW6 is the person to whom the A1 firstly made phone call and informed about missing of her son and asking him to bring her father/A2 from Mandamarri to her house. The evidence of PW6 in chief examination shows that on 14-05-2015 at 4.00 P.M., the A1 called to her cell phone and told him that her son was found missing and asked him to bring her father/A2 from Mandamarri. Then he went to Mandamarri and brought the A2 and dropped him at the house of A1. It is to be noted here that, as per the prosecution case, the deceased boy went out at 3.30 P.M. on 14-05- 2015 and came back to the house at 5.00 P.M., for which the A1 became angry and slapped him and thereafter only due to smothering, the said boy died and thereafter at 6.00 P.M., the A1 and LW4 went to police station and gave a report and thereafter only, the A1 came back to her house and made phone call to the PW6, to bring her father from Mandamarri. In such case, the possibility of making phone call by A1 to the PW6 could be only after 6.00 P.M. Per contra, the evidence of PW6 shows that at 4.00 P.M. i.e. soon
before the arrival of deceased boy to the house and prior to his death itself
and prior to giving report in police station itself, the A1 made phone call to the PW6 about the missing of her son and asking him to bring the A2 from
Mandamarri. The evidence of PW6 to the above effect, appears to be not believable, in the light of aforesaid discussion.
25.Apart from it, the PW6 further deposed that after arrival of A2 to her house, the A1 wept upon which the A2 questioned her, so that the A1 confessed about the offence. Though the PW6 deposed that the A1 confessed about the offence, but he did not disclose in his evidence as to for which kind of offence the A1 confessed before him and A2. It is the further evidence of PW6 that, after the confession by A1, he chastised her and asked her to go and surrender before the police and thus went away. Here the 17 conduct of PW6 is to be observed meticulously. Generally, whenever a prudent man comes to know about occurrence of any offence and also the offender, it is his legal bounden duty to inform the same to the police or atleast the responsible persons of the locality, to set the criminal law into motion, otherwise it amounts to screening the offender and also the suppression of crime.
26.However, the PW6 though he came to know about the commission of offence in this case, he simply went away and kept silent for (14) days till his statement was recorded on 30-05-2015, which is nothing but harboring the offender and helping the accused. It is interesting to note here that, the PW6 further deposed that on the next day at 1.00 P.M., he saw scrolling in the TV that, a report was given by A1 to the police about missing of her son. Even then also, the PW6 should have responded as a responsible person and informed to the police about the real facts of the case, but in vain. The PW6 also admitted in cross examination that he did not tell to any one as to what happened on 14-05-2015 to till 16-05-2015, which shows that knowing well about the commission of offence by the A1 and extra judicial confession made before him by A1, he intentionally kept silent and thereby screened the offender. Be that as it may, though the PW6 deposed in his chief examination that on the next day at about 1.00 P.M., he saw scrolling in the T.V. that a report was given to the police stating that the son of A1 was missing etc., but the same was not at all stated by him in his statement before police, which is a material omission since he denied the suggestion to that effect during the cross examination.
27. Similarly, the PW6 deposed that on 16-05-2015 at about 3.00 P.M. to 4.00 P.M., the A1 came to him and told that she wants to surrender before the police and asked him to help, so that he took her to the Sarpanch of
Kyatanpalli village/PW14 who is his neighbour and that the A1 also made confession before the PW14 and thereafter, the PW14 took the A1 to police 18 station and surrendered her to the police. As per the prosecution case, though the dead body of deceased boy was found at scene of offence No.2 and though the sniffer dog, after smelling the dead body, straight away went to the house of A1, but the police did not arrest the A1 even on suspicion and that subsequently after (14) days i.e. on 30-05-2015, the A1 voluntarily surrendered before the 3rd investigation officer/PW19 with the help of PW14.
28.Further, the evidence of PW6 clearly shows that, on 16-05-2015 itself, he took the A1 to the house of PW14 who in turn got surrendered the A1
before the police. As already discussed in the foregoing paras, the PWs.1
and 2 who are the family members of A1, categorically admitted in their evidence that the police arrested the A1 on 16-05-2015 itself. Contradicting the same, the statement of PW6 categorically shows that on 30-05-2015 only, he took the A1 to the PW14 who in turn got surrendered the A1 before the police. Further, it is stated by PW6 that the A1 made confession before the PW14 also, but he did not mention specifically as to for which offence, the A1 made confession before PW14. In view of the above discussion, it can be held that the prosecution is failed to link up the chain of evidence of PW6 and consequently, it is needless to say that the testimony of PW6 is no way helpful to the prosecution case.
29.PW14 is the then Sarpanch of Kyatanpalli village who allegedly got surrendered the A1 before the police saying that she confessed before him about the commission of offence in this case. So he is an important witness under the head of ‘extra judicial confession’. However, the PW14 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Though he admitted his acquaintance with the A1 and her other family members including the LW4 who is a local political leader, the location of house of A1 etc., but when it came for confession of A1 before him and surrendering her before the police etc., he deviated from the story of prosecution. He deposed in chief examination itself that, during the year 2015, he noticed number of persons 19 searching for the son of accused as he was found missing and then he told to
LW4 who is the family member and local political leader to go and give a report in police station and that three or four days thereafter, he came to know that the dead body of son of A1 was found and that he did not know as to who killed the boy and how he died. Even with regard to Sec. 164 Cr.P.C.
statement given by him before the learned JFCM, Luxettipet also, he gave evasive evidence saying that, he did not remember as to what was stated by him before the said Magistrate. Even during the cross examination by the learned Addl. PP also, the PW14 resiled from the entire contents of his Sec.
161 Cr.P.C. statement when confronted. In the said manner, the evidence of
PW6 is silent with regard to the extra judicial confession made by A1 before him and his act of surrendering the A1 before the police and thus his testimony is no way comes to the rescue of prosecution case.
30.All the above stated witnesses right from PWs.1 to 6 and 14 whose evidence was discussed in the foregoing paras are pertaining to the pre- death occurrence. It is observed that the prosecution failed to examine some more important witnesses such as LW13 namely Bonasi Sravani who is a learner of tailoring work in the house of A1, who lastly saw the deceased boy while going out from the house by wearing the chappals of her son and she is also a witness for the return of the deceased boy to the house as well as the incident of becoming angry and slapping the deceased boy by the A1 and in fact, she is the most important witness who also lastly saw the deceased boy in his house, after beating by A1 and smothering to death. But the prosecution is failed to examine such an important witness/LW13. It is also observed that the prosecution also failed to examine the another important witness/LW11 namely Thallapalli Buchamma who is a neighbour of
A1 and who witnessed the A1 and A2 on the early morning hours of 16-05- 2015 when they were returning to house after throwing the plastic bag containing the dead body of deceased boy in the open place and she also 20 questioned the A1 and A2 about their presence at that time and place. But the prosecution failed to examine such an important witness.
31.It is also evident from the record that, the prosecution also failed to examine LW14 namely Dasari Rajitha who is the sister-in-law of A1 with whom the A1 talked over phone soon after giving report in police station and whose phone call data was also collected and filed into court. The prosecution also failed to examine the LW15 namely Kalvala Subhadra who is the same locality person who gave marriage clothes to the A1 for stitching and upon her abusing for non stitching the marriage clothes within time by the A1 only, the A1 sent the deceased boy to bring the cotton tape roll for finishing the work of marriage clothes and subsequently beat and smothered him to death for late coming and for taking away the marriage clothes by
LW15. Thus the prosecution is failed to examine the important witnesses as discussed above and on the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LWs.11 and 13 to 15, which is fatal to the prosecution case. In the light of above discussion and on close scrutiny of the material available on record, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution is failed to prove the charges U/Sec.302, 201 and 182 IPC against A1 beyond reasonable doubt, through its witnesses pertaining to the pre-death occurrences.
(b). Proving the post-death occurrence:
32.With regard to proving the post-death occurrence such as conducting scene of offence panchanama, inquest, post mortem examination, confession and recovery panchanama of A1 and medical evidence etc., the prosecution examined several other witnesses as PWs.7 to 19. So it is just and proper to scrutinize the evidence of such witnesses pertaining to post- death occurrences.
(c) The evidence of tracker dog handler:- 21
33.The prosecution examined PW8 who is the dog handler, whose evidence shows that, on 16-05-2015, when the dead body was found in the open place near the house of PW3, the sniffer dog namely Tony smelt the dead body and straight away went to the house of deceased and A1 and stopped there. It is to be noted here that, the clue given by sniffer dog squad is very important for the police officials during the investigation to proceed further with the case and when the sniffer dog/Tony went to the house of A1, definitely the Circle Inspector of police and Sub Inspector of police who accompanied it could able to caught hold the A1 on 16-05-2015 itself and there is no necessity for waiting till 30-05-2015. As per the record, though the sniffer dog went to the house of A1 on 16-05-2015, but the police did not arrest or atleast get suspicion on the A1 about her involvement in the murder of her son and subsequently on 30-05-2015, the A1 with the help of
PW14, surrendered before PW19, which is after 14 days of the arrival of sniffer dog to the house of A1, which gives rise a suspicion on the mode of investigation done by investigation officers.
34.Further, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 categorically shows that on 16-05-2015 itself, the police arrested the A1 and took away her to police station. When the evidence of PW8 with regard to going sniffer dog to the house of A1 from the dead body and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to apprehension of A1 on 16-05-2015 itself are read together, one can understand the mode of investigation done by PW19 and it is crystal clear that soonafter the sniffer dog reached the house of A1, the police apprehended the A1, as deposed by PWs.1 and 2 and conducted the remaining part of investigation such as extracting her confession in police station with regard to commission of offence and recovery of case property etc. which took several days and finally to cover up the delay, the police build up the prosecution case as if the A1 surrendered before PW19 on 30- 05-2015 i.e. (14) days after arrival of sniffer dog to her house. So viewed from any angle, the prosecution version to the effect that though the sniffer 22 dog straight away went from dead body, to the house of A1, the police remained silent without suspecting the A1 and that finally on 30-05-2015 the
A1 surrendered before the PW19 etc., seems to be a fabricated story.
(d ) Evidence of photographer/PW9:-
35.The evidence of PW9 shows that on 16-05-2015 on the request of police Ramakrishnapur, he went to a open place near over head water tank at Mallikarjuna Nagar and took (4) photos of the dead body/ExP2 to 5 and prepared the CD and that subsequently on 30-05-2015, again he was called to Mandamarri police station and took two photos under Ex.P6 and P7 and took another photo near water tank under Ex.P8 and prepared CDs under
ExP.32. So it is evident from the testimony of PW9 that, firstly on 16- 05-2015, he took the photographs of the dead body of deceased boy under
Ex.P2 to P5 at the scene of offence No.2 and again on 30-05-2015, he took (2) photos pertaining to recording the confession panchanama of
A1conducted by PW19 in the presence of panch witnesses, which were marked under Ex.P6 and P7 and that he took another photo under Ex.P8 near the water tank, may be with regard to seizure of chappals/M.O.1 of the deceased boy.
36.More particularly, it is deposed by PW9 that, he took the photographs under Ex.P6 and P7 on 30-05-2015, at the time of conducting confession panchanama of A1 in Mandamarri police station. Contrary to it, the confession panchanama of A1 was said to be conducted on 30-05-2015 in the office of Circle Inspector of police, Mandamarri, but not in Mandamarri police station. It is to be remembered here that, the present case was registered in Ramakrishnapur police station only. In such case, conducting of confession panchanama in Mandamarri police station and taking photographs at that time by the PW9 in Mandamarri police station, are not at all possible and the same are also quite contra to the confession panchanama under Ex.P1 and P30 since it was said to be conducted in the 23 office of circle Inspector of police, Mandamarri. So the place of conducting confession panchanama of A1 and taking photographs to that effect by the
PW9 in Mandamarri police station, appears to be un-trust worthy.
37.Similarly, it is the specific admission of PW9 in the very first line of his cross examination that, the photograph under Ex.P6 i.e. while conducting confession panchanama in the office of Circle Inspector of police,
Mandamarri under Exs.P1 and P30 were taken in the afternoon of 30- 05-2015. Contrary to it, the averment of said confession panchanama shows that it was conducted at 7.30 A.M. on 30-05-2015, which is forenoon. The
PW9 admitted in cross examination that, the photograph under Ex.P8 pertaining to the seizure of chappals/M.O.1 was taken in between 11.00 A.M to 12.00 noon, which means the seizure of M.O.1 took place at first and thereafter the confession panchanama of A1 was conducted in the afternoon, which goes contra to the prosecution case. Whereas the evidence of panch witnesses and investigation officer/PW19 shows that, firstly confession panchanama of A1 was conducted in the office of Circle Inspector of police,
Mandamarri at 7.30 A.M. and subsequently, the A1 led the panch witnesses and investigation officers to the place of concealing the M.O.1 where a separate panchanama for recovery of M.O.1 was conducted under Ex.P31 at 9.45 A.M.
38.On one hand, the evidence of investigation officer and the recovery under Exs.P.1, P.30 and P.31 show that both the said panchanamas for confession of A1 and seizure of M.O.1 were conducted in between 7.30 A.M.
to 9.45 A.M. on the other hand, the PW9 says that he took the photographs of seizure panchanama in between 11.00 to 12.00 noon P.M. which is forenoon and thereafter, he took the photograph of confession panchanama of A1 in the afternoon. The aforesaid timings as deposed by PW9 and recovery are not at all tallying with each other. Be that as it may, the PW9 specifically admitted in his chief examination itself that, he cannot say as to 24 which of the two CDs belong to photos taken on 16-05-2015 and 30-05-2015 and he did not give any receipt to the police for the amount paid to him. In view of the above discussion, the evidence of PW9 seems to be un- trustworthy since it is not in corroboration with the prosecution case.
(e) Proving the scene of offence panchanama No.1:-
39.For proving the scene of offence panchanama at the house of A1, the prosecution examined two panch witnesses as PWs.10 and 11. But both of them turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Each of them gave different versions of their own. The first panch witness/PW10 deposed that, his house is situated beside the house of A1 and that (3) or (4) days after the death of son of A1, police came to him and asked him to sign on panchanama brought by him and obtained his signature/Ex.P9 on it and that he did not know the contents of such panchanama. On the other hand the another panch witness/PW11 deposed that his house is also situated beside the house of A1 at a distance of 40 meters and that about two years ago, police came to the house of A1 and called him and asked him to sign on a panchanama brought by them and obtained his signature/Ex.P10 on it.
Both the PWs.10 and 11 denied the entire contents of such scene of offence panchanama when confronted to them by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor during the cross examination. On the other hand, the scene of offence panchanama and its rough sketch under Exs.P.20 and P.21 disclosed that they were conducted by the 2nd investigation officer/PW16 at the house of A1 on 15-05-2015 at 10.00 A.M.
40.According to the evidence of PW16, he went to the house of A1 who was initially the defacto complainant in this case, inspected the house of A1 in the presence of PWs.10 and 11 and prepared the scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P20 and P.21. He also admitted in cross examination that in Ex.P20 he mentioned all the details of both rooms in the house of A1, 25 including some of the articles found there. If really the PW16 inspected the house of A1 which consisting of only two rooms, definitely he could have found the bad smell in the house of A1 since as per the prosecution story, the dead body was still kept in the house of A1 in a plastic bag. So it appears that the PW16 did not visit the house of A1 in reality and that he prepared the Ex.P20 and P.21 in police station during his apparent table investigation. Whatever it may be, since the independent panch witnesses turned hostile and stated that the police simply obtained their signatures on an already prepared panchanama, resultantly it can be concluded that the prosecution is failed to prove the scene of offence panchanama No.1 through its witnesses.
(f) Proving the scene of offence panchanama No.2:-
41.Out of the panch witnesses for proving the scene of offence panchanama No.2 at the place where the dead body of deceased boy was found, the prosecution examined only one panch witness as PW12. The
PW12 deposed that on 16-05-2015 at 9.30 A.M., upon coming to know about finding of a dead body of a boy, he and another panch witness/LW21 went to the scene of offence panchanama No.2 near over head tank at Mallikarjuna nagar, Ramakrishnapur, where the Inspector of police and several other persons were present and in their presence, the police opened the plastic bag and found a body of deceased boy inside the bag and the police seized the said plastic bag/M.O.2, two pieces of G.I. wire/M.O.3, packet of crackers/M.O.4 and a cotton tape bundle/M.O.5 and thereafter, the police prepared an observation report and seized M.Os.2 to 5, so also the crime details form under Ex.P13 and rough sketch under Ex.P14. However, nowhere in his evidence, the PW12 could able to say that upon calling by the police only he went to the place where the dead body was found. The evidence of PW12 is also silent with regard to asking him to act as a panch witness for scene of offence panchanama by the police. Moreover though 26 the PW12 deposed that M.Os. 3 to 5 were found beside the dead body, but those material objects are not at all appearing in the photographs under
Exs.P2 to P5, taken by PW9 at that time.
42.Similarly, though the PW12 deposed that police also held inquest over the dead body of deceased and obtained signatures of himself and LW21, but nowhere in his evidence he could able to say that the police asked him to act as a panch witness for the inquest panchanama. Further, the PW12 admitted in cross examination that by the time he and LW21 went to the scene of offence No.2, they found a plastic bag/M.O.2 as tied. Contrary to it, the
PWs.1 and 2 deposed that, on seeing the dead body only, he gave a report in police station. Unless and until the PWs.1 and 2 saw the dead body of deceased boy after opening the plastic bag/M.O.2, absolutely there is no possibility for the Pws.1 and 2 to know that there is a dead body in the said bag and it belongs to the deceased boy only. It is further surprising to note here that, the investigation officer/PW19 specifically admitted in his cross examination in page No.3 that by the time he reached the crime scene,
M.O.2/plastic bag was already opened. The above discussion categorically shows that there is no unanimity in between the testimonies of panch witness/PW12 and investigation officer/PW19 and consequently it can be held that the prosecution is unable to prove the scene of offence panchanama No.2 and seizure of M.Os. 2 to 5, as well as the inquest.
(g) Proving the confession of A1 and recovery of case property:-
43.The prosecution examined two panch witnesses for the two separate panchanamas pertaining to the confession of A1 and recovery of M.O.1.
However both the said panch witnesses turned hostile since they gave different versions by deviating the prosecution case. The first panch witness/PW7 deposed that on 30-05-2015, on the instructions of Mandal
Revenue Officer, Mandamarri he and PW15 together went to the office of 27 circle Inspector of police, Mandamarri at about 11.30 A.M., from where the police took them in their jeep to Ramakrishnapur police station, where the A1 was very much present and upon informing by the police that the A1 murdered her son, both the panch witnesses questioned her, upon which the
A1 confessed about the offence. It is to be noted here that, as per the contents of confession panchanama of A1, it was conducted in the office of
Circle Inspector of police, Mandamarri. Contrary to it, the PW7 stated that he and PW15 reached the office of circle Inspector of police, Mandamarri at 11.30 A.M. and from there the police took them in their jeep to
Ramakrishnapur police station, where the confession panchanama of A1 was conducted. Thus the evidence of PW7 is not in corroboration with the place of conducting confession panchanama of A1. Similarly, the PW7 stated that after 11.30 A.M. only, the confession panchanama of A1 was conducted in
Ramakrishnapur police station. Per contra, the confession panchanama of
A1 shows that it was conducted at 7.30 A.M. itself, which is (4) hours prior to the very arrival of PWs.7 and 15. Moreover, the PW7 simply deposed that A1 confessed about the offence. But he failed to mention as to for which particular offence or offences, the A1 confessed in his presence.
44.Further, it is evident from the testimony of PW7 that, after giving confession in Ramakrishnapur police station, the A1 led the panch witnesses to the over head tank situated at Mallikarjuna Nagar area where she again confessed about the commission of offence and thereafter shown the pair of slippers/M.O.1. As per the record, the A1 did not confess anything at the place near over head tank, except showing pair of slippers/M.O.1 and conducting a seizure panchanama/Ex.P31 to that effect. Apart from it the
PW7 stated that the police seized M.O.1 and brought the panch witnesses and A1 again to Ramakrishnapur police station where the police prepared panchanama for confession of A1 and recovery of M.O.1. It is borne by record that, the confession panchanama of A1 under Exs.P1 and P30 were prepared in the office of Circle Inspector of police, Mandamarri, whereas the 28 recovery panchanama pertains to seizure of M.O.1 was conducted at the over head tank, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Ramakrishnapur. In those circumstances, the evidence of PW7 that after seizure of M.O.1 at the scene of offence No.2, the police took back the A1 and panch witnesses to Ramakrishnapur police station and prepared both confession and seizure panchanamas, appear to be un-trustworthy.
45.Contradicting the aforesaid evidence of PW7, the another panch witness/PW15 deposed that, on 30-05-2015 at 7.30 a.m. on the instructions of Tahsildar, Mandamarri, he and PW7 went to the office of Inspector of police, Mandamarri/PW19, where the A1 was present and thereafter, police took them to water tank situated at Mallikarjuna Nagar, Ramakrishnapur where the A1 had shown a pair of slippers/M.O.1 and the police seized the same by preparing the panchanama and obtained their signatures. In his entire evidence, the PW15 failed to mention that the A1 made a confession statement in the presence of himself and PW7 in the office of Circle Inspector of police, Mandamarri. His evidence is confined only to the extent that soonafter reaching the office of circle Inspector of police, Mandamarri, the police took them to scene of offence No.2 where the M.O.1 was seized under a cover of panchanama. As such, the evidence of PW15 could able to disclose only to the extent of seizure of M.O.1, but not the confession of A1.
Thus the evidence of PW15 is lacking any whisper with regard to confession of A1 about the commission of alleged offences.
46.On the other hand, the evidence of PW19 shows that, firstly he conducted a confession panchanama of A1 in his office at Mandamarri and thereafter, the A1 led the panch witnesses and investigation officer to the scene of offence No.2 and the same led to discovery of M.O.1 under a cover of seizure panchanama. Further, as already discussed supra, the photographer/PW9 who took photographs at the time of confession of A1 under Ex.P6 and P7 and took another photograph under Ex.P8 at the place of 29 seizure of M.O.1, categorically deposed that the seizure was made first and the confession of A1 was made thereafter. Thus on over all scrutiny of the testimonies of panch witnesses as well as photographer and investigation officer, it can be concluded that there is no unanimity among their testimonies with regard to conducting of confession panchanama of A1, seizure of M.O.1 from the scene. Whatever it may be, since both the said panch witnesses were declared as hostile by the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor, it can be held that the prosecution is failed to prove the confession of A1 about the alleged offences and seizure of M.O.1 through its witnesses.
(h) Proving the autopsy:-
47.Prosecution examined the government doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased as PW13 whose evidence shows that, he found a ligature mark of 1 c.m. width at the level of thyroid cartilage on the frontal and lateral regions of neck, in addition to swelling of several parts of the body, but did not find any other abnormalities and opined that the deceased died due to respiratory failure. However, during the cross examination, the PW13 admitted that, considering the ligature mark found on the body, respiratory failure might have resulted due to the object of ligature around the neck. It is to be noted here that the specific case of prosecution is that, the A1 killed the deceased boy smothering. In such case and when the A1 allegedly killed her son by smothering, absolutely there is no possibility for appearing ligature mark around the neck. The another allegation of prosecution is that, after finding the death of deceased boy, to give impression of killing him by somebody who are enemical to her family, the A1 tied two G.I. wire pieces around the neck of the dead body. Even in such case also, if it at all any injuries are caused due to tying of G.I. wires, then the injury around the neck could only be postmortem and absolutely there is no possibility for ante-mortem ligature mark. However, death of 30 deceased boy was not at all disputed, it is just and proper to leave this point at this stage only.
(i) Proving the phone call data lists and investigation of the I.Os.:-
48.The prosecution examined the Nodal officer in Bharathi Airtel Limited,
Hyderabad as PW.18. His evidence shows that on 28-07-2015, as per the requisitions of Addl. Superintendent of police, Adilabad under Ex.P25 and
P26, his authorities furnished call data records of cell phone numbers 9963602630, 7032692145 and 9963031448 from the period of 13-05-2015 to 16-05-2015 along with a covering letter under Exs.P27 to P29. It is specifically stated by PW18 that his office furnished call data particulars of the cell phone of PW6 under Ex.P28 and the call data particulars of cell phone of LW14 under Ex.P29. However, the evidence of Pw18 is silent with regard to call data list of cell phone pertaining to the A1, though he deposed about furnishing the call data particulars of three cell phones including the
A1.
49.Be that as it may, the PW18 categorically admitted in his cross examination that, they do not record the voices of the calls of any cells. The above admission of PW18 shows that, though the prosecution could able to establish the call data particulars of PW6 and LW14 to some extent, but unless and until the voice recordings under particular calls are known, they are no way useful to the prosecution case, to build up the case against the
A1 for the alleged offences. The PW19/I.O. also specifically admitted that, he cannot say the matter of conversations under the phone calls marked under
Exs.P28 and P29.
50.Apart from it, when the signatures on the call data particulars of issuing authorities under Ex.P27 to P.29 are compared with the signature of
PW18 on his deposition under Sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act, it is noticed that they are not at all tallying with each other. So it is crystal clear through the 31
Ex.P27 to P29 and the evidence of Pw18 that, the said witnesses/PW18 had not at all personally issued the Exs.P27 to P29, so that he had no personal knowledge of those informations. Whatever it may be, those cell phones were also not seized. Apart from it, though the evidence of three investigating officers/PWs.16, 17 and 19 could disclose about the observance of procedural aspects right from registering of case to till filing charge sheet, but it is not corroborated by any other independent witnesses examined by the prosecution.
(j). CONCLUSSION:-
51.Therefore, in view of the above detailed discussion in the foregoing paras on different heads, on close scrutiny of the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, exhibits marked and basing on the other material available on record, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution is failed to prove the essential ingredients of the charges U/Secs.302, 201 and 182 IPC against the A1 beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the A1 is liable to be acquitted for the said charges under benefit of doubt.
52.IN THE RESULT, the A1 is found not guilty for the charges U/Secs. 302, 201 and 182 IPC and accordingly, she is acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of A1 shall remain in force for six months from the date of this judgment, in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.Os. 1 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this 29th day of October, 2019.
II ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),
MANCHERIAL
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For prosecution: For Defence
32
PW1: Pendyala Ramesh -NONE- PW2: Pendyala Surender PW3: Uppu Laxmi PW4: Peddi Ammakka PW5: Madishetty Srinivas PW6: Bommanaveni Thirupathi PW7: Kola Narsimhulu PW8: Ch. Venkat Rao PW9: Siddam Sathish PW10: Koduri Shankar PW11: Gurshakurthi Ramulu PW12: Ramadugu Laxman PW13: Dr. S. Laxman PW14: Jadi Srinivas PW15: Satharaji Thirupathi PW16: A. Devidas – 2nd I.O. PW17: Sk. Fareed – 1st I.O. PW18: Sanganaboina Deepak kumar PW19: P. Sadaiah – 3rd I.O.
EXHBITS MARKED
For prosecution: For Defence
Ex.P1: Admission portion of PW.7. -Nil- Ex.P2 to P5: Scene of offence photos. Ex.P6 & P7: photos about confession statement of A1. Ex.P8: Photo relating to seizure of M.O.1. Ex.P9: Signature of PW10 on scene of offence panchanama No.1. Ex.P10: Signature of PW11 on scene of offence panchanama No.1. Ex.P11: Observation report. Ex.P12: Inquest. Ex.P13: Crime Detail Form –II. Ex.P14: Rough sketch. Ex.P15: P.M.E. report. Ex.P16: Letter addressed to the Medical Officer by I.O. Ex.P17: Reply given by Medical Officer. Ex.P18: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW14. Ex.P19: Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW14. Ex.P20: Crime Detail Form –I. Ex.P21: Rough sketch-I. Ex.P22: Section alteration memo. Ex.P23: Report given by A1 to police. Ex.P24: First Information Report. Ex.P25: Letter addressed to Addl. S.P. Ex.P26: Letter addressed to Addl. S.P. Ex.P27: Covering letter. Ex.P28: Call data particulars of cell No.9963031448. Ex.P29: Call data particulars of cell No.9963602630. Ex.P30: Admission portion of confession statement of A1. Ex.P31: Seizure panchanama. Ex.P32: (2) CDs.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
For prosecution: For Defence
M.O.1: Chappals-NIL- 33
M.O.2: Plastic bag M.O.3: (2) pieces of G.I. wire M.O.4: Packet of crackers M.O.5: Petty coat thread
II ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),
MANCHERIAL