SSC Case No.36 of 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER THE SC/ST
(POA) ACT CUM II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE , WARANGAL.
Friday, the 29th day of August, 2025
PRESENT: SMT. MANISHA SRAVAN UNNAM,
Special Judge for Trial of Cases under
the SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal.
SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO.36 of 2020
Crime No.58/2018 of PS., Gudur The State of Telangana, through Sub-
1.Name of the Complainant: DivisionalPoliceOfficer, Mahabubabad.
2.Name of the accused : A1 Boda Dev Singh, S/o.Chakru, Age.48 years. Lambada, Agriculture, R/o.Hamu Thanda, H/o.Chinna Yellapur
A2 Naini Laxmaiah, S/o.Kotaiah, Age.44 years, Yadava, Agriculture R/o.Kotha redyala Village, Mahabubabad Mandal.
A3 Mamilla Kumaraswamy, S/o.Iylaiah, Age.45 years. Yadava, Agriculture, R/o.Bhupathipet Village.
A4 Vasam Papaiah, S/o.Narsaiah, Age.43 years. Koya, Agriculture, R/o.Matewada Village.
A5 Eslavath Laxman, S/o.Laliya, Age.33 years. Lambada, Gopala mithra employee at Veterinary hospital, Bhupathipet, R/o.Komatipally thanda, H/o.Mangalavaripet village.
A6 Bhukya Tharun, S/o.Jawahar, Age.19 years Lambada, Bike Mechanic, R/o.Somla Bhukya thanda, H/o.Yellampet, Maripeda Mandal, now at Mulug road, KMC circle, City Grand Hotel, beside, Warangal.(A.6 died, case against A.6 is abated on 11.6.2025)
A7 Gopu Rama Krishna, S/o.Sambaiah, Age.22 years. Munnurukapu, TATA Ace Driver/owner, R/o.Thidugu, Jaffergadh Mandal, now at Reliance Trends beside, HDFC Bank Street, Pochamma Maidan, Warangal.
A8 Nagapuri Nikilesh, S/o.Mohan,Age.24 years. Rajaka, Private Employee, R/ o.Alankar, Kapuwada, Warangal. (A.8 died, case against A.8 is abated on 1/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 23.8.2021)
A9 Boda Bangari, W/o.Devsingh, Age.45 years. Lambada, R/o.Hamu Thanda, H/o.chinna Yellapur Village.
A10 Boda Devender, S/o.Dev Singh, Age.24 years. Lambada, Agriculture, R/o.Hamu Thanda,H/o.Chinna Yellapur Village.
A11 Bhukya Ramesh, S/o.Bichya, Age.20 years. Lambada, Agriculture, R/o.Karampodi thanda, H/o.Bhupathipeta village. under Sections 148, 120-B, 302 r/w. 34
3.Offence with which Charged: of IPC against Accused No.1 to 11 and charge u/S.3(2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Act against accused No.2, 3, 7 & 8. Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty 4.
Finding of the Court:Found not guilty 5.
The accused Nos.1, 4, 5, 9 to 11
6.Sentence or Order: are found not guilty for the offences punishableunder Sections 148, 120-B, 302 r/w.34 of IPC and accused No.2, 3 & 7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 120-B, 302 r/w.34 of IPC and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA)Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused persons shall stay in force for a period of six months from this date. MO.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. MO.4 to MO.11 shall be confiscated to the State under Section 452 Cr.P.C and shall be at disposal of the State Government after the appeal time is over. The unmarked 2/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. In view of findings at paragraph no. 32, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that there exist sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedingsagainst PW.8/Kunduru Shoban Reddy and PW.9/Boda Bhaskar u/S.195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence of perjury under section 193 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the Chief Administrative Officer of this Court is directed to take steps to initiate proceedings against PW.8/Kunduru Shoban Reddy and PW.9/Boda Bhaskar u/S.195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Smt.M.Santhoshi,
7.Name of the Prosecution Counsel : Special Public Prosecutor
Sri Ch.Rama Krishna, Counsel for
8.Name of the Defence Counsel:
for Accused No.1,9 to 11
Sri Ambati Srinivas, Counsel for accused No.2 to 5 Sri R.Praveen Kumar, Counsel for accused No.7.
This case is coming on 20.08.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of both counsel on record and upon hearing both the sides and considering the material evidence available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: JUDGMENT ::
1.The Accused Nos.1 to 11 are arraigned before this Court for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 120-B, 302 r/w.149 of IPC and Accused No.2,3,7 & 8 are arraigned before this Court for the offences punishable u/S.3(2) (va) of SC/ST 3/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 (POA) Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :- 2.1. On 18.03.2018 at 09.00 hours, the informant/Jarpula Hari filed a complaint stating that about 15 years ago their Thanda person accused No.1 sold away
Ac.0.2 guntas house plot to him which is situated on the main road and he constructed a house in it. Later, he purchased Ac.0.3 guntas of land from him which is also situated on the main road and installed one Dabba in that place and it is maintained by his brother Jarpula Ashok. For the last six years, Accused
No.1 and his family members Accused No.9, 10, daughter-in-law Mounika and daughter Usha are picking up quarrel on the plea to sell the land to them which earlier they sold to him. In this regard, some interruption was there among both the families. Keeping the above in mind, they used to abuse and warn him that they will kill him and his brother. The marriage of his brother Ashok was settled with one woman who hails from Kothaguda village. About one month back, Accused No.1 and his family members picked up quarrel, beat him and his family over the said land issue and threatened that, they will kill him before the marriage of his brother Ashok. The marriage date of his brother was fixed as 28.03.2018 and on 17.03.2018 in the afternoon, he and his mother Pentamma, wife Laxmi, sisters Suguna and Manga and brother Ashok went to Narsampet for shopping on the occasion of his brother's marriage and Ashok stayed at
Narsampet informing that he will return after collecting the wedding cards.
After shopping they returned to home. But, his brother Ashok did not come 4/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 back to home at night. Today i.e. 18.03.2018 morning at 7’O clock one Bhukya
Ramesh of Mudugudisala thanda phoned to him and informed that his brother fell down in the agricultural fields of Udutha Anjaiah at the outskirts of
Bhupathipet village. On receipt of that information, he rushed to the spot and found his brother dead in up down position with severe bleeding injury to his head and having one thread beside the dead body of his brother and his brother's bicycle was beside the road. Yesterday night, his brother returned from Narsampet and collected his bicycle which he had kept at Bhupathipet check post and was coming to their house. On the way, accused No.1, accused
No.9 and 10, Mounika, Usha and others keeping previous grudges in view hatched a plan and attacked his brother and killed by hitting with boulder and strangulated with rope around his neck.
2.2. On receipt of the above complaint, a case in Cr. No. 58/2018, u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC was registered and Circle Inspector of Police, Gudur took up the investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, the investigating
Officer visited the scene of offence located in the agricultural field of Udutha
Anjaiah at Bhupathipeta outskirts, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators. During the inquest, the Investigating Officer obtained photographs over the dead body of deceased and scene of offence with the help of Inavolu Balachander and seized clothes of deceased i.e. blue, black & white colors checks shirt and prepared crime details form in the presence of 5/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 same mediators. During scene of offence observation panchanama, the
Investigating Officer seized 1) Bloodstained soil, 2) Control soil, 3)
Bloodstained stone with hair, 4) Blue color thread and 5) Hair collected from the scene of offence under the cover of crime details form.
2.3. On 24.03.2018 morning, the accused Accused No.1 to 4 and Accused No.9 to 11 made extra judicial confession about the commission of this offence
before Kunduru Shoban Reddy and Boda Bhasker, and requested to surrender
them to Police. Accordingly, Kunduru Shoban Reddy and Boda Bhasker informed about the same to the investigating officer who in-turn along with staff rushed to the house of Kunduru Shoban Reddy at Vengampet, H/o
Chinna Yellapur village and apprehended the accused No.1 to 4 and Accused
No.9 to 11 at 10.00 hours and taken them into custody. On interrogation, the
Accused No.1 to 4 & Accused No.9 to 11 confessed to have committed this offence along with A8 in presence of mediators - Chinthakayala Mahender and
Mushke Shoban Babu; and Sansung-SM-B350 E/D Model, black color with SIM-I
Airtel SIM its No. 9177217714 and SIM.2 Idea SIM its No. 7036358517 was seized from Accused No.1; Nokia Company black color mobile phone with Idea
SIM No.9912442221 and Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor Cycle No: AP13 K 5266 was seized from Accused No.2; and Intex company mobile phone with
Airtel SIM its No.9502272319 was seized from Accused No.4 and arrest of the
Accused No.1 to 4 & Accused No.9 to 11 were affected.
2.4.Basing on the strength of the confessions of Accused No.1 to 4 & 6/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
Accused No.9 to 11, and on the instructions of Circle Inspector of Police,
Gudur the S.I. of Police, P.S. Gudur, rushed to the house of Accused No.5's father-in-law at Narsampet and apprehended the Accused No.5 to 7 at 16.00 hours. On receipt of information, Circle Inspector of Police along with the mediators Chinthakayala Mahender and Mushke Shoban Babu rushed to the house of Accused No.5, took the Accused No.5 to 7 into custody and interrogated them in the presence of mediators. On interrogation, the
Accused No.5 to 7 voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence along with Accused No.1 to 4 and Accused No.8 to 11 and one Oppo Android mobile with Airtel SIM Card No 9704112977 was seized from Accused No.5, one
Nokia 1600 Model Mobile phone with SIM No 9966677287 and Hero Honda
Splendor Plus motorcycle No: AP36 N 5621 was seized from Accused No.6 and
Nokia 1600 Model Mobile phone Airtel SIM Card No 9701464291 was seized from Accused No.7 and arrest of the Accused No.5 to 7 was affected. Later,
Accused No.1 to 7 and Accused No.9 to 11 were prodcued before the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class Court, Narsampet for judicial remand.
2.5.On 28.03.2018, the accused No.8 surrendered before the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class Court and the said Court sent him to judicial custody.
2.6.The the Civil Asst. Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Gudur. He conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME report duly preserving hyoid bone for its examination. The preserved hyoid bone was sent to the Professor, Forensic Medicine Department, KMC 7/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
Warangal through the Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Narsampet and the same was examined and report was furnished. Basing on the report, the
Civil Asst. Surgeon furnished final opinion stating that the cause of death of deceased was due to ‘STRANGULATION’.
2.7.The entire seized materials were sent to FSL Hyderabad through the
Judl.Magistrate of First Class Court, Narsampet for examination. The material objects were examined and report was furnished. Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of witnesses of extra Judicial confession was recorded.
Subsequently, 2nd Investigating Officer/C.I. of Police, Gudur took up the investigation and the provision of law u/sec 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act was added. Later, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahabubabad was appointed as 3rd Investigating Officer, who collected the caste verification reports of the deceased and accused persons and after completion of entire investigation, filed the charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 11 before this Court.
3. This Court took cognizance in the present case for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 120-B, 302 r/w.149 IPC against accused No.1, 4 to 6, 9 to 11 and for the offences u/Ss.148, 120-B, 302 r/w.149 IPC and Sec.3(2) (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused No.2, 3, 7 and 8.
4. On appearance of all the accused herein, the copies of the documents were furnished to them.
5.The learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused were heard on the charges. The charges for the offence punishable under Sections 8/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 148, 120-B, 302 r/w.34 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 11 and charge u/S.3(2) (va) of
SC/ST (POA) Act against accused No.2,3,7 & 8 have been framed and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the pendency of the case, the accused No.6 and 8 died and case against them got abated.
7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.25 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.31 and MOs.1 to 11 and Ex.D.1 is marked on behalf of the accused.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused herein are examined U/s.313
Cr.PC explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they denied and reported no defence evidence.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. Now the points for determination are:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 5, 7, 9 to
11 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 120-B, 302 r/w.34 of IPC
beyond all reasonable doubt ?
(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos.2, 3 & 7 for
the offences punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?
Prosecution Evidence:
10.The allegation of the prosecution is that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed the murder of Ashok who is the member of SC/ST community by strangulation and by hitting him with deadly weapon due to previous grudges under a criminal conspiracy. To prove the same, the prosecution 9/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 has examined PWs.1 to 25, who deposed as follows:- 10.1.PW.1/J.Hari, the brother of the deceased deposed that he purchased land to an extent of Ac.0.2 guntas at Gunjedu road, Chinnayellapuram, Ham thanda from Accused No.1 in the year 2004 and after the purchase of the said land he constructed a tiled house and was residing in the said house and after 5- 6 years, he purchased another Ac.0.3 guntas of land on the request of Accused
No.1 and there is a way between his Ac.0.2 guntas of land and Ac.0.3 guntas of land. He further stated that after leveling the said Ac.0.3 guntas of land, he opened the Kirana shop "DABBA SHOP" for his deceased brother in the said land and since the date of opening of the said shop, Accused No.1, Accused
No.9, Accused No.10 and one Boda Usha, daughter and daughter-in-law of
Accused No.1 started raising dispute asking them to return the said land, which was refused by them stating that they have purchased the said land.
10.2.PW.1 further deposed about the dispute arose between them and the accused no.1, in which accused beat them. Thereafter, the dispute was placed
before village elders i.e., LW5/J. Hemla, PW3/L. Yakaiah, PW8/K. Shobhan
Reddy, PW10/ J. Gangamma and PW25/D. Amru from the side of PW.1 and elders by name Mamilla Kumari, Shankar, Laxmaiah, and two-three others on behalf of the accused. PW.1 further deposed that during the night, the accused dug a well by encroaching upon one feet of land in their Ac.0.3 guntas and on the next day morning, panchayat elders found fault with the accused action and advised to close the well by putting mud, but the accused did not do the same.
10/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
Meanwhile the deceased got engaged and after his engagement, when they again raised the issue to close the well, Accused No.1, 9, & 10 and Boda Usha threatened to kill PW.1 and his brother. Thereafter, on 17.03.2018 to purchase the clothes for the marriage of his brother, PW.1 along with his other family members went to Narsampet and after the shopping, they all came back, while his deceased brother stayed at Narsampet for ‘Pelli Pathrika’ and at around 7 to 7.30 p.m., when PW.1 called his brother over phone, he informed that he is coming back home and thereafter, at 10:00 p.m., when PW.1 called his brother again, his mobile was not reachable. On the next day morning when PW.1 took his goats for stroll, LW8/V. Ramesh informed him that some body had killed his younger brother near the agriculture land of Anjaiah/LW7 and he Immediately went to the said field and noticed that his younger brother was lying on the ground on his stomach and there was a big stone and rope near him. He further deposed that his brother was strangulated with the rope and was hit on his head with the said big stone. The said big stone had the blood stain and hair on it. From there, he went to the police station and gave a report against Accused
No.1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10 & 11 and one Usha as under Ex.P1. He identified MO.1 as the
Shirt worn by his deceased brother at the time of his death; MO.2/ the rope and
MO.3/ the stone. He further deposed that prior to the death of his brother, he had lodged a report against Accused No.1, 9 and 10 for beating him at his shop, in which accused had pleaded guilty and had paid fine and in the year, 2018 also, during January, his brother had filed another case against the Accused No.1,9 11/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 and 10 for threatening to kill him.
10.3.PW.2/J.Laxmi, wife of the PW.1 also deposed on the same line about purchase of land to an extent of Ac.0.2 guntas and Ac. 0-03 guntas in their thanda from Accused No.1 & 9 and about opening of in the said Ac.0.3 guntas of land and also about disputes raised by Accused No.1 & 9 asking to return the said land, which they refused. PW.2 further deposed that one day Accused No.1 & 9 beat her brother-in-law and father-in-law, on which they registered a case against the accused and the panchayat was called in the said issue. Thereafter, as settled in the said panchayat, they fixed the boundaries by giving the small extent out of their Ac.0.3 guntas to Accused No.1 & 9. Thereafter, Accused No.1 & 9 dug a well by encroaching upon their land, on which another case was registered by them and panchayat was called on the said land issue. In the said panchayat it was settled that the accused will close the said well, but the accused did not close it. PW2 further deposed about fixing of marriage of the deceased for which their entire family went to Narsampet to purchase clothes for marriage and after the shopping, their entire family came back by 06.00 PM except her deceased brother-in-law, who stayed back in order to get the marriage cards. As he did not come back, by 07.00 PM they called him and he informed that he is coming back. Again when they called him at 09.00 PM, he did not lift the call. She further deposed that on the next day morning
LW.8/B.Ramesh called her husband over phone and informed him that somebody has killed his brother. Immediately her husband went to the said 12/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 place and they also went to the said place after sometime and saw that her deceased brother-in-law was lying on the ground on his stomach and there was a big stone and he had a bleeding injury on his head. There was a rope and her deceased brother-in-law had strangulation mark on his neck. Thereafter, they went to lodge the report in the police station. She further deposed that
Accused No.1, 9 and accused son and daughter along with seven others, killed her brother-in-law.
10.4.PW.3 L.Yakaiah, deposed that around 6 years back, there was a land dispute between Accused No.1 and PW1 and the deceased. As such a panchayat was called in this regard with 10-10 elders from each side. He being the Upa
Sarpanch was neutral to both the sides in the said panchayat. Accused No.1 had dug a agricultural well and also had erected fencing by encroaching upon the land of PW1. Then the panchayat elders fixed the boundaries by placing stones between the land of Accused No.1 and PW1. Thereafter the deceased Ashok one day came and complained that Accused No.1 was threatening to kill him, on which he advised him that both the parties should concentrate on their respective work. PW.3 further deposed that on 18.03.2018, LW7/U.Anjaiah came to him and informed to him that somebody is killed and thrown his agricultural field. As such he went to his agricultural field and saw that dead body belongs to Ashok. The deceased Ashok was lying on his stomach and a rope, big stone was lying near him and Ashok’s cycle was also kept there with wedding card. He further deposed that the deceased Ashok had gone to 13/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
Narsampet and that the reason for the murder of the deceased can be the land dispute between Accused No.1 and PW1.
10.5.PW.4/U.Anjaiah, deposed that he had agricultural land at Bhoopathi peta shivaru and around 6 years back, around 06.00 a.m., when he went to water his fields, he noticed one dead body lying on the stomach in his fields besides the road. He could not recognize the dead body. There was one Rope and a stone near the dead body. There was also a cycle at the side. Meanwhile
PW.5/B.Ramesh was passing through the said road and he informed him about the dead body. He identified that dead body belongs to Ashok. Thereafter he informed the same to their village Sarpanch/PW3. Later all people gathered there.
10.6. PW.5/B.Ramesh deposed that around six years back around 06.00 a.m.
he was going to Hospital on bike as his son had fever. While he was going, on the way at the agricultural field of PW4, PW4 stopped him and informed him about a dead body in his field. As such he got off his bike and checked the dead body, which was lying on his stomach and he identified the body to be of Ashok/ deceased. There was a rope and stone lying near the body. There was also a cycle with articles “Saaman” on it. Later he called PW1 over phone and informed him that somebody has killed his brother and thrown his body in a field. PW.4 also deposed that there was a land dispute between the deceased and Accused
No.1 and Accused No.1 had threatened the deceased to kill him before his marriage, if he does not return his land. Panchayat was conducted in this regard, 14/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 as such many people had the suspicion that Accused No.1 would have killed
Ashok. He further deposed that the deceased had gone to Narsampet to buy clothes for his marriage,and everyone gathered there were saying that while returning from Narsampet, the deceased came in an auto till Bhoopathipeta check post and from there he was returning home on a cycle.
10.7.PW.6/A.Holy, deposed that he is an Auto Driver and on 03.03.2018 around 7.00, 7.30 p.m., deceased Ashok boarded his auto from Narsampet to go to Bhoopathi peta. He was also carrying his Saaman i.e., marriage cards. After the boarding all the other auto passengers, he deboarded the deceased Ashok at the last at Bhoopathi peta check post at around 09.00 p.m. After he deboarded him,he and deceased Ashok had Mirchi Bajji from Mirchi Bandi at the side and the cycle of the deceased was kept there and on questioning by
PW6,deceased informed him that he will go to his home on his cycle and thereafter he left on his auto. On the morning at around 08.00 a.m. he got to know about the death of the Ashok, as such he went to the said place i.e., the land of Anjaiah which is located at less than half Kilo meter from Bhoopathi peta check post besides the road. By the time he reached there, Police was also present and was enquiring as to how Ashok came there. As such he informed the Police that Ashok came on his auto from Narsampet. He further deposed that he run the auto of Jatothu Suresh on rent. The registered number of the auto is AP-36-X-1666.
10.8.PW.7/I.Balachander, Photographer deposed that on the day of Ugadi 15/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 festival, at the instruction of Circle Inspector of Police, he took photographs of dead body at Hamu thanda, besides the road in a land, and handed over photographs (9 in number) along with CD under Ex.P.2 to the Police.
10.9.PW.8/K.Shoban Reddy, who is cited as witness to the extra judicial confession of A. 1 to A.4 and A.9 to A.11, deposed that there was a land dispute between Accused No.1 and the deceased. Accused No.1 had sold accused land to PW1 and the deceased, but later on a boundary dispute was raised by
Accused No.1 with respect to the said land and panchayat was called before the
Police many times, but the matter could not be settled. Unexpectedly one day the deceased was murdered, they got to know about the same on the next day morning. As such the Sarpanch of their village gave the information to the
Police. After the death of the deceased everybody had suspicion over on
Accused No.1 for the murder of the deceased. As he did not support the case of the Prosecution, he was declared hostile.
10.10. PW.9/B.Bhaskar, who is cited as another witness to the extra judicial confession of A. 1 to A.4 and A.9 to A.11, denied having knowledge about the facts of this case.
10.11. PW.10/J.Gangamma, deposed that deceased Ashok had purchased the land of accused No.1 to an extent of Ac.0.02 guntas initially and Ac.0.03 guntas thereafter and had kept a shop there. The accused also kept a shop in accused land and as their/accused business was not doing good, the accused raised a dispute with the deceased stating the the accused need their land back. PW.10 16/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 further deposed that thereafter the accused No.1 dug a well in the land of
Ashok and thereafter kept a boundary fences in the land of Ashok. As PW1 and
Ashok questioned the accused No.1 as to why the accused have encroached upon their land, accused No.1, his wife, daughter, daughter-in-law and son came to attack on PW1 and Ashok. PW.10 further deposed that as such the matter was referred to her and thereafter the deceased Ashok filed a case in the Police station. Thereafter she also went to a Police station and brought the deceased from the Police station by stating that they will settle the matter by holding talks between the parties. As such the matter was called before the Panchayat elders i.e., Upa Sarpanch Yakaiah/PW3, PW25/D.Amru, LW15/D.Shankar and herself, PW8, PW9, Papaiah and her husband LW5/J.Hemla. In the panchayat they found fault with accused No.1 and resolved that the agricultural well shall be closed and also gave 1 feet land to Accused No.1 from the land of deceased and fixed the boundaries. PW.10 further deposed that after the said resolution also Accused No.1, his wife, daughter and other family members threatened to kill the Ashok, on which she admonished them. After two months Ashok marriage was fixed. Around 6 years back, the deceased along with his family members went for marriage shopping and his family came back, but deceased stayed back at Narsampet for his wedding cards. Next day morning, everybody was saying that the Ashok is murdered, as such she along with others went to the said place and noticed that the dead body was lying on his stomach in fields besides the road, a stone and rope was lying near it and the dead body had a 17/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 bleeding injury over the head and the stone was having blood and hair over it and the deceased cycle along with the wedding cards were also kept there. As such everybody was talking that Accused No.1 and his family members has killed the deceased. She along with Ashok’s family members went to the house of Accused No.1, but there was no one at his house and the house was locked.
10.12. PW.11/Ch.Srinu deposed that he sell Mirchi Bajji on a Bandi near
Bhoopathipeta Check post, but he denied the having knowledge about the facts of this case.
10.13. PW12/E.Ravinder deposed that P.S.Gudur, MRO Gudur mandal summoned him and LW17/P.Ganesh to the scene of offence situated at the land of U.Anjaiah which is near Bhoopathi peta check post towards the
Gunjedu, to conduct scene of offence panchanama and when they reached there they saw dead body laid over its stomach. Police collected the blood stained soil and controlled soil. Police also seized one big stone and also collected the deceased hair which was stuck on the said stone. Police also collected hair from the dead body. Police seized one rope from the said place.
Police also seized one cycle and marriage cards along with bag containing some
Kirana articles. Thereafter Police prepared a Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch in presence him and LW17/P.Ganesh as under Ex.P8 and Ex.P9
dated: 18.03.2018. He further deposed that MO2 and MO3 are the Rope and
Stone seized in their presence.
10.14. PW13/M.Shoban Babu deposed that on 24.03.2018, as per the request 18/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 of SI of Police, P.S.Gudur, their Tahasildar, Gudur mandal directed him and
LW19/Ch.Mahender to go to Vengampeta. As such they went to the house of
Kunduru Shoban Reddy/PW8 at Vengampet and at that place Police along with 7 members were present, one female and six male and Police informed them that a murder had took place at Amru thanda, Chinna Yellapur and those 7 people have confessed their guilt and as such Police had prepared a panchanama and read over the contents therein to them. Police seized Hero
Honda Passion Plus motor cycle from one Papaiah having registered number
5266. Police also seized three phones, one Nokia and one Samsung and he could not state the brand of the third phone. He further failed to identify all the 7 members in the Court from whom the mobile phones and the motor cycle were seized. PW13 identified accused No.1 alone and identified MO.4/ the
Nokia 1600 mobile phone out of three Nokia mobile phones deposited in this
Court and also identified his signature on the panch chit affixed to the said mobile phone. PW.13 also identified Samsung mobile marked as MO.5 and signature on the panch chit affixed to the said mobile and MO6 /the Hero
Honda Passion Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP-13-K-5266.
10.15. PW.13 further deposed that from there they went to Narsampet around 5.00-06.00 p.m. in one person's house,whose name he could not recollect and there were 3-4 other persons present there, and police seized one Splender bike and two mobile phones from those persons. He could not give any detail of the mobiles. However, he was declared hostile, and he agreed 19/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 to suggestion given by Public Prosecutor after seeking permission of the Court under section 154 Indian Evidence Act that Accused no.1 confessed the guilt in their presence and Police seized MO5 in his presence and Accused no.2 confessed his guilt in their presence and Police seized one Nokia Black colour mobile having Idea Sim No. 9912442221 and one Hero Honda Passion Plus black and red colour bike bearing no. AP-13-K-5266/MO6 in their presence and
Accused no. 3 and 4 also confessed his guilt in their presence and Police seized
Index mobile phone having Airtel Sim no. 9502272319 from Accused no.4.
10.16. PW.14/Dr.Ch.Shiva Shankar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health
Center, Gudur deposed that on 18.03.2018 at 01.00 p.m., on requisition from
Circle Inspector of Police, P.S.Gudur, he conduct Postmortem on the dead body of Jarupula Ashok. He further deposed that specific injuries observed by him on the dead body. He further deposed that he preserved the Hyoid bone and handed over to Police to forward the same for expert opinion to KMC,
Warangal. As per the expert opinion issued by Assistant Professor, Forensic medicine and toxicology, KMC, Warangal under Ex P.14, “There is a fracture of
Hyoid bone”. Basing on the expert opinion on Hyoid bone, he issued his final report under Ex. P13 stating the cause of death of the deceased is due to strangulation, due to asphyxia, due to cardio respiratory arrest.
10.17. PW.15/P.Ganesh the then as VRO Gudur mandal, Bhoopathipeta village deposed that on 18.03.2018, on oral requisition from Sub-Inspector of Police,
P.S.Gudur, Tahasildar, Gudur mandal instructed him and PW12 to go to 20/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
Bhoopathi peta village towards Gunjedu road. As such they went there, Police was present there at the fields of U.Anjaiah/PW4. There was a dead body of
Jarupula Ashok in the said place. PW.15 further deposed that the deceased was in the Blue, Black and white checks shirt and his body was lying over stomach.
Police conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence. There was a big stone lying near the dead body which had blood and hair. Police collected hair from the said stone and also collected blood sample from the stone, collected blood stained soil and controlled soil, hair from the dead body and seized the rope lying near the body and prepared Crime Detail Form. He identified MO1 to MO3 and his signature onEx.P8 and Ex.P9.
10.18. PW.16/Ch.Mahender, VRO Gudur mandal deposed that on 24.03.2018,
Tahasildar instructed him and PW13 to go to Vengampeta to the house of
Kunduru Shoban Reddy/PW8, as some murder had happened. By the time they reached there Police along with 7 villagers were present out of which 6 were male and 1 was female. Police requested them to enquire with the 7 persons regarding the murder. PW.16 further deposed that as such they enquired with all the 7 persons one by one and all the 7 persons confessed to have murdered
Jarupula Ashok. From them, Police seized 3 mobile phones and one bike. One
Samsung mobile with the dual SIM was seized. One Nokia mobile and third
Intex mobile was seized and one Passion Plus motor bike was seized bearing
No.AP-15-K-5266 under the cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama under Ex.P15 to Ex.P17. PW.16 identified Accused No.1 and also identified 21/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
MO5 along with his signature on panch chit as one of the mobile phone seized from those persons. He also identified MO.7/ Black colour Nokia mobile Model 105 having IMEI No: 355202/05/476106/2 and his signature on the panch chit affixed to the said mobile and MO.8 Intex mobile Model MEGA 501 having IMEI- 1 No: 911409450644662 and IMEI-2 No: 914409450644670 along with his signature on the panch chit and MO6/Motor bike.
10.19. PW.16 further deposed that during evening hours, on the instruction of
Tahasildar he went to Narsampet at Varamma thota to the house of one person but he does not remember his name. By the time he reached there, Police and other three persons were present and Police had already prepared the panchanama as it had already gone late. Thereafter Police obtained his signature and seized three phones and one bike in his presence, but he could not state the names of those three persons or the registered number of the said bike and he was also declared hostile to that extent.
10.20. PW.17/T.Gowri Shanker, the then Tahasildar, Gudur mandal, deposed that he issued the caste verification particulars of Jarupula Ashok/deceased, accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 9, 10 and 11 under Ex.P19 dated: 15.06.2019 stating that
Jarupula Ashok/deceased belongs to ST-Lambada community and accused
No.1, 9, 10 and 11 belong to ST-Lambada community, Accused No.3 belongs to
BC-D Golla community and Accused No.4 belongs to ST-Koya community.
10.21. PW.18/I.Bhavsingh, Tahasildar, Hanamkonda, deposed that he issued caste verification particulars of accused No.8 under Ex.P.20 stating that he 22/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 belongs to BC-A Rajaka community.
10.22. PW.19/V.Veeraprakash, the then Tahasildar, Zaffargadh mandal, deposed that he issued caste verification particulars of Accused No.7 under
Ex.P.21 stating that Accused No.7 belongs to BC-D Munnurukapu community.
10.23. PW.20/Sk.Muntaz, Tahasildar, Khanapur mandal, deposed that he issued report under Ex.P.22 stating that Accused No.5 belongs to ST-Lambada community.
10.24. PW.21 /B.Bhansilal, the then Tahasildar, Mahabubabad deposed that he issued caste verification particulars of Accused No.2 under Ex.P.23 stating that
Accused No.2 belongs to BC-Yadava community.
10.25. PW.22/B.Ramesh, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Gudur deposed that on 18.03.2018, on receipt of CD file from PW.23/T.Ramarao, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Gudur, he took up the investigation in present case and examined
PW1 and recorded his statement in Police station. Later he addressed a letter to clues team requiring them to reach the scene of offence. Later he along with staff and photographer, visited scene of offence situated at agriculture field of
PW4 at Bhoopathipeta outskirts. Later clues team arrived at scene of offence.
he conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of PW12 and PW15 and prepared Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch under Ex.P8 and
Ex.P9. Clues team collected material objects i.e., 1) Blood stained soil, 2) controlled soil, 3) blood stained stone with hair, 4) Blue colour thread, 5) Hair from scene of offence. PW.22 further deposed that thereafter he examined 23/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
PW2 to PW6, LW2/J.Pentamma, LW4/G.Sugunamma, LW5/J.Hemla.
Simultaneously, Photographer/PW7 took the photographs of the scene of offence. Thereafter he conducted Inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in presence of PW12 and PW15 under Ex.P24 dated: 18.03.2018.
Thereafter he referred the dead body to Community Health Centre, Gudur for postmortem examination. Accordingly, PW14 conducted postmortem examination on the deceased body preserved hyoid bone, which was given to the Police custody. PW.22 further deposed that on 24.03.2018, on receipt of information from PW8 and PW9 that Accused No.1 to 4 and Accused No.9 to 11 voluntarily surrendered before PW8 and PW9. He along with the staff rushed to the house of PW8 situated at Vengampet village h/o. Chinna Yellapur and apprehended Accused No.1 to 4 and Accused No.9 to 11 and secured two mediators PW13 and PW16 and in their presence Accused No.1 to 4 and 9 to 11 confessed to have committed the offence and one Samsung mobile was seized from Accused No.1 under MO5 nand from Accused No.2 Nokia company black colour mobile under MO7 and Hero Honda Passion Plus motor cycle bearing
No.AP-13-K-5266 under MO6 were seized. From Accused No.4 Intex company mobile phone under MO8 was seized. Accused No.1 to 4 and 9 to 11 had confessed to have committed the offence along with Accused No.5 to 8.
10.26. PW.22 further deposed basing on the information of involvement of
Accused No.5 to 8, on his instruction, PW23/T.Ramarao, Sub-Inspector of Police,
P.S.Gudur went to the house of Accused No.5’s father-in-law house at 24/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
Narsampet and apprehended Accused No.5 to 7. PW.22 further deposed that on receipt of the said information, he along with PW13 and PW16 went to the house of father-in-law of Accused No.5. On interrogation in presence of PW13 and PW16, Accused No.5 to Accused No.7 voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence along with Accused No.1 to Accused No.4 and Accused
No.8 to Accused No.11 in presence of PW13 and PW16 and OPPO android mobile under MO9 from Accused No.5, one Nokia 1600 model mobile phone under MO.10 and Hero Honda Splender Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP-36-N- 5621 under MO.11 from Accused no.6 and Nokia 1600 model mobile phone from Accused No.7 were seized. Under Ex.P25 to P27/confession-cum-seizure panchanama dated: 24.03.2018. PW.22 further deposed that on 25.03.2018,
Accused No.1 to Accused No.7 and Accused No.9 to Accused No.11 were produced for remand before concerned Magistrate for remand, after completion of arrest formalities.
10.27. PW.22 further deposed that on 27.03.2018, he proceeded to Hamu thanda and examined and recorded the statements of PW10, PW11,
PW.25/D.Amru and LW15/D.Shankar. On 28.03.2018, Accused No.8 surrendered
before Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet and accused were sent to
Judicial custody. On 09.04.2018, he collected Post Mortem Examination report from PW14. Later he prepared letter of advice to KMC Warangal for examination of hyoid bone and sent it through Court. Later he forwarded the material objects with letter of advice to the FSL, Hyderabad through Court. On 25/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 12.05.2018, he collected the report of hyoid bone from KMC Warangal under
Ex.P14. Based on the said report, PW14 gave his final opinion under Ex.P13. On his transfer on 10.09.2018, he handed over the CD file to LW31/B.Balaji.
10.28. PW.23/T.Rama Rao, the then Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Gudur, deposed that on 18.03.2018 at 09.00 hours, on receipt of report from PW1, basing on the contents of the said report, he registered a case in Crime
No.58/2018 u/s.302 r/w.34 IPC and handed over the CD file to CI of Police,
Gudur. On 24.03.2018 on the instruction of CI of Police, he apprehended
Accused No.5 to 7 from the house of A5’s father-in-law and after CI of Police reached the said place, he handed over Accused No.5 to 7 to him and left for his regular duties.
10.29. PW.24/A.Naresh Kumar, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahabubabad deposed that on 18.12.2018, he was appointed as Investigating Officer in this case vide proceedings under Ex.P29. on the same day he took up the the CD file in this case from LW31/B.Balaji, CI of Police, P.S.Gudur,who had filed section alteration memo dated 18.12.2018 by adding section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act under Ex.P.30. PW.24 further deposed that he verified the investigation done by his predecessors and found the same to be on correct lines. Later he addressed a letter to Tahasildar, Gudur, Tahasildar, Mahabubabad, Tahasildar,
Khanapur, Tahasildar, Maripeda, Tahasildar, Zaffargadh and Tahasildar,
Hanamkonda to issue caste verification particulars of deceased and Accused
No.1 to 11. Accordingly, PW17 to PW21 and LW25/K.Venkateshwarlu, 26/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
Tahasildar, Maripeda issued caste verification particulars of deceased and
Accused No.1 to 11. PW.24 further deposed that after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against Accused He also deposed that
PW22 also gave requisition to record Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1, PW8 and PW9, which were recorded by LW28/Smt.Radhika Jaiswal, Principal Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad under Ex.P4, P6 and P31 .
10.30. PW.25/D.Amru, deposed that around 7 years ago, he conducted a panchayat along with LW.15/B.Shankar, PW.10/Gangamma and summoned
Accused No.1 and deceased and his brother/PW.1 in regard to the boundary dispute for their land. As such they came to the panchayat. Accused No.1 had dug an agricultural well in his land and encroached a small part of land of the deceased with the said well. As such they advised accused No.1 to stop the digging as he had already encroached upon the land of the deceased. After giving the said advise, the panchayat elders left the place. Thereafter, deceased died after two months and he heard that someone killed the deceased/Ashok.
POINT:
11.It is the case of the prosecution that Accused Nos.1 to 11 formed an unlawful assembly and murdered the deceased/J.Ashok under a criminal conspiracy. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
Motive:
12. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 and his family members i.e., accused No.9 and 10 had a land dispute with the informant/PW.1 and his 27/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 deceased brother and accused No.1 and his family members had threatened to kill the deceased due to the said land dispute, which is the motive behind the criminal conspiracy and murder of the deceased by accused No.1, his family members and others. To prove the motive prosecution examined PW.1/J.Hari who is the brother of the deceased, who deposed that he purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.2 gts., in the year 2004 and thereafter 5 to 6 years ago an extent of Ac.0.3 gts from accused No.1 and opened a Kirana shop for his deceased brother in the said land and since the date of opening of the said shop, Accused No.1, Accused No.9 and 10 and other family members started raising dispute asking them to return their land and on the said dispute accused beat them and panchayat was called and subsequently the accused dug a well by encroaching upon the land to one feet in their Ac.0.3 gts of land and the panchayat elders found fault with the accused and advised them to close the well and subsequently Accused Nos.1, 9 and 10 threatened to kill PW.1 and his deceased brother. PW.1 also deposed that his deceased brother had also lodged a report against accused No.1, 9 and 10 for beating him at the shop in which the accused had pleaded guilty and had paid fine and again during January his brother had filed another case against Accused No.1,9 and 10 for threatening to kill him.
13.PW.2, who is the wife of PW.1 also deposed on the same lines regarding the purchase of land by them to an extent of Ac.0.2 gts and Ac.0.3 gts., from accused
No.1 and dispute arose by accused No.1 asking them to return the said land and regarding the panchayat held between them and also about the digging of well by accused No.1 by encroaching upon their land and about the panchayat resolution 28/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 asking the accused to close the said well.
14.As far as the evidence of PW.1 to the effect that accused dug a well by encroaching upon one feet of land in their Ac.0.3 gts of land and regarding the panchayat advising the accused to close the well and regarding the threat by accused No.1, 9 & 10 to kill him and his brother is concerned, the same has been proved to be an improvement through the cross examination of PW.1 himself. As far as the evidence of PW.1, to the effect that the deceased had lodged complaint against accused No.1, 9 & 10 is concerned, PW.22/ 1st Investigating Officer deposed that none of the witness stated before him about the registration of cases between the accused and the deceased family, but he added that witnesses stated about the land dispute between them. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 to that effect, which is proved to be an improvement cannot be relied upon.
15.As far as the evidence of PW.2 with respect to the dispute between accused
No.1 family and their family and regarding the digging of well by accused No.1 by encroaching upon their land and regarding the panchayat in this regard, is concerned, the same has not been proved as contradiction or omission and therefore the same can be relied upon. Further it is noticed that the prosecution has examined PW.3, PW.10 and PW.25 who are cited as panchayat elders. PW.3 deposed that there was a land dispute between accused No.1, PW.1 and the deceased and the panchayat was called in this regard. He also stated that Accused No.1 had dug a agricultural well and also had erected fencing by encroaching upon the land of PW.1 and the panchayat elders fixed the boundaries by placing stones between the land 29/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 of Accused No.1 and PW.1.
16.PW.10 also deposed on the same lines as that of PW.3 regarding the panchayat held between accused No.1 and the deceased and regarding the encroachment of land of the deceased by accused No.1 and regarding reference of the said issue to the panchayat in which PW.10 along with PW.3, PW.25 and others acted as panchayat elders and resolved to close the agriculture well. Though a suggestion is given to PW.10 that he did not state his entire version as stated by him in his chief examination before the police in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement, but the said suggestion was denied by PW.10 and the same is not proved through investigating officer. Therefore, no contradiction and omission have been proved in the evidence of PW.10 and therefore the same can be relied upon.
17.PW.25 also deposed about the land dispute between accused No.1 and the deceased and his brother/PW.1 and regarding the panchayat with respect to the encroachment of the land of the deceased by accused No.1. During the cross examination of PW.25 a suggestion was given to PW.25 that the ‘Chetha bavi’ dug by accused No.1 was subsequently closed which was admitted by PW.25, which indicated that the defence has admitted about the digging of well by accused No.1 and subsequent closing of the said well. Therefore, in view of the evidence of PW.2,
PW.3, PW.10 and PW.25, land dispute between deceased and accused No.1 family is proved and it is also proved that accused No.1 dug a well by encroaching upon the land of the deceased and in this regard panchayat was called wherein PW.3, PW.10 and PW.25 acted as panchayat elders and advised the closure of agriculture well by 30/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 accused No.1.
18.PW.3 also deposed that thereafter the deceased/Ashok came one day and complained about the threatening of accused No.1 to kill him, but he admitted during his cross examination that he omitted to state before the police regarding the information by the deceased with respect to the threatening of Accused No.1 to kill him. PW.10 also deposed that after the panchayat resolution, accused No.1, his wife, his daughter and his other family members threatened the deceased to kill him and as discussed supra, no omission or contradiction has been proved in the evidence of PW.10 by the defence. Therefore, through the evidence of PW.10, it is proved that the accused No.1, his wife i.e., accused No.9 and other family members threatened the deceased to kill him with respect to the said land dispute and therefore, the prosecution has proved the motive against accused No.1 and 9.
Cause Of Death:
19.Prosecution examined PW.14/the doctor who conducted the post mortem investigation on the deceased body. PW.14 deposed that he observed laceration over the left side of the head, ligature mark around the neck, and other abrasions over the right side head, left ear and left shoulder and he also preserved the hyoid bone of the deceased and sent it for analysis and report. PW.14 also stated that as per the expert opinion issued on hyoid bone under Ex.P.14 there was a fracture of hyoid bone and basing on the said report he gave his final opinion under Ex.P.13 stating that the cause of death of the deceased is due to strangulation, due to asphyxia, due to cardio respiratory arrest. Therefore, the mode of death of the 31/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 deceased by way of strangulation is proved.
Crime Weapon:
20.PW.1, PW.2 i.e., brother and sister-in-law of the deceased and PW.3, PW.4,
PW.5, PW.6 and PW.10 all deposed that they saw the dead body of the deceased in the land of PW.4 lying on the ground on its stomach and there was a big stone and a rope near him and PW.1 has also stated that his brother was strangulated with the rope and was hit on his head with the big stone and the big stone had blood stain and hair on it. Further PW.1 identified MO.1 to MO.3 as the shirt worn by the deceased at the time of his death and rope and the stone, which were witnessed by them lying next to the deceased. MO.2 and MO.3 was also identified by all the other witnesses as mentioned supra. Prosecution also examined PW.12 and PW.15, who are the panch witnesses for the Crime Detail Form and both of them stated that police conducted scene of offence panchanama at the land of U.Anjaiah/PW.4near
Bhupathipeta thota check post as one murder had taken place at the said place and police had seized one big stone and collected the deceased hair, which was stuck on the said stone and police also collected hair from the dead body and also collected the blood stained soil and the controlled soil and police also seized one rope from the said place and the cycle and marriage card along with the bag containing some
Kirana articles. Further PW.12 and PW.15 also identified MO.1 as the shirt which was worn by the deceased at the time of his death. MO.2/ rope and MO.3/ stone seized by the police in their presence while conducting the scene of offence panchanama.
The same is also stated by the first investigating officer/PW.22. Therefore, the 32/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 seizure of MO.1 to MO.3 from the scene of offence is proved through the evidence of PW.13 and PW.15 and PW.22. As MO.2/rope is seized from the scene of offence and all the witnesses have deposed that they saw the said rope lying near the dead body, and as the deceased died of strangulation as discussed supra, MO.2 can be considered to the crime weapon.
Event that preceded before the murder of the Deceased:
21.It is the case of the prosecution that the dead body of the deceased was found in the agriculture field of PW.4 and PW.4 also deposed that around six years back at 6.00 AM when he went to his field to water it, he noticed one dead body lying in his fields beside the road, but he could not recognize the said body and the said body was identified by PW.5/B.Ramesh as that of Ashok. PW.5 also deposed that around six years back, around at 6.00 AM, while he was going to the hospital on his bike with his son, PW.4 stopped him on the way at his agricultural field and informed him about the dead body lying in his field, and PW.5 identified the body to be of Ashok/ deceased. PW.1 also deposed that he was informed about the death of his brother by PW.5 and PW.5 also deposed that he called PW.1 over the phone and informed him about the murder of his brother and lying of his body in the field.
Therefore, the case of the prosecution to that extent is proved.
22.As per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, the deceased had gone to Nasampet along with his family to do the shopping for his marriage and after the shopping all the family members came back, but the deceased stayed at Narsampet for “pelli patrika” and when they called him at around 7.00 P.M to 07.30 PM, he informed that 33/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 he is coming back home and at 10.00 PM, his mobile was not reachable.
23.Police also examined PW.6, who is the auto driver who deposed that the deceased came from Narsampet to Bhupathipeta Check post at around 9.00 PM in his auto and thereafter, both of them had Mirchi-Bajji from a Bandi at the check post and after some time, the deceased proceeded further on his cycle and he left on the auto and on the next day morning, he got the information about the murder of the deceased. PW.6 during his cross examination could not state the name of any other passenger in his auto, but he deposed that he knew the deceased since his childhood as he used to run a shop and PW.6 used to bring diesel and the other things as requested by the deceased in his auto. Therefore, the evidence of PW.6 to the effect that he brought the deceased from Narsampet to Bhoopathipeta Check post is reliable, as the deceased was not any random passenger in the auto of PW.6, whom he cannot remember with such clarity, but he had prior long acquaintance with the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of PW.6 is found reliable and trustworthy, which proves the case of the prosecution to the extent that the deceased came to check post in the auto of PW.6 and proceeded towards his house from check post on his cycle. PW.6 further deposed that land of Anjaiah/PW.4 is situated at less than half
KM from Bhoopathipeta. Furthermore, the evidence PW.12, the panch witness to the scene of offence panchanma and of PW.10, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5 also proves the presence of the said cycle at the scene of offence near the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, Prosecution could prove the links in the chain of
circumstantial evidence regarding travel of deceased from Narsampeta to
34/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
Bhoopathipeta in auto and from there, towards his house on his cycle.
Criminal Conspiracy:
24.It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 keeping in view his dispute with the deceased, engaged accused No.2 to 4 to kill the deceased on payment of
Rs.3,00,000/-. and further promised to pay Rs.50,000/- to accused No.5 to bring the deceased alone to them in order to kill him and also paid Rs.1,00,000/- to accused
No.6 to 8, to kill the deceased and Accused No.1 to 11, criminally conspired together to kill the deceased and also executed their plan.
25.It is also the further case of the prosecution that in view of the criminal conspiracy between the Accused no. 1 to 11, the accused No.5 kept a watch on the deceased and followed him from Narsampet to Bhoopathipeta Check post and had shown the deceased to accused No.2, 6 to 8 and from the check post, when the deceased took his cycle and left, accused No.3 and 4 kept a watch at check post to see that nobody is following the deceased and accused No.2 and 6 pulled the deceased from the road with the rope and strangulated him and accused No. 7 brought the stone and hit the deceased on his head.
26.As far as the prosecution case of financial transactions between the accused is concerned, the prosecution has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove
any such financial transaction between the accused among themselves and
further the prosecution has not brought on record any evidence to prove the
inter se connection or acquaintance between accused No.1, 9 and 10 with that of
other accused.
35/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
27.Furthermore, with respect to the prosecution theory, A.3 was keeping a watch at check post and to prove the same, prosecution examined PW.11 who deposed that he knows accused No.3 as he is resident of his village, and he further deposed that he sells Mirchi Bajji on a Bandi near Bhupathipeta check post, but he denied to have any knowledge about the facts of this case and he also denied the suggestion that the deceased and PW.6 consume Mirchi Bajji at his Bandi on 17.03.2018 and thereafter PW.6 left on his auto and the deceased left on his cycle.
PW.11 also denied the suggestion put by the Learned Public Prosecutor after seeking permission of the Court under section 154 Indian Evidence Act that he stated before the police that on the same night i.e., on 17.3.2018 he noticed accused
No.3 roaming near that area. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the
presence of accused No.3 at the check post to prove its theory of criminal
conspiracy.
28.It is the further case of Prosecution that the accused No.2 and 6 pulled the deceased from the road with the rope and strangulated him and accused No. 7 brought the stone and hit the deceased on his head. The cause of death by strangulation is already proved by the Prosecution and MO.2/rope is also proved to have been recovered from the scene of offence lying near the dead body of the deceased. It is also the case of Prosecution that MO.3/stone was also seized from scene of offence which contained blood stain and hair of the deceased, which was used by accused no. 7 to hit him. On the perusal of PME report under Ex. P12, a laceration over the left side head is observed by PW.14. PW.1 and PW.15 both 36/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 deposed that MO.3 had blood stain and hair on it. Furthermore, PW.12 and PW.15 the panch witnesses to the Crime Detail Form deposed about collection of blood stain and hair from the stone by the police along with the hair from the body of the deceased. But however, no Analysis report is filed in the present case by the prosecution to connect the hair and blood stain collected from MO.3 with the deceased. Therefore, even though prosecution has proved the seizure of MO.3
from the scene of offence, but the prosecution has failed to connect said stone
under MO.3 to the murder of the deceased and furthermore, there is no
evidence to connect Accused no. 7 to the injury over the head of the deceased,
as observed in PME.
29.Therefore, as discussed supra, the Prosecution has failed to prove its theory of criminal conspiracy between Accused no. 1 to 11 to murder the deceased.
Therefore, no offence under Section 120-B IPC is proved against Accused no. 1
to 11 beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution.
Charge Under Section 148 IPC:
30.The offence under section 148 IPC deals with rioting armed with deadly weapon and in order to prove rioting, existence of an unlawful assembly has to be proved. It is the case of the prosecution itself that Accused No.1, 9 to 11 had gone to
Vemulawada to avoid suspicion over them and Accused No.5 followed the deceased till check post, and Accused No.3 and 4 were keeping a watch at the check post and
Accused No.2, 6 to 8 murder the deceased. Therefore neither in the entire story of the prosecution, at any point of time five or more of the accused were present 37/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 together at the same place nor there is any evidence to that effect to show presence of five or more of the accused for any purpose at the same place. Therefore, no assembly of five or more is proved in order to constitute an unlawful assembly.
Therefore, as the prosecution has failed to prove unlawful assembly, no offence
under u/S.148 IPC for rioting with deadly weapons can be proved against the
accused.
Charge under section 302 r/w 34 IPC: The case of Prosecution u/sec 302 r/w 34 IPC is based on Extra Judicial Confession and Confession-cum-recovery of Accused.
Extra Judicial Confession:
31.The entire case of the prosecution is based on the extra judicial confession of accused No.1 to 4 and 9 to 11 before PW.8 and PW.9 and subsequent confession- cum-recovery of accused No.1 to 7, 9 to 11 before the police in presence of panch witnesses. As far as the extra judicial confession is concerned, PW.8 and PW.9 both did not support the case of the prosecution and denied to be a witness to any extra judicial confession by accused No.1 to 4 and accused No.9 to 11. As per the case of the prosecution, PW.8 and PW.9 had given their Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement before the
Magistrate under Ex.P4 and P6 regarding the extra judicial confession. On the
perusal of Ex.P4 and P6, it is noticed that PW.8 and PW.9 had deposed in the Sec.164
Cr.P.C statement before the Magistrate that on 24.3.2018, when both of them were talking to each other at 9.00 AM, Dev Singh/Accused No.1 and others came to his house, and confessed that they have murdered Ashok and Dev Singh/accused No.1 was along with his wife, son, and six others and asked PW.8 and PW.9 to inform the 38/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 same to the police, as such they informed to the Police. They further stated that
Devsingh/accused No.1 also agreed to pay Rs.3lakhs to Reddyala and Kumaraswamy/ accused No.3 for murdering Ashok and one Lakshman/accused No.5 informed the matter about the Ashok. But, however during their evidence before the Court, PW.8 and PW.9 denied to have deposed the statement as under Ex.P.4 and P.6. Though the
Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8 and PW.9 are on record under Ex.P.4 and P.6 but, however Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement is only corroborative evidence, which can only be used for corroboration or contradictions and cannot be used as a substantive evidence to prove the guilt of the accused in the absence of the direct evidence of the witnesses. Therefore despite Ex.P4 and P6, in the absence of the direct evidence of PW.8 and PW.9, the prosecution has failed to prove the extra judicial
confession of the accused before PW.8 and PW.9, due to lack of evidence.
32. But however, it is evident from records that PW.8 and PW.9 have intentionally denied their Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements recorded on oath.As there is deliberate falsehood on the matter of the substance and and there is reasonable foundation for the charge of perjury, therefore, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that
there exist sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings against
PW.8/Kunduru Shoban Reddy and PW.9/Boda Bhaskar u/S.195 of the Cr.P.C. for
the offence of perjury under section 193 of Indian Penal Code , which is
expedient in the interests of justice.
Confession-Cum-Recovery:
33. It is the case of the Prosecution that Accused no. 1 to 4 and 9 to 11 confessed 39/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 their guilt at the house of PW.8 in presence of PW.13 and PW.16 and MO.5 to MO. 8 was seized and Accused no. 5 to 7 confessed their guilt at the house of father-in-law of Accused no.5 in presence of PW.13 and PW.16 and MO.4, MO.9 to 11 were seized.
PW.22/1st Investigation Officer deposed about the confession of accused in presence of PW.13 and PW.16 and seizure of Mo.4 to Mo.11. To prove the confession-cum-recovery of accused, the prosecution examined the panch witnesses-PW.13 and PW.16. However, PW.13 did not depose anything about confession of the accused in his presence and only stated that when he along with
PW.16 went to the house of PW.8 at Vengampet, police along with seven members were present, out of which one was female and six male persons and police pointed out on those seven persons and informed that murder has taken place at Amru
Thanda, Chinna Yellapur, and those seven people have confessed their guilt and as such, police have prepared a panchnama and seized three phones and one bike. He also deposed that from there police took them to Narsampet in one person’s house, where 3-4 persons were present and Police seized one bike and 2 mobile from those persons. Therefore, PW.13 did not depose about confession of those seven members or other 3-4 persons in his presence. But, however, after declaring him hostile by the prosecution, he agreed to the suggestion given by the Special Public
Prosecutor after seeking permission of the Court u/S.154 of the Indian Evidence Act that accused No.1 to 4 and accused No.9 to 11 had confessed their guilt. But, however the version elicited during the cross examination by the prosecution can be considered only to contradict the witness and cannot be considered as a substantial 40/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 evidence to prove the confession. Therefore, evidence of PW.13 does not prove the confession of any witness.
34.As far as the evidence of PW.16 is concerned, PW.16 deposed that he and
PW.13 went to the house of PW.8, where police was present along with seven villagers out of which six were male and one was female and police requested them to enquire with the seven persons regarding the murder as such they enquired with all the seven persons one by one and all the seven persons confessed to have committed murder of Jarpula Ashok and from them police seized the mobile phone and one bike but however PW.16 identified only Accused No.1 in the court and could not identify the other persons who confessed the guilt in his presence and he also identified MO.5 to MO.8 which were seized in his presence. He also deposed that after the said panchanama, he went back to his office and during the evening hours at the instruction of Tahasildar, they went to Narsampet at Varamma Thota at the house of one person, where police along with three persons were present and had already prepared panchanama and three phones and one bike were seized in his presence. But, however, PW.16 did not mention about any confession of any person at Narsampet in his presence neither did he identify any persons whose confession was recorded during the evening hours at Narsampet. Also during the cross examination by Learned Special Public Prosecutor after declaring him hostile u/S.154 of the Indian Evidence Act, he denied to have knowledge about seizure of the three mobile phones and one bike on the confession of Accused No.5 to 7.
Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the confession of any accused except for 41/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 accused No.1 through PW.13 and PW.16.
Recovery from Accused no.1:
35.As far as the confession of accused No.1 is concerned, under Section 27 Indian
Evidence Act, the confession while in the custody of the police is only admissible with respect to the recovery and as per the case of prosecution, MO.5 which is Dual
SIM mobile was seized from accused No.1. It is the contention of the counsel for the
Accused No.1 that though it is mentioned in the seizure that dual sim mobile was seized from accused No.1, but however, MO.5 is not a Dual SIM mobile. On the perusal of MO.5, the court could not open the said mobile to check whether the same is single SIM or Dual SIM as the mobile was affixed in a manner that it could not be opened. However, even if the recovery of MO.5 from Accused No.1 is considered, the prosecution has not brought on record any further evidence to connect the said mobile with the murder of the deceased.
36.Though it is the case of the prosecution that the mobile seized from accused
No.1 was carrying Airtel SIM Number 9177217714 and IDEA SIM Number 7036358517 and it is the further case of the prosecution that accused No.1 after engaging Accused No.2 to 8 to murder the deceased, had gone to Vemulawada along with his family members, i.e., Accused No.9 and 10 in order to avoid any suspicion on him, but accused No.1 was in contact with other accused No.2 to 8 over mobile. But prosecution has failed to collect the Customer Detail of the said sim numbers, and has also failed to collect the Call Data Records of the said SIM numbers, to show that accused No.1 was in contact with other accused over phone 42/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 on the day of the murder of the deceased. Therefore, even though the recovery of
MO.5 from accused No.1 in consequence of his confession is proved, but the prosecution has failed to link the said recovery to the murder of the deceased and without establishing any link between the offence and the recovery, mere seizure of a mobile phone, from any accused cannot be considered as incriminating till the prosecution proves an active link between said recovery, i.e.,mobile in this case, and the offence of murder of the deceased. LW.22/1st Investigating officer also deposed that he did not Collect any Call Data Record or other details of the SIM numbers as seized by the police through confession and recovery panchanama. Therefore, the
prosecution has failed to connect any of the accused to the murder of the
deceased by way of the said confession-cum-recovery. Therefore, the charge
under section 302 r/w. 34 IPC is not proved against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
37. Though the prosecution has claimed to have seized MO.4 to MO.11 from accused No.1 to 11. But however, the defence has categorically denied the said seizure by giving suggestion to the panch witnesses to the confession-cum-seizure that no panchanama was conducted in their presence and no item was seized in their presence and also a suggestion was given to PW.22/1st Investigating Officer, that he did not conduct proper investigation, and nothing was seized from the possession of the accused and no material objects were seized from them. Further a suggestion was given to PW.22 that he has created all the material objects for the purpose of this case and that the accused never confessed in the presence of panch 43/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 witnesses and no seizure/recovery was made at their instance. Therefore, as the defence has categorically denied any seizure from any of the accused and as during the pendency of the trial, no person has come forward claiming the ownership over
MO.4 to 11. Therefore, MO.4 to MO.11 are liable to be confiscated to the State under Section 452 Cr.P.C.
Charge Under 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act:
38.Though the prosecution has proved the caste of the deceased to be ‘ST
Lambada’ under Ex.P.19 through PW.17 and also proved that accused No.2,3,7 & 8 belong to non SC/ST Community through the evidence of PW.17 to PW.19 and PW.12 under Ex.P.19, to 21 and P.23, but however as the schedule offence u/S.120-B IPC is not proved, no offence u/S.3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Act can be proved.
39. In view of finding of this Court at paragraph no. 29, 30, 36 and 38, the point no. 1 & 2 are answered against the prosecution.
40. In the result, The accused Nos.1, 4, 5, 9 to 11 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 120-B, 302 r/w.34 of IPC and accused No.2, 3 & 7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 120-B, 302 r/w.34 of IPC and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused persons shall stay in force for a period of six months from this date. MO.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
MO.4 to MO.11 shall be confiscated to the State under Section 452 Cr.P.C and shall be at disposal of the State Government after the appeal time is over. The unmarked 44/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020 property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. In view of findings at paragraph no. 32, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that there exist sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings against PW.8/Kunduru Shoban Reddy and PW.9/Boda Bhaskar u/S.195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence of perjury under section 193 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the Chief
Administrative Officer of this Court is directed to take steps to initiate proceedings against PW.8/Kunduru Shoban Reddy and PW.9/Boda Bhaskar u/S.195 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
(Partly typed and partly dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of August, 2025).
Sd/-
Special Judge for Trial of Cases under
the SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1:Jarpula Hari/Informant and brother of deceased PW.2:Jarpula Laxmi/Sister-in-law of deceased PW.3:Lakkam Yakaiah/Circumstantial witness PW.4:Udutha Anjaiah/Eye witness PW.5:Bhukya Ramesh/Eye witness PW.6:Angothu Holy/ circumstantial Witness PW.7:Inavolu Balachander/Photographer PW.8:Kunduru Shoban Reddy/Witness to extra Judicial Confession PW.9:Boda Bhaskar/Witness to extra Judicial Confession PW.10:Jatoth Gangamma/Circumstantial witness PW.11: Chebothu Srinu/Circumstantial witness PW.12: Erraboina Ravinder/Panch for CDF and inquest PW.13:Mushke Shoban Babu/panch for confession statement of accused persons 45/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
PW.14: Dr.Ch.Shiva Shankar/Conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased PW.15: Pittala Ganesh/panch for CDF and inquest PW.16: Chinthakayala Mahendar/panch for confessional statement of accused persons PW.17: T.Gouri Shanker/Tahasildar-Gudur PW.18: I.Bhav Singh/Tahasildar-Hanamkonda PW.19: K.Veera Prakash/TahasildaZaffergadh PW.20: Sk.Muntaz/Tahasildar-Khanapur PW.21: B.Bhansilal/Tahasildar-Mahabubabad PW.22: B.Ramesh/1st Investigating Officer PW.23: T.Rama Rao/Sub-Inspector of Police, issued FIR PW.24: A.Naresh Kumar/3rd Investigating Officer PW.25: Dharmasoth Amru/Circumstantial witness
FOR DEFENCE : - NONE--
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1:Report of PW.1, dated 18.03.2018 Ex.P.2:Photographs (9) in number along with CD Ex.P.3:Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8 Ex.P.4:Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8 recorded by Magistrate Ex.P.5:Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9 Ex.P.6:Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9 recorded by Magistrate Ex.P.7:Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.11 Ex.P.8:Crime Detail Form dated 18.3.2018 Ex.P.9:Rough sketch map dated 18.3.2018 Ex.P.10:Signatures of PW.13 (14 in number) on confession-cum-seizure panchanama dated 24.3.2018 Ex.P.11:Signatures of PW.13 (6 in number) on confession-cum-seizure panchanama dated 24.3.2018 Ex.P.12:Post Mortem examination report dated 7.4.2018 Ex.P.13:Final opinion dated 12.5.2018 Ex.P.14:Expert opinion dated 18.4.2018 Ex.P.15:Admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama
dated 24.3.2018 at 10.30 hours at page No.4
Ex.P.16:Admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama
dated 24.3.2018 at 10.30 hours at page No.7
Ex.P.17:Admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama
dated 24.3.2018 at 10.30 hours at page No.11
Ex.P.18:Signature of PW.16 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama dt.24.3.2018 at 17.00 hours Ex.P.19:Caste verification particulars of Jarupula Ashok/deceased 46/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
Accused No.1,3, 4,9, 10 and 11 dated 15.6.2019 Ex.P.20:Caste verification particulars of Accused No.8 issued by PW.18
dated 30.5.2019
Ex.P.21:Caste verification particulars of Accused No.7 issued by PW.19
dated 23.1.2019
Ex.P.22:Caste verification particulars of Accused No.5 issued by PW.20
dated 12.2.2019
Ex.P.23:Caste verification particulars of Accused No.2 issued by PW.21
dated 14.2.2019
Ex.P.24:Inquest panchanama dated 18.3.2018 Ex.P25 :Admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of Accused No.5 to Accused No.7 at Page No.2, dated: 24.03.2018 at 17.00 hours. Ex.P26 :Admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of Accused No.5 to Accused No.7 at Page No.4, dated: 24.03.2018 at 17.00 hours. Ex.P27 : Admissible portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of Accused No.5 to Accused No.7 at Page No.6, dated: 24.03.2018 at 17.00 hours. Ex.P.28:Original FIR dated 18.3.2018 Ex.P.29:Appointment order of PW.24 dated 18.12.2018 Ex.P.30:Section alteration Memo dated 18.12.2018 Ex.P.31:Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.
FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D.1:Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:
MO.1:Shirt worn by the deceased MO.2:Rope MO.3:Stone MO.4:Nokia 160 mobile phone having IMEI No.35882/00/380382/7 MO.5:Samsung black mobile phone having IMEI No.353575/08/008622/6 and IMEI No.353575/08/008622/7 MO.6:Hero Honda passion plus motor cycle bearing No.AP 13-K-5226 MO.7:Black colour Nokia mobile Model 105 having IMEI NO.355202/05/476106/2 MO.8:Intex Mobile Model Mega 501 having IMEI-1 No.911409450644662 and IMEI-2 No.914409450644670 MO.9:Oppo Mobile seized from Accused No.5 MO.10:Nokia 1600 mobile phone containing SIM No.9966677287 seized from Accused No.6 47/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL
SSC Case No.36 of 2020
MO.11:Hero Honda Splender Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 N 5621
Sd/-
Special Judge for Trial of Cases under
the SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal.
48/48SC/ST-Court-II Addl. SC, WGL