Sri Murali Mohan Kannoju

Page No.1 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT JUDGE,

pAT :: BHONGIR

Present:-Sri KANNOJU MURALI MOHAN.,

Prl.Senior Civil Judge,

Bhongir.

Thursday, this the 26 th day of October, 2023

SESSIONS CASE No.48 of 2017

Between :- State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhongir Rural Police station. …. Complainant AND

Mogilipaka Anand, S/o.Pochaiah, Age:23 years, Occ:Car Driver,

R/o.Anajipuram Village of Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir

District.

... Accused

Charge:U/sec.306 IPC

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not guilty Sentence or Order : In the result, accused found not guilty of the offence under Section 306 of

IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Accused not claimed the MO-2. The case property M.O.1:Scarf shall be destroyed and MO.2 Nokia mobile phone shall be confiscated to state by selling the same in auction after appeal time is over.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Satyanarayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri S.Sreekanth, a learned counsel for accused and upon hearing, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

Page No.2 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

- :: JUDGMENT :: -

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhongir Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against above accused for the offence under Section 306 of Indian

Penal Code in Cr.No.53 of 2016 of P.S.Bhongir Rural Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.03.2016 at 16:00 hours the complainant Bollepally Narsinga Rao (PW-1), lodged a report in

Bhongir Rural P.S. against the accused as responsible for the death of his sister Bhagya laxmi. According to prosecution accused developed physical relationship with deceased who was a widow and HIV patient and finally refused to marry her. When she insisted him to marry he bet her and abused her. This which was witnessed by PW-3 (Pooja) on her return from school. Due to the said harassment of accused, deceased committed suicide by hanging on evening hours of 18.03.2016 at her parents house in

Anajipuram. After completing final rituals in her in law’s place at

Proddutur, through PW-5 and PW-6 it came into light that there were injuries on the body of deceased as found by them while performing bath to the dead body. Then family members started suspecting and during search in the house PW-1 and other family members found letters and photographs pertaining to deceased and accused. As per the instructions of accused, PW-4 who went to the house of parents of deceased to see the circumstances at the house also revealed the said fact and that he found the dead body hanging in the house. On 26.03.2016 PW-1 lodged the report in Bhongir Rural police station. Police registered the case u/Sec.174

Cr.p.C. and investigated the case, arrested the accused and finally filed charge sheet against the accused u/Sec.306 IPC.

3.The learned Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the accused and registered the case as PRC No.31 of 2016. Copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207

Cr.P.C. This case was committed by the learned Addl.Judicial Magistrate of

Page No.3 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

First Class, Bhongir, vide committal order dated 27.12.2016 under Section

209 Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Nalgonda. The Hon’ble

Sessions Court registered the case as S.C.No.48 of 2017 and made over

the same to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.

4.On appearance of accused before this Court, upon hearing and basing on material on record my learned predecessor framed charge for the offence U/Sec.306 of IPC against the accused. The charges against

Accused were read over and explained to him in his regional language

Telugu, for which accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, during trial prosecution has examined PW1 to PW17, marked Ex.P1 to P12 and MO1:Scarf, MO2:Nokia Mobile phone. The evidence of LW-3 :Bollepally Sathaiah/father of deceased, LW- 6 Bollepally Raju/neighbor, LW-16:Dr.Devil Prasad/treated the deceased,

LW-18:Adunoori Sathaiah / panch for scene of offence and evidence of LW- 19/Dubba Dasu / Panch for scene of offence was given up by learned

Addl.Public Prosecutor to avoid the repetition of evidence. The evidence of

LW-21:Bollepally Yedukondullu / Panch for confession is closed in view of his death.

6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the arguments of learned Addl.Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused at length and perused the evidence on record, and examined the case law relied by both sides and the relevent settled legal propositions.

Page No.4 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

8. Now the point for determination of this court is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence under section 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

POINT:-

9.This is a case of abetment of suicide of a widow namely Bhagya

Laxmi. The said Bhagya Laxmi is patient of HIV Positive. The entire case was developed eight days after the suicide and 7 days after the disposal of dead body in cremation by pyre. One week after the incident FIR was registered u/Sec.174 Cr.P.C. later it was altered to Sec.306 IPC.

To prove the above charges under Section 306 of IPC prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients beyond all reasonable doubt.

a. Accused abetted the suicide of deceased Venkatigalla Bhagya

Laxmi, as required under Section 306 of IPC?

10.In order to prove the charge under Section 306 IPC prosecution has to prove that accused abetted the suicide of deceased within the meaning of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the required ingredients of section 107 of IPC also.

Section 107 IPC defines abetment. According to Section 107 IPC prosecution has to prove that.

i) accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

ii) Accused by engaging some other persons by way of conspiracy perused her to commit suicide.

iii) Accused intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide.

Page No.5 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

11.From the facts of the present case in hand second ingredient of conspiracy as referred above will not attract. However, it has to be seen whether prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish the ‘abatement’ as provided in first and third ingredient of the offence of abatement as referred above under Section 107 IPC.

12. To prove the charges under Sections 306 of IPC prosecution has examined Pws.1 to PW-17 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P12 and

M.O.1 and M.O.2. This court carefully examined the entire evidence on record and heard the arguments of both sides.

(A) Arguments of prosecution.

13.The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that though the dead body of the deceased was disposed in the cremation by ‘pyre’ even prior to lodging of the report to police, the evidence on record clearly proves that the accused harassed and cheated the deceased in the name of love and he refused to marry her and when she insisted him to marry her he bet her, and abeted the deceased to commit suicide and the same was witnessed by PW-3. The accused himself revealed all his above illegal acts and abetment to his friend PW-4. Therefore the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 and the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 who found the injuries over the body of the deceased is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/Sec.306 IPC. The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor relied on several citations in support of the prosecution case.

(B) Arguments of defence:

14.On the other hand the case of the defense is that of total denial, including the death of the deceased. Learned defence counsel argued that the dead body of the deceased was not examined by police, no inquest or

P.M.E. were conducted and that prosecution failed to prove even the death

Page No.6 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 of the deceased and that there is no medical evidence or any other reliable evidence to show that the deceased died by committing suicide on 18.03.2016. The learned defence counsel further argued that all the witnesses in this case are family members of the deceased and interested witnesses and there are civil disputes between the accused and deceased, due to that enmity the PW-1 and other family members foisted this false case against the accused as after thought. It is further argued by learned defence counsel that in order to prove the case u/Sec.306 IPC primarily prosecution has to prove the death of the deceased as suicide but here the deceased is HIV patient and there is no reliable evidence as to her death and cause of death and to prove that she committed suicide. Absolutely there is no evidence that accused abetted the alleged suicide of the deceased. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the entire evidence of prosecution was developed subsequently as after thought by cleverly disposing the dead body with pyre, by taking the situation as advantage prosecution falsely implicated the accused in this case. Moreover the evidence of prosecution witness was full of exaggerations and improvements and there is no corroboration to their evidence and prosecution failed to prove its case for the offence u/Sec.306

IPC against the accused and accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the light of the above arguments in order to come to a conclusion with regard to the above charges against the accused this court carefully considered the submissions of both sides and examined the entire material on record meticulously and appreciated the case law relied by both sides and had careful consideration to the settled legal prepositions with regard to the abetment of suicide in order to apply the said legal principles to the present set of case facts. Before going into the discussion and appreciation of evidence on record it is worthy to go through the provenance of the case facts.

Page No.7 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 (C) Facts of the case in brief:

16.The brief case of the prosecution as unfolded from the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-17 is that the deceased Bhagya Laxmi is younger sister of PW-1/B.Narsinga Rao. Said Bhagya Laxmi, was widow and her husband Bala Narsimha died in the year 2008 due to HIV. The deceased Bhagya Laxmi, was also infected with HIV and was taking treatment regularly. She has two children namely Manohar (13 years) (PW-

9) and Bala Krishna (11 years). On 18.03.2016 the deceased Bhagya

Laxmi committed suicide by hanging at her parents house Anajipuram. On the next day the dead body was cremated by the family members with pyre in her in laws place Proddutur.

17.Two days thereafter some of the family members brought to the notice of PW-1 that while performing bath to the dead body they noticed some injuries on the body of the deceased. It was also came to the notice of PW-1 and other family members that accused developed intimacy with deceased and promised her to marry and cheated her. It was also revealed that the accused came to the house of deceased on the date of her death and quarreled with her, bet her and refused to marry her. Hence because of the abetment of the accused the deceased committed suicide by hanging in her parent’s house. In this regard brother of the deceased i.e., PW-1 lodged the report in police station on 26.03.2016. Police registered the case U/Sec.174 Cr.P.C. and investigated into. During the course of investigation it was revealed that on the date of the incident accused met his friend Uday Kumar (PW-4) to whom accused revealed that a quarrel was taken place with deceased and ‘he abused her to die’ and now she is not answering his calls and requested the PW-4 to go and check the situation of deceased. Accordingly PW-4 went to the house of deceased and found her dead body hanging and informed the same to accused.

Page No.8 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

17. During the course of investigation police seized love letters and photographs (Ex.P2 to PW4) of accused and deceased. PW-3 Pooja stated to be the direct witness for the abetment of accused. According to her when she returned from school she found the accused in the house of deceased while quarreling and refused to marry her as she was an AIDS patient. Initially on 26.03.2016 the FIR was registered under section 174

Cr.P.C., and thereafter altered into sec.306 IPC. During the course of investigation police examined all the witnesses and arrested the accused on 21.04.2016 who confessed the offence in the presence of PW-14 and

LW-21/Bollepally Yedukondallu, and police recorded Ex.P12 confession panchanama of accused in the presence of mediators.

18.For better understanding of the facts, and for ready reference of the events taken place in this case and to avoid the confusion, this court deem it proper to refer the entire facts and all the events which were taken place in the present case in a table in ‘chronological order’ as under:

(D) Chronological order of the events with remarks:-

Sl. Date Time Event Remarks No 118.03.201605:30 P.MPresence of accused withDelayed and Doubtful deceased in the parents houseevidence of PW-3 without of deceased and alleged quarrelcorroboration take place between them (witnessed by PW3) 218.03.201606:30 toPW-4 had been to the parentsDelayed and Doubtful 07:00 P.M.house of deceased at theevidence of PW-3 without request of accused and saw hercorroboration and he was dead body while hangingexamined by police on through the doors which were13.04.2016. open 318.03.201607:30 P.M.PW-11 Mother of the deceasedInconsistent in between seen the dead body of thethe evidence of PW-4 and deceased while hanging inPW-11 regarding whether pooja room by opening thedoors were opened are doorsclosed when they first

Page No.9 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 saw the dead body. Sl. Date Time Event Remarks No 418.03.2016Night Hours Dead body of deceased wasRevealed though of PW-7 shifted from Anajipur (parent’sand other witnesses house) to Prodhutur i.e., to her in laws place 519.03.2016Time notPW-5 and PW-6 alleged to noticeNo reliable evidence in this specified burn injuries with cigarette on theregard. body of deceased while performingThis fact Not disclosed to bath to the dead body during finalanyoneimmediately. rituals (on 20.03.2016).Reported to police seven days thereafter. Evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 is parrot like and not corroborated with PW-1, PW-8 and PW-11 619.03.2016Time notFinal rituals and disposal of theNo ash or any remains found specifieddead body of deceased byduring panchanama in burial cremation with pyre in Prodhutturground. Not explained why (with out informing to police)the suicide was not in found to police before cremation. 720.03.2016Time notPW-5 and PW-6 alleged to revealPW-5 and PW-6 not deposed specified about finding of injuries on thein their evidence that they dead body to their familyinformed about noticing members injuries to PW1, 8 and 11. Evidence of PW’s.1, 8 and 11 not corroborated with PW-5 and PW-6 in this regard.

820.03.2016Time notReturning of PW’s.1, 8 and 11 andPW-1 got laminated the specified other family members to theirletters and retained Ex.P2 to house at Anajipuram and searchedEx.P4withhimtill due to suspicion and found letters26.03.2016andnot and photos and mobile phoneinformed to police for six Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 and MO-1 in theirdays, without offering any house.Explanation.

920.03.2016Time notPW-3 disclosed to PW-1 and otherThereareseveral specifiedfamilymembersthatsheimprovements in the version witnessed the accused andof PW-3 from Ex.P1 report deceased in their house on thetill the evidence of PW-3. date of suicide at 05:30 PMPW-3 was not examined by police for 17 days i.e., till 12.04.2016 with our any reason.

Page No.10 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

Sl. Date Time Event Remarks No 1026.03.201604:00 P.M.PW-1 lodged Ex.P1 report in(I) Murder allegations P.S.Bhongir Rural and case inwere made in FIR against Cr.No.53 of 2016 registeredthe accused under Sec.174 Cr.P.C..(ii) Delay of 8 days not explained in Ex.P1 report.

(iii) Not contains any endorsement of receipt of time or date of FIR by

Magistrate/M.R.O.Bhongir

and no proof for receipt of thesamebythe

Magistrate/Executive

Magistrate.

(iv) Admittedly though PW-1 was examined by police immediately after Ex.P1, his version is quite contrary to the averments of Ex.P1 report 1126.03.201605:00 P.M.Ex.P17 Scene of offenceNoconsistencyin panchanama at the house ofbetween the evidence of fatherofthedeceasedPW-1 and PW-15 Anajipuram and police seized Ex.P2 to P4 and MO-1 1227.03.2016Time keptEx.P7 Panchanama conductedNo medical or scientific blankevidence available on at burial ground Prodhuttur and record. no ash or remains found 1312.04.2016Time notPW-3 alleged eye witnessNo explanation offered for specified such huge delay of 17 examined by police daysandEx.D1 contradiction found.

1413.04.2016Time notPW-4 friend of accused and aNo explanation offered for specified suchdelay.Ex.D2 crucial witness examined by contradiction found. police 1518.04.2016Time notSection of law altered byDelay not explained specified investigating officer PW-17 from

Sec.174 Cr.P.C. to Sec.306 IPC 1621.04.201601:00 PMPolice PW-17 arrested theNothing was recovered. Hence said confession is accused at his father’s house in

Page No.11 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

Anajipuramandrecordedhit by section 25, 26 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act confession statement in the presence of PW-14 and another mediator. 1724.06.2016In view of alteration of SectionDelay not explained of law FIR dated:26.03.2016 was forwarded to court by

Tahsildar Bhongir, by M.R.O with covering letter, which received in court on 25.06.2016. i.e.,3 months after the incident. 1802.11.2016Time notCharge sheet filed by PW-17 specified against accused u/Sec.306 IPC and received in Addl.Junior Civil

Judge Court, Bhongir

(E) Particulars of prosecution witnesses and relevancy of their

evidence:

19.In the present case total 17 witnesses were examined by prosecution. The offence was taken place on 18.03.2016. The PW- 1/B.Narsing Rao, brother of the deceased is hear say and he lodged the

Ex.P1 report to police, on 26.03.2016. PW-2/Bollepally Chittu Babu, neighbour came to the scene of offence on hearing the screamings and he along with LW-6 Bollepally Raju, untied the dead body, and informed to the in-laws of the deceased. PW-3 Bollepally Pooja, is stated to be the direct witness to the presence of accused in the house of deceased on relevant date and that she witnessed the alleged quarrel between accused and deceased, on her return from school. PW-4 Mamidi Uday Kumar, is stated to be the friend of accused, before whom accused revealed the incident and his abetment and sent him to the house of deceased to check the situation at the house of deceased. Accordingly PW4 went to the house of parents of deceased and found her dead body hanging and no one present

Page No.12 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 in the house at that time and he informed to accused. PW-5/Bollpeally

Madhavi, is sister-in-law of the deceased and mother of PW-3. PW- 6/Mogilipaka Pochamma, is sister of deceased. PW5 and PW6 found the injuries and burn injuries with cigarette on the body of deceased while performing bath during last rituals.

20. PW-7/Galla Venkata Chandraiah, is brother-in-law of deceased who has taken the dead body of deceased to their village Proddutur from

Anajipur. PW-8/Bollepally Swamy, is brother of deceased and came to know about the quarreling between accused and deceased through his daughter PW-3. PW-9/Mogilipaka Kavya, is niece of deceased who came to know through family members that deceased had extra marital relationship with accused and that accused abused her to die.

21. PW-10/Mogilipaka Manasa, niece of the deceased noticed the visits of accused to the house of deceased and came to know through family members that the deceased had illegal intimacy with accused and accused visited her house on the date of incident and abused her to die.

PW-11/B.Narsamma, is mother of deceased while searching for deceased opened the doors of pooja room and found the dead body of the deceased hanging to the roof on 18.03.2016 at 07:30 PM and screamed and fell off.

PW-12/V.Manohar, son of the deceased was in hostel at the time of the incident and revealed that accused used to visit the hostel along with his mother and he came to know that due to the harassment of accused his mother committed suicide.

22. PW-13/A.Hari Shankar, is the lab assistant from whose lab accused got tested himself for HIV negative and accused revealed to PW-13 about his physical relationship with patient of HIV. PW-14/D.Manikam, is the mediator for confession and seizure panchanama. PW-15/Pittala Muthaiah, is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5 and for seizure of MO-1 scarf and MO-2 Nokia Mobile phone and Ex.P2 letter and

Page No.13 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 photographs. PW-16/P.Shekar, is the panch witness who observed the burial ground and found no remains available and signed on

Ex.P7 panchanama, dated:27.03.2016. PW-17/Md.Sajeedullah, is the then

Sub-Inspector of Police Bhongir Rural, P.S. who registered the case investigated into, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused and filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation.

23.This court carefully examined the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the testimonies of PW-1 to 17 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12.

PW-1 is defacto complainant PW-8 is his brother. By and large the evidence of PW-1 and PW-8 is only hear say evidence regarding abetment and they found the letters and photographs in the house of deceased and

PW-1 lodged the report. The evidence of PW-2 Chitti Babu, who untied the dead body and brought down to the ground. The evidence of PW-4/Uday

Kumar, and the evidence of PW-3/Pooja is very much material in this case.

The evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 who found the injuries on the dead body of the deceased is also very much crucial in this case. The evidence of

PW-7 who has taken the dead body of deceased to their village for cremation is not having much importance and significance. The evidence of PW-9/Mogilipaka Kavya is also hear say witness, who came to know about the facts of the case through family members. PW-10/Mogilipaka

Manasa, is also hear say witness who came to know about the facts of the case through family members. However PW-10 deposed that she witnessed the accused who used to visit the house of deceased and on enquiry deceased informed her that she knows him as he is their neighbor.

The evidence of PW-12 son of the deceased is also hear say witness with regard to the facts of the case. However PW-12 is direct witness to the visits of accused to his hostel along with his mother.

24.The other witnesses are confession and scene of offences panchayatdars and investigating officer and evidence of lab person.

Page No.14 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

25.The learned Addl.Public prosecutor argued that from the evidence of

PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 and from the evidence of PW-5 & 6 prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and it is evident from the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 that on the date of the incident accused went to the house of deceased and abused her and abetted her suicide.

Therefore accused is liable for the death of the deceased and prosecution proved the charges against the accused for the offence u/Sec.306 IPC. On the other hand the case of the defense is that of total denial.

(F) Appreciation of Evidence:

(i). PW-1 – Brother of deceased – set the criminal law into motion, but after 8 days.

26.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW-1 it is revealed that on 18.03.2016 at about 07:30 PM when his mother PW-11/Bollepally

Narsimha, called his deceased sister Bhagya Laxmi she didn’t respond.

Thereafter his mother went inside Pooja Room to get the rice and opened pooja room doors and saw deceased Bhagya Laxmi, was hanging to the roof. Then his mother screamed and fell down. On hearing the same his father LW-3/Bollepally Sathaiah, came there and saw the deceased and raised hues and cries. Thereafter PW-2/Bollepally Chittu Babu, and LW- 6/Bollepally Raju, came there and untied the deceased and brought her body on the ground. Thereafter on receiving information over phone PW- 7/Chandraiah, brother-in-law of deceased came and shifted the deceased corpse to their village Proddatur since it was inauspicious to conduct final rituals in the village of parents of PW-1. On the next day final rituals of deceased were conducted and the dead body was cremated. On the same day PW-7 arranged pyre and son of the deceased performed final rituals.

It was further deposed by PW-1 that during final rituals while performing bath to the deceased PW-5 Bollepally Madhavi, and PW-6 Mogilipaka

Pochamma, saw burn injury marks and injuries on the body of the deceased.

Page No.15 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

27.In his evidence PW-1 further revealed that on the next day after performing final rituals PW-5 and PW-6 informed him that they saw burn injury marks and injuries on the body of the deceased while performing bath. After returning their house on suspicion PW-1 searched and found

Ex.P2 letter and Ex.P3, Ex.P4 photographs of deceased with accused and

MO-2:mobile phone bearing mobile No.8688922052. PW-1 further deposed that when they were in grief, PW-3/Pooja informed them that on that day when deceased hung her self, when she returned from school PW- 3 saw the accused quarreling with deceased by stating that accused will perform another marriage with other women, since deceased is an HIV patient and he also bet the deceased. PW-3 also informed that, when deceased questioned the accused as to why he is performing another marriage after leading conjugal life with her for about 4 years, for which accused stated that, he is not willing to lead marital life with her as she is

HIV patient. As such accused cursed the deceased to die so that he can perform another marriage. After hearing the same from PW-3, when they were discussing in their family, PW-9 and PW-10 stated to them that deceased had an affair with the accused from the past 2 to 3 years and they saw when accused came to her house. Then the son of deceased PW- 12 informed him that accused came along with deceased to his hostel.

According to PW-1 they also came to know that, accused after beating the deceased, on his return accused met his friend PW-4/Mamidi

Uday Kumar, and informed him that the deceased was not answering his calls and he left the mobile phone at the house of accused and asked him to go and check the situation at the house of deceased. Accordingly PW-4 went to the house of deceased and after seeing he informed the accused that deceased hung her self and died. After receiving above information from PW-3 to PW-6. On 20.03.2016 PW-1 filed Ex.P1 report in the police station after two days i.e., on 26.03.2016 against the accused as responsible for the death of deceased. PW-1 further deposed that the son

Page No.16 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 of the deceased Bala Krishna, when he returned from school on the day of incident saw the accused, when he physically assaulted the deceased (But said Bala Krishna was not examined by police and not examined by prosecution in this case). PW-1 handed over Ex.P2:letter, Ex:P3,

Ex.P4:Photographs and MO-2:Mobile phone to police. As seen from the above narration Major portion of the evidence of PW-1 is hear say only.

28.PW-1 was cross examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination PW-1 deposed that he was working as medical representative and studied Bsc and he is having awareness about

Indian Law. On 18.03.2016 at 07:30 PM he came to know about the incident and by the time he reached the house, the dead body of the deceased was not there and it was taken by family members of the deceased to Proddutur. On 18.03.2016 he did not make any effort to search in his house nor made any enquires about the cause of death of the deceased. On 20.03.2016 he received information about the injuries on the dead body of the deceased but he did not lodge any compliant to police but he went to his village Anajipuram at 02:00 or 03:00 PM on that day. PW-1 further admitted that he did not lodge any report to police even after finding Ex.P2 to Ex.P4. On 26.03.2016 PW-1 got laminated Ex.P2 to

Ex.P4 (letters and photographs of accused and deceased) at Bhongir till then the same were in his custody. Ex.P1 report was scribed by his friend on his narration and he presented the same at 10 – 11 A.M on 26.03.2016 and he was examined by police on the same day in between 04:00 to 06:00 PM. PW-1 further admitted that there is change in his version in

Ex.P1 report and statement to police as to the cause of death of the deceased.

(ii) PW-1 – a Hearsay witness:

Page No.17 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

29.From the above testimony of PW-1 it is evident that he is not the direct witness for all the facts deposed by him in his evidence. The incident was stated to be occurred in the house of the deceased at

Anajipuram. Admittedly the PW-1 reached home after the dead body was shifted to the in-laws place of deceased at Poddituru by PW-7. PW-1 was not there when his parents found the dead body of his sister while hanging in pooja room and when it was untied by PW-2 and LW-6/Bollepally Raju.

However he is the direct witness for finding the Ex.P2:Letter and Ex.P3,

Ex.P4:Photographs and MO-2:Mobile phone from the house of deceased on 20.03.2016 and lodging of his report in the police station on 26.03.2016.

(iii). Hear say evidence with out corroboration can’t be accepted:

30.As seen from the above it is clear that except finding the letter and photographs (Ex.P2 to Ex.P4) in the house their parents, rest of the evidence of PW-1 is not direct evidence and it is hear say only. The evidence of PW-1 is hear say with regard to the fact that revealed by PW-5 and PW-6 revealed to him that they found alleged injuries on the body of deceased while performing bath to deceased etc., PW-1 is hear say witness also for the fact alleged to be revealed by PW-3 to him about the quarrel stated to be taken place between deceased and accused on the date of the incident and abetment by accused. The version of PW-12 that accused used to accompany the deceased to the hostel of PW-12 and also the fact that disclosed by PW-9 and PW-10 to him that accused had affair with deceased and used to visit the house of deceased for the last couple of years etc., are also nothing but hear say evidence of PW-1.

31.Therefore except the evidence in respect of finding Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 in the house by PW-1 during his search on suspicion and except presenting his Ex.P1 report to police and hand overing Ex.P2 to P4 and MO2 to police, rest of the evidence of PW-1 is not at all relevant and not admissible since it is nothing but hear say. Apart from the evidence of PW-1, the evidence of his brother PW-8, and his family members PW-9, 10 and 12 is also hear say

Page No.18 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 evidence. At best it was revealed from them as direct witnesses for the acquittance between accused and deceased. Therefore the Major part of the evidence of PW1, PW8, PW9, PW10 and PW12 is hear say only. As per section 60 of Indian Evidence Act every evidence must be direct.

Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 reads as follows.

Section 60 Oral evidence must be direct:- Oral evidence must, in all cases what ever, be direct; that is to say :-

If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;

If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;

If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;

If it refers to an opinion are to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds;

32.From the above reading it is clear that oral evidence must be direct and it must be given by the person who saw it and who perceived it and if it relates to a fact of anything heard, it should be by the person who heard it. Therefore the evidence of PW-1 so also the evidence of PW8, 9, 10 and 12 is mostly hear say, therefore it will not have any importance with regard to the material allegations against the accused and with regard to the crucial aspect of abetment. Without corroboration the hear say evidence can’t be relied upon. However evidence of PW-1 is relevant in respect of finding Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 in the house and hand-overing the same to police and presenting of Ex.P1 report.

Page No.19 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

33.The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW-1 is not a reliable and trustworthy and because of the animosity between himself and accused and due to civil disputes he tried to implicate the accused in this case by giving false version. I will discuss the evidence of PW-1 in detail in coming paragraphs, but apparently his evidence is not a direct evidence in respect of material allegations against the accused in respect of charges under section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The version of PW-1 is not corroborated by PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6.

34.Apart from this it is pertinent to note that though PW-1 deposed that

PW-5 and PW-6 found the injuries on the body of deceased and informed the same to him, the PW-5 and PW-6 did not depose in their evidence that, they informed the same to PW-1 or to any of their family members.

Moreover according to PW-1 younger son of deceased namely Bala Krishna on returning from school found the accused physically assaulted the deceased and informed to PW-1. But for the reasons best know to prosecution said Bala Krishna younger son of deceased was not examined by prosecution.

Similarly according to PW-1, PW-3 saw the quarrel, harassment of accused on deceased on the date of her suicide and informed to PW-1 and others surprisingly PW-3 did not depose that she revealed all that to PW-1.

Hence the version of PW-1 was not corroborate by PW-3, 5 & 6.

(v) The evidence of PW-3 and its reliability:

35.The other material witness in the present case is PW-3 Bollepally

Pooja, who is niece of deceased and daughter of PW-8 Bollepally Swamy.

According to PW-3 on 18.03.2016 at 05:30 P.M. she went to her grand parents house There PW-3 saw the accused and her deceased aunt were quarreling with each other. She saw her aunt was crying. PW-3 watched the quarrel. She heard accused saying to her aunt that he won’t marry her, as she is an AIDS patient. On hearing the same her aunt questioned

Page No.20 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 the accused as to why he cheated her, as accused continued the relation ship with her for about 7 years even on knowing her ailment. On hearing the same accused abused her and bet her and left from that place. On seeing the same she got frightened and she too left from that place. After some time, she heard screamings of her grand parents and when she went to that house she came to know that her aunt committed suicide by hanging her self. Later, the corpse of her deceased aunt was shifted to

Proddutur for performing last rites and they returned back after two days.

After reaching house when her grand parents were in grief, searched their house and found photographs and writings. Seeing the same when they asked PW-3, she told them about the quarrel between accused and deceased on that day.

36.PW-3 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused and in her cross-examination it was revealed that she was examined by police on 12.04.2016 at her house. She did not attend her school on that day. In her evidence Ex.D1 contraction was proved to that effect that on 18.03.2016 at 05:30 P.M. when she was present in her grand parents house by then accused was also present in the house. According to PW-3 their house is back side of the house of her grand parents and that her parents and grand parents were not present in the house at the time of the incident.

37.There are several discrepancies in between the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3. According to PW-1 after tracing the photographs and letter (Ex.P2 to Ex.P4) in the house i.e., on 20.03.2016. PW-3 informed them about the quarrel between accused and deceased on the date of death of deceased. According to PW-1, PW-3 informed them that when deceased questioned the accused ‘he cursed the deceased to die’ so that he can perform another marriage. Surprisingly the said crucial fact that accused asked the deceased to die so that he can perform another marriage was not deposed by PW-3 in her evidence. PW-3 deposed only with regard to

Page No.21 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 the quarrel and that accused bet the deceased. No were PW-3 deposed that accused instigated and cursed the deceased to die. It is nothing but improvisation made by PW-1. When PW-3 did not depose the said fact in her evidence, the version of PW-1 and other witnesses that PW-3 informed them that ‘accused cursed the deceased to die can’t be believed’. Hence there is no direct evidence for the allegation that accused cursed the deceased to die. This was the exaggeration of PW-1 as if PW-3 informed him.

38.It is pertinent to note that PW-3 did not depose that she over heard the quarrel. According to her she saw the accused and deceased and watched the quarrel directly and on seeing the same she got frightened and left the place. Hence according to PW-3 she is direct witness to the incident. PW-3 did not depose from where she witnessed the said incident.

If she witnessed the incident and saw the accused beating the deceased, she did not depose where the accused bet the deceased and with which object or instrument he bet her and whether he caused any injury to her, if so on which part of the body?. The evidence of PW-3 is silent in this regard.

39.Moreover as per rough sketch so also the evidence of PW-11, the scene of offence house is the parent’s house of deceased. It is the specific evidence of PW-11 that the scene of offence house is consisting of three rooms i.e., One hall, Kitchen and Pooja room. It is the evidence of PW-3 that when she returned from school, she noticed the accused and deceased in the house and witnessed the quarrel. When the house is consisting of only three rooms, from which room the PW-3 witnessed the incident. As per Ex.D1 contradiction, when she was in her grand parent’s house, the accused and deceased were already there. The Ex.D1 is quite contrary to the evidence of PW-3 that when she was returning from school she found the accused and deceased. Except PW-3 no other neighbor is

Page No.22 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 examined to prove the quarrel and presence of accused in the house of deceased on relevant day.

40. It is major lapse on the part of the investigating agency that PW-3 was examined by police on 12.04.2016 i.e., 25 days after the incident and 17 days after the registration of F.I.R. this is one more doubtful circumstance in the case of prosecution. Though name of the PW-3 was referred as witness in FIR, police took 17 days to examine the said crucial witness (PW3).

(vi) Why the material facts revealed by PW-3 were not incorporated in FIR ?

41.While appreciating the evidence of PW-3 it is just and proper to have a glance on Ex.P1 report, dated:26.03.2016 which was presented by PW-1.

In F.I.R. it was mentioned that on 20.03.2016 when they searched in the house they found the letter and photographs and when they were discussing the same, PW-3 informed them by crying that ‘on the date of death of the deceased on 18.03.2016 at 05:30 P.M. the accused was present in the house along with deceased. Basing on that their suspicion was strengthened’. Hence it is clear from Ex.P1 report that except about the presence of accused in the house PW-3 did not disclose anything to

PW-1. It is very suprise that if PW-3 revealed all the facts to the family members and to PW-1 about the quarrel between accused and deceased on the date of the incident as deposed by PW-1, PW-8 and PW- 11 and if the accused really bet the deceased in the presence of PW-3, why the said fact was not found place in F.I.R. If PW-3 revealed all the facts to PW-1 on 20.03.2016 which were deposed by her in her evidence, why PW-1 omitted to mention the said crucial allegation in his Ex.P1 report. Without referring the said material fact in F.I.R. the improved version of PW-3 after 17 day’s can’t be taken into consideration.

Page No.23 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

42.This court is very much conscious about the basic settled legal principle of criminal law that F.I.R is not an encyclopedia of a case. But it has to be seen if the crucial and material allegation upon which the entire case of the prosecution is rests upon is missing in FIR. The material allegations that accused quarreled with the deceased on the date of her death i.e., on 18.03.2016 at about 05:30 PM and bet her and cursed and instigated her to commit suicide and if any such serious incident was occurred and if at all, the same was witnessed and revealed by her to PW- 1 and others even before lodging F.I.R, what prevented the PW-1 from ignoring or suppressing the said crucial point in his F.I.R and why he did not choose to mention the said material allegation and crucial fact in his

F.I.R. Non mentioning of the said material allegation against the accused which was alleged to be revealed by PW-3 to PW-1 and others, coupled with the abnormal delay of 17 days in examining the PW-3 by police is creating strong doubt with regard to the testimony of PW-3 that she witnessed the quarrel between accused and deceased on 18.03.2016 at 05:30 PM. If PW-3 really witnessed the entire episode as narrated by her in her evidence, why it was mentioned in Ex.P1 report that she simply stated to PW-1 that ‘she found the accused with deceased in their house’.

The Ex.P1 report of PW-1 contains only said vague information that PW3 saw the accused in the house of deceased on that day. Thus rest of the improved version of PW-1 and PW-3 would be nothing but ‘after thought’, and not reliable. Therefore this court is of the opinion that it is not safe to rely on the entire evidence of PW-3 about the alleged quarrel between accused and deceased and the allegation that accused bet the deceased on that day and he cursed her to die. This can be considered as improved version of PW-3 as after thought, and may be due to tutoring or otherwise.

(vii) Abnormal and unexplained delay in examining the PW-3 and PW-4 by police:

Page No.24 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

43. Moreover there is delay in examining the PW-3 & PW-4 by police for more than 17 days. In this regard it was argued by the learned Addl.Public

Prosecutor that due to fear PW-3 and PW-4 were not come forward to give their statement. The learned defence counsel argued that absolutely there is no evidence to show that due to fear of accused PW-3 and PW-4 were away from police and not available to give their statement.

44.In this regard the learned Addl.Public prosecutor relied on the

Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goutham Joardar Vs. State of

West Bengal in Crl.Apl.No.1181 of 2019 dated:09.10.2021. In this case with regard to the delay in recording the statements of the witnesses

Hon’ble Apex Court pleased to held that ‘accused persons are dangerous

and desperate men as such the delay in recording 164 statements of the eye witnesses itself cannot result in rejection of their testimony.’ In the referred case because of the fear created by the dangerous accused persons, the witnesses were terrorized and frightened.

45.Relying on the above Judgment learned Addl.Public Prosecutor contended that as the PW-3 was frightened with the incident there was delay in her examination as such the delay of 25 days (from the date of incident) in examining the PW-3 is not fatal to the case of prosecution.

This court is unable to accept the said contention of the prosecution. In the present case PW-3 and PW-4 were examined by police 25 days after the incident and 17 days after the FIR. But the prosecution failed to place any reasonable explanation for such delay and not explained the delay in examining the said witnesses. As found in the above referred Judgment, in the present case there is no material on record to show that accused was dangerous person and terrorized the witnesses and due to such fear the witnesses were away from police in all those days and due to fear for about one month or so they were not available to police for their examination.

Page No.25 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

46.It is pertinent to note that here it is not the case of prosecution and it is not the evidence of either PW-3 or PW-5 and PW-8 parents of the PW-3 or not the evidence of PW-17 investigating officer or even it is not the version of PW-1 or any of the prosecution witness that as PW-3 was afraid of the accused and incident, and PW-3 was unable to give her statement to police, for that reason only she was not examined by the police promptly.

Absolutely there is no evidence that as witnesses were frightened there was delay of 17 days in examining PW-3 by the PW-17 Police Officer even after registration of the F.I.R. On the simple reason that on the date of the incident PW-3 left the place and went to her parent’s house as she was frightened, the prosecution cannot take the advantage of the said word ‘frightened’. Without placing any reliable and specific evidence to explain the said delay of 25 days, it cannot be presumed that due to fear the witnesses did not give her statement. There is no evidence that because the witness was frightened she did not come forward to give her statement, and that there was delay in her examination. If it is so, it must be deposed by PW-3 or her parents. The said ground if any should be supported and corroborated by the investigating officer, by referring any of his earlier attempts to examine the PW-3 immediately after registration of the FIR and depose about denial or hesitation or fear of PW-3 to give statement to police any time prior to 12.04.2016 (her date of examination). Without any such convincing and corroborative evidence this court cannot accept the version of the prosecution that as PW-3 and

PW-4 were frightened there was delay in recording their statements. In view of the above discussion the above referred Judgment relied by the prosecution is not at all helpful to the case of prosecution. The facts of the above referred case and present case in hand are entirely different. Hence without placing any such material that accused terrorized the witnesses it cannot be inferred by the court. Therefore the above citied judgment is not helpful to the case of prosecution in the present case in hand.

(viii) Doubtful circumstances around the evidence of PW-4.

Page No.26 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

47.Coming to the evidence of PW-4/Mamidi Uday Kumar, he is stated to be the friend of accused. In his evidence PW-4 deposed that ‘on 18.03.2016 after completing his duty in AGI glass factory he came to his home and after getting fresh he went out on his cycle to get water from gram panchayath office. On reaching ‘Pochamma temple’ he saw the accused sitting at ‘Pochamma temple’ and stopped him and his cycle and informed that he quarreled with deceased and he bet her, by abusing the deceased to die but now deceased is not answering his calls. Accused further asked him to go and check as to the situation of the deceased as to what she is doing. On request of accused, PW-4 went to the house of deceased and called her twice, but there was no response. Hence he went into the house and he then saw the deceased hanged her self to ceiling.

On being frightened immediately he informed the same to accused and hearing the same accused left the place murmuring to himself that deceased committed as she threatened him’.

48.In his cross-examination PW-4 deposed that he had acquaintance with PW-1. He do not know about land disputes between PW-1 and accused. He was examined by police on 13.04.2016 (18 days after F.I.R.

and 26 days after the incident). In his cross-examination Ex.D2 contradiction was elicited to that effect that ‘when he went to the water plant at Gram Panchayath office there he met the accused and informed him that he quarreled with deceased’. According to PW-4 he cannot say the exact time when he went to the house of deceased and it was about 06:30 to 07:00 P.M. he went there. PW-4 categorically deposed that

no one were present in the said house and the door was opened

when he went to the house of deceased. PW-4 alone went into the house of deceased. PW-4 admitted that he did not inform the incident to anyone including neighbors as he saw the deceased hanging in her room.

PW-4 denied the suggestion that he was deposing false at the instance of

PW-1.

Page No.27 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

49.There are several doubts and suspicious circumstances around the evidence of PW-4. As seen from the above evidence of PW-4 he was the first person who saw the dead body of the deceased while hanging.

According to him when he entered into the house no one were present and when he entered inside he found the dead body which was hanging. Hence it is clear that the death of the deceased or her suicide not know to the world till PW-4 noticed the dead body. According to PW-4 all the doors were open. It is very surprise that though he stated to saw the dead body of the deceased for the first time even before the family members on 18.03.2016 in between 06:30 to 07:00 PM, but he revealed the said fact to the police only on 13.04.2016 i.e., after 26 days i.e., on the date of his examination by PW-17 Investigating Officer. Apart from that it is clear that

PW-4 was examined 18 days after registration of FIR.

(ix). Why PW-4 was not examined by police for 26 days?

50.PW-4 is the first person who found the deceased dead while hanging.

The prosecution tried to prove extra judicial confession of accused through

PW-4. But PW-4 was examined by police 26 days after the alleged confession of accused to him. Without explaining the reason for delay of 26 days in examination of PW-4 by the (PW-17) Investigating Officer,

Addl.Public prosecutor again tried to rely on the above Judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goutham Joardar Vs. State of West Bengal.

The above discussion of this court with regard to delay in examination of

PW-3 is also relevant here in connection with absence of evidence on record that accused terrorized the witness etc., the said delay of 26 days in examining the witness by police is one of the strong and doubtful circumstance with regard to the reliability of PW-4. For the reasons best known to the investigating officer the PW-3 and PW-4 were not examined for about 17, 18 days even after registration of F.I.R. Hence the exaggerations and improvisations and embellishments in the evidences of

PW-3 and PW-4 are result of ‘after thought’ hence cannot be relied upon in the present case.

Page No.28 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

(x) Why PW-4 not disclosed the material facts and suppressed for about 26 days:

51.Though PW-4 first witnessed the dead body of deceased hanging and came to know through accused that because of him Bhagya Laxmi, committed suicide, being a responsible citizen PW-4 suppressed the said fact for about 26 days. He did not even reveal to anyone that Bhagya

Laxmi, committed suicide and that he is the first person who saw the dead body of Bhagya Laxmi, while hanging. Though he noticed the dead body and though the accused alleged to confess his guilt before him, PW-4 did not choose to disclose the same to police or to any one immediately and for about 26 days. There is no explanation by the prosecution or by PW-4 or by PW-17 Investigating Officer with regard to the said delay of 26 days in examining the PW-4 by police. PW-4 did not offer any explanation for not revealing the said fact of alleged confession of accused to anyone or to police on the date of incident and even about the suicide of the deceased and that it was due to instigation of the accused. This silence of PW-4 for about 26 days is creating strong doubt on his testimony and reliability.

52.According to PW-4 he met the accused at Pochamma Temple. In his evidence Ex.D2 is proved to that effect that ‘he met the accused at water plant near Gram Panchayath Office’. In his evidence PW-4 specifically deposed that he went to fetch the water from Gram Panchayath Office and when he reached Pochamma Temple, he saw the accused. But Ex.D2 is otherwise, that he met the accused at Gram Panchayath Office only. When

Pochamma Temple is on the way to Gram Panchayath Office, how two different versions of PW-4 that he met the accused at Pochamma Temple as deposed in his evidence and Ex.D2 version that he met the accused at

Gram Panchayath Office, water tank are possible. Among them only one version would be possible. For the above reason also the credibility of PW- 4 is highly doubtful.

Page No.29 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

(N) Conflict between the versions of PW-4 and PW-11 mother of

deceased:

53.In order to find out the reliability of PW-4, this court deem it proper to examine the evidence of PW-11/mother of the deceased carefully and both the evidences need to be scrutinized together to point out the conflicting versions. According to PW-11, on 18.03.2016 they all went to

Lingalaganapura Village to attend a marriage function and they returned home at 07:30 PM. After returning home she called the deceased but deceased did not respond. When PW-11 opened Pooja room doors she saw the deceased hanging to the roof. She screamed and fell off. Her husband

LW-3/B.Sathaiah, came there and raised hues and cries. Then PW-2 and

LW-6 Bollepally Raju, came there and brought the deceased on the ground by untieing.

54.From the above evidence of PW-11 it is clear that among the family members she first saw the dead body of the deceased while hanging to roof, that was at about 07:30 P.M. When she called for the deceased there was no response, hence she went inside and opened the doors of Pooja room and found the deceased hanging to the roof. Whereas it is the evidence of PW-4 that when he entered into the house none of the family members were present and doors were opened and when he went inside found the dead body of deceased hanging and he frightened and left the place.

(xi) Who closed the doors of Pooja Room ?

55.There is lot of ambiguity in between the versions of PW-4 and PW-11.

If according to PW-4 the doors were found opened when he saw the dead body how the PW-11 opened the closed door of pooja room and found the dead body. According to prosecution the deceased committed suicide in pooja room. According to PW-4 he entered into the house in between 06:30 or 07:00 PM and he found all the doors were opened and nobody were present in the house and he found the dead body hanging. Whereas

Page No.30 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 according to PW-11 at about 07:30 P.M. she opened the door and saw the dead body hanging. How it happened that the first person seen the doors opened and the second person found the doors closed. In such case prosecution has to explain who closed the doors after the visit of PW-4.

Hear the visit of PW-4 was in secrete. If PW-4 really saw the dead body at first in the house and doors were found open, and he left the house silently, how PW-11 was made to open the doors in search of deceased.

There is no evidence as to who closed the doors. On the other hand according to PW-4 the doors were opened through which he found the deceased hanging to the roof. Hence the evidence of PW-4 is quite contrary to the version of PW-11. It is not the evidence of PW-4 that after seeing the dead body he left the house by closing the doors. Hence the inconsistency and ambiguity in between the evidence of PW-4 and PW-11 is creating strong doubt on the testimony of PW-4 and it is very doubtful that PW-4 is trustworthy. Finally there is no answer from the side of prosecution to the question, who closed the doors of pooja room ?

(xii) Committing suicide (hanging) by keeping the doors open:- doubtful

56.Moreover the evidence of PW-4 is found to be against the normal course of human conduct. Normally if any one want to commit suicide they will secure privacy and will take minimum precaution to close their doors nearer though bolted them or not. It is minimum caution one may take, that some one should not enter inside the room or watch through opened doors while he or she was committing suicide by hanging. The preparation and attempt to commit suicide by hanging will take some considerable time. So it is obvious that the person attempting to commit suicide by hanging will certainly close the doors nearer in order to prevent any other from entering or looking into the room suddenly, which may obstruct his or her attempt of suicide by hanging. This is quite natural and normal course of human conduct. But the evidence of PW-4 which discloses that the doors were open when he entered into the house and he found the dead body of deceased while hanging to the sealing is found to

Page No.31 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 be far from truth which is inconsistent with the evidence of PW-11 that the doors of the room in which deceased committed suicide were closed and that she opened the doors found the hanging. In view of said discrepancy and ambiguity, between the versions of PW-4 and PW-11 and for the reasons discussed above, it is not at all safe to rely on the evidence of

PW-4.

57.In view of the above, it is clear that according to prosecution PW-4 was the first person to see the dead body of deceased after her hanging.

After seeing the dead body PW-4 simply left the place without informing to anyone. Thereafter PW-11/mother of the deceased saw the dead body and raised Hues and cries then people gathered there. According to PW-4 the doors were in open whereas according to PW-11 the doors were closed. In view of the discrepancy in the evidence of PW-4 and PW-11 as to whether doors were opened or closed when they first saw the deceased hanging and in view of the abnormal and unexplained delay of 25 days in examining the PW-4 by police and in view of not disclosing the crucial and material facts by the PW-4 to anyone in the village for several days even after seeing the dead body having knowledge about the reason for her suicide and in view of Ex.D2 contradiction the PW-4 is fond to be not trustworthy and his evidence is not at all reliable.

(xiii) Whether PW-5 and PW-6 who noticed the injuries on the body of deceased are trustworthy?

58.The other crucial witnesses in this case are PW-5 and PW-6 because of whom the suspicion on death of deceased was started. According to prosecution, the suspicion over the death of the deceased was started when PW-5 and PW-6 noticed the injuries on the dead body of the deceased while performing bath to the corpse of the deceased during last rituals. On the third day when PW-5 and PW-6 revealed the same to the family members, then they returned to their house at Anajipuram and

Page No.32 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 searched the house and found photographs and letter etc., Therefore the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 need to be examined carefully.

59.PW-5/Bollepally Madhavi is the sister-in-law of deceased and wife of

PW-8. PW-3/Pooja is the daughter of PW-5 and PW-8. According to PW-5 the deceased used to work in a cloth showroom at Bhongir, and she used to travel in auto of accused and she got acquittance with him out of acquittance accused lured the deceased on pretext of love and made false promise to marry her and maintained physical relationship for about 5 years when deceased insisted to marry her accused denied for marriage on the pretext that deceased is an HIV positive patient. Accused also abused and assaulted the deceased when she insisted to marry him and he also asked the deceased to die. Hence the deceased committed suicide by hanging her self in the house of her in-laws. And the final rituals were performed in Prodhuturu in her in-laws village.

As seen from the above evidence of PW-5, it is clear that her version in respect of the acquittance between accused and deceased and his promise to marry the deceased and developing of physical relationship and his refusal to marry the deceased on the pretext of HIV and that he assaulted and abused the deceased and asked her to die and due to that deceased committed suicide by hanging etc., is not her direct version.

The narration given by PW-5 with regard to the above facts is clear that she is not the direct witness for all the above facts and that her evidence is hear say only. PW-5 failed to state how she got information of all the above facts. It is not her evidence that she witnessed the affair between accused and deceased and that she witnessed when the accused promised the deceased to marry and after developing physical relationship for 5 years finally he denied to marry her on the ground of HIV and that he bet her assaulted her and asked her to die when she insisted the accused to marry him. If PW-5 is the direct witness to all these facts why she has not revealed the same to the family members or to the police immediately

Page No.33 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 after the suicide of the deceased. Since the said version of PW-5 is only her hear say evidence which she came to know through others it is not admissible under section 60 of Indian Evidence Act. It is needless to reiterate the basic legal principle that ‘every oral evidence must be direct’.

(xiv) Parrot like narration of PW-5 and PW-6 by word to word:

60.However the PW-5 is stated to be direct witness to the second part of her evidence along with PW-6 in respect of noticing injuries on the body of deceased. It is surprise that with regard to the material allegations the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 is one and the same, word to word. Both the depositions are same to same regarding relevant paragraph, as reproduced here under.

61.In this regard PW-5 deposed that “while performing final ritual of bathing the deceased corpse, I and PW-6 (LW-9) observed burn injuries on deceased body which were made with cigarette. After completion of rituals for three days, we returned to home where we found one photo and letter. When inquired PW-3 informed us that accused beat deceased in front of her and abused deceased to die as a result deceased committed suicide. We further came to know that PW-4 also came to house of deceased on the day of incident to verify the situation of deceased on the instructions of accused who informed PW-4 that, accused abused and beat deceased”.

62.Prosecution examined PW-6/Mogilipaka Pochamma, sister of the deceased to corroborate the testimony of PW-5. According to PW-6 she got phone call informing that deceased committed suicide at Anajipur

Village. Immediately PW-6 rushed to the scene of offence from where deceased corpse was shifted to her in-laws house at Prodhuturu. PW-6 further deposed with regard to noticing of injuries on the body of the deceased during bath. In this regard as referred above it is very surprise to note that the material part of the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 in that regard is nothing but a reproduction. This court deem it proper to

Page No.34 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 reproduce the relevant para in the evidence of PW-6 in respect of crucial and material allegation.

63.In this regard it is the version of PW-6 that “while performing final ritual of bathing the deceased corpse, I and PW-6 (LW-9) observed burn injuries on deceased body which were made with cigarette. After completion of rituals for three days, we returned to home where we found one photo and letter. When inquired PW-3 informed us that accused beat deceased in front of her and abused deceased to die as a result deceased committed suicide. We further came to know that PW-4 also came to house of deceased on the day of incident to verify the situation of deceased on the instructions of accused who informed PW-4 that, accused abused and beat deceased”.

64.When the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 is compared with one another with regard to the relevant para of material allegation that they found burn injuries with cigarette on the body of deceased during bath, it was narrated by PW-5 and PW-6 in uniform manner by word to word as parrot like, without single variation including full stop and coma.

65.Apart from the above even in the cross-examination the PW-5 and

PW-6 deposed their evidence as one and the same, inch to inch and word to word. There is no single variation in their cross-examination so also in the material part of their chief-examination. In their cross-examination

Pw-5 and PW-6 deposed in uniform manner and gave same answers for every question put to them and I deem it proper to reproduce the same for better appreciation.

66.In cross-examination of PW-5 and PW-6 they both deposed as under without a single variation “I cannot say exact date on which deceased committed suicide or there was tussle between accused and deceased. I do not know whether deceased husband died due to HIV+ve. It is not true to suggest that deceased and her husband led marital life in Mumbai. I came to know about the relation between accused and deceased from 5 years through PW.3. I do not

Page No.35 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 know the relationship between accused and deceased prior to intimation by PW.3. I did not witness the deceased committing suicide. It is not true to suggest that I do not know any facts about the incident occurred between deceased and accused but I am deposing false at the instance of Pws.1 to 3 as they are my relatives. It is not true to suggest that there are civil disputes between Pw.1 & Lw.2 to 3 and accused as the result they filed this false case and I am deposing at their instance. It is not true to suggest that no incidents occurred as alleged by prosecution and accused noway concerned with this case”.

(xv) Parrot like statements are disfavored by Courts.

67. From the above reading of the deposition of PW-5 and PW-6 with regard to the material portion of their chief-examination and entire part of their cross-examination is nothing but an “echolalia”. The parrot like repetition of every word spoken by one another and deposing with complete resembling with mechanical imitation and repetition of word to word by both the witnesses in the same manner giving arise to strong suspicion that such resemblance in the narration with word to word is possible only in the case of tutoring and such reproduction by both the witnesses is quite unnatural and suspicious more particularly when their evidence was recorded six years after the incident.

68.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v/s.

Lekh Raj and another in 1999 Supp (4) SCR 286 pleased to held that “The normal course of human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incidents there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. Parrot like statements are disfavored by the Courts.

69.In D.Venkata Reddy Vs. R.Sulthan and others reported in 1976 AIR 1599 Hon’ble Supreme Court pleased to held that “the court may refuse to accepts such evidence, because consistency alone is not the conclusive test of truth, Judicial experience shows that some times

Page No.36 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 even a tutored or parrot like evidence can be consistent and free from discrepancies and at not worthy of credence”.

70.Hence in view of the above, minor variations in the evidence of two witnesses are very natural and the evidence will flow with some natural discrepancies when it was narrated through the mouths of two different witnesses after lapse of considerable period of six years. When their evidence is copy to copy in word to word of one another in every varbatim and narration, then certainly it has to be suspected as the out come of tutoring and possible only in case of by heart. Here the material part of the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 is found to be one and the same by word to word and as parrot like therefore the same has to be viewed with strong suspicion.

(XVI) Other doubtful circumstances on evidence of PW-5 and PW-6.

71.Apart from the above the surrounding circumstances to the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 are creating strong doubt on their testimony and up on their reliability. Learned counsel for the accused argued that according to

PW-1, PW-8, PW-11 their family member PW-5 & 6 found injuries on the body of deceased during bath and informed to them. But PW-5 & 6 did not depose in their evidence that they revealed noticing injuries on the body of deceased to PW-1, 8 & 11. It is the evidence of PW-1, PW-8 and PW-11 that the suspicion arose only after PW-5 and PW-6 revealed to them that they noticed injuries on the body of deceased while performing bath and out of such suspicion they returned to the house of deceased in Anajipur and they searched the house and found letter and photographs etc.,

Hence it is clear that according to the family members of deceased (PW-1,

PW-8 and PW-11) it is the PW-5 and PW-6 who revealed about the injuries on the body of deceased to PW-1, PW-8 and PW-11 and to other family members. Absolutely there is no corroboration to the said version of PW-1

PW-8 and PW-11 by the PW-5 and PW-6.

Page No.37 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

It is very surprise that PW-5 and PW-6 did not depose in their evidence that after noticing the burn injuries on the body of the deceased they revealed the same either to PW-1 or to PW-8 or to PW-11 or to any of their family members. PW-5 and PW-6 simply deposed that they found burn injuries with cigarette on the body of the deceased and after completion of rituals for three days they returned home and found letter and photo. PW-5 and PW-6 did not depose that after noticing the burn injuries on the body of the deceased they disclosed the same to any of the family members. When PW-5 and PW-6 did not depose the same it is difficult to rely on the testimony of PW-1, 8 and 11 and other prosecution witnesses that PW-5 and PW-6 noticed the injuries and informed them then they started suspecting. It is very surprise that according to PW-5, the deceased committed suicide in her in-laws house which is quite contrary to the prosecution case.

(XVII) Whether injuries were noticed by villagers of in-laws place of

deceased as mentioned in FIR or by their own family members PW-5 and

6 as deposed by PW-1 and others ?

If so w hy the names of PW-5 and PW-6 were not referred in F.I.R.?

72.Apart from the above it is pertinent to note that in Ex.P1 report there was no reference about PW-5 and PW-6 that they noticed the injuries on the body of deceased while performing bath. As per Ex,P1 report which was presented by PW-1 show that “the village ladies of the mother-in- law’s place of deceased noticed hitting injuries and burn injuries on the body of the deceased.” Prodhuturu is the mother-in-law’s village of the deceased. The deceased, PW-1, PW-8, PW-11 including PW-5 and PW-6 belongs to Anajipur Village i.e., parents place of deceased where the alleged suicide was taken place. The dead body was shifted from Anajipur to Prodhuturu for final rituals. It is surprise to note that PW-5 and PW-6 are not the village ladies of mother-in-law’s village of the deceased. PW-5 is wife of PW-8 and sister-in-law of deceased who belongs to Anajipuram.

PW-6 is sister of the deceased and PW-1 and resident of Anajipuram. If

Page No.38 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

PW-5 and PW-6 sister-in-law and sister of PW-1 really noticed any injuries on the body of the deceased while performing bath and if they really disclosed the same to PW-1 why the said fact was not incorporated by PW- 1in Ex.P1 report and why PW-1 differently mentioned in Ex.P1 report that the ladies of the mother-in-law’s village of the deceased noticed the injuries instead of referring the names of his sister (PW-6) and sister-in-law (PW-5). Though FIR is not encyclopedia of a case such material omission of referring PW-5 and PW-6 and erroneous reference as village ladies of

Prodhuturu (mother-in-law’s place of deceased) is one of the strong circumstance to doubt the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 and the fact that they noticed injuries on the body.

Since PW-1 mentioned in Ex.P1 report that villagers of in-laws place of her sister found injuries on body of deceased, the version of PW-5 and

PW-6 is nothing but after thought. It can’t be believed that PW-5 and PW-6 alone saw the injuries.

(XVIII) Why PW-5 and PW-6 not opened their mouth for three days:

73.In addition to the above it is pertinent to note that if PW-5 and PW-6 really noticed the hitting injuries or burn injuries with cigarette as the case may be, why they did not reveal the same to any body till the completion of third day rituals of the deceased. Why PW-5 and PW-6 did not disclose the said fact even to PW-1 or to their mother PW-11 or PW-5 to her husband PW-8 till completion of third day rituals though the bathing of the deceased dead body was taken place on the second day itself. Even in their evidence PW-5 and PW-6 did not disclose that they informed about the injuries on the body of the deceased to any of their family members. It is the specific evidence of PW-1 that the final rituals of the deceased were performed on the next day of the death and PW-5 and PW-6 performed the bath to the deceased and seen burn injury marks. PW-1 further deposed that on the next day they performed final rituals and PW-5 and PW-6 informed him about the injuries on the deceased body. After returning to

Page No.39 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 their house, on suspicion they searched and found letter and photographs etc., Non disclosing of such crucial and very important fact that there were some injuries on the body of the deceased and noticed by PW-5 and

PW-6 and waiting till the dead body was crimited with pyre and disclosing the same on next day thereafter is highly suspicious and doubtful circumstance. If the family members noticed any of the injuries on the body of the deceased much less the burn injuries with cigarette they ought to have informed to police immediately for taking necessary action. Here the dead body was disposed by pyre on the second day, after completing the bath and other rituals but PW-5 and PW-6 alleged to disclose about noticing injuries to the family members on the third day, which is very much doubtful circumstance.

(XIX) No description of the injuries given by PW-5 and PW-6 and

no evidence as to on which part of the body there are injuries:

74.Apart from the above the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 is very vague.

They simply deposed that ‘while performing bath to the deceased corpse they observed burn injuries on deceased body which were made with cigarette.’ But PW-5 and PW-6 did not disclose on which part of the body they noticed such injuries on the body of deceased. PW-5 and PW-6 did not disclose even the approximate number of injuries noticed by them while performing bath to the deceased. There is no basis to the conclusion of PW-5 and PW-6 that the injuries found by them on the body of the deceased were made with cigarette. They did not describe the injuries and no descriptive particulars of injuries were deposed by PW-5 and PW-6 but they gave their conclusion as if they were made with cigarette. If such serious and important fact of burn injuries were found on body no reasonable family member will keep quite.

(XX) Nature and Cause of injuries not explained:

75.If the version of PW-5 and PW-6 that they noticed burn injuries on the body of the deceased is true, prosecution has to explain who caused

Page No.40 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 such injuries and when. It is not the case of prosecution that accused caused burn injuries on the body of the deceased with cigarette. Even according to the case of the prosecution and the version of PW-3 alleged eye witness that accused bet the deceased and left the place. PW-3 did not depose that accused caused burn injury to the deceased with cigarette. No cigarettes were seized at the scene of offence by police.

Except MO-1 scarf and MO-2 mobile phone no other material object was recovered at scene of offence by police. Hence it is clear that prosecution failed to explain who caused the alleged burn injuries on the body of deceased. Admittedly the dead body was disposed by cremation with pyre as arranged by PW-7 i.e., brother in law of deceased. Hear FIR was lodged 8 days after the incident by then the dead body was disposed without any evidence. There was no inquest or Postmortem examination report and at least there are no photographs of deceased dead body to find out the injuries if any present on the body of the deceased. Therefore absolutely there is no corroboration to the vague evidence of PW-5 and

PW-6.

76.Considering all the above circumstances and parrot like evidence of

PW-5 and PW-6 and without proper explanation by the prosecution with regard to non disclosing of injuries noticed by PW-5 and PW-6 to anyone till the third day and considering the vague evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 all the circumstances are creating strong doubt with regard to the testimony of

PW-5 and PW-6 and their evidence is not reliable. Even if the injuries on the body are proved it is difficult to find out who caused the said injuries, whether they were self inflicted by the deceased to punish her self for her fate or whether they were caused by the accused or any other person. In view the above discussion prosecution failed to connect the said injuries with accused. In view of the above discussion the evidence of PW-5 and

PW-6 is not reliable and convincing.

(XXI) Confession of accused in police custody - It’s admissibility ?

Page No.41 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

77.PW-14/D.Manikam, is the Retd.Employee who acted as mediator for confession of the accused along with one Bollepally Yedukondallu.

78.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of

PW-14 shows that he is very much interested in the case and his evidence reveals that he directly questioned the accused as to why he killed the deceased would show that he was enthusiastic in the present case. This court examined the evidence of PW-14 mediator and PW-17 investigating officer. In his evidence PW-14 mediator deposed that on 21.04.2016 at 01:30 PM Bhongir Rural police called him to the house of Mogilipaka

Pochaiah, at Anajipuram there accused was present with police and the mediators questioned the accused as to how long he was in relation ship with deceased and why he left her and what made him to kill her by beating for which accused reply that he roamed with deceased for the last five years and married her and when his marriage was fixed with other girl he asked her to leave him for which she refused and he bet her and left the house and he left his phone in her house and sent Uday kumar (PW-4) to her house and came to know that she was died. According to PW-14 during the quarrel deceased received injuries and he do not know how she died. In his cross-examination PW-14 admitted that PW-1 and PW-8 are his sons by courtesy and LW-3/Sathaiah, who is father of PW-1 and PW-8 is his elder brother. He signed on confession panchanama and Ex.P6 is his signature.

79.PW-17 investigating officer deposed that on 21.04.2016 he arrested the accused and when accused was in a mood to confess he secured the presence of PW-14 and LW-21/Bollepally Yedukondallu, mediators and recorded Ex.P12 confession panchanama of accused. It is needless to state that confession of accused in the custody of police is not admissible.

Page No.42 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

80. As per Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act - Confession to police officer not to be proved:- “No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence”.

81.As per Sec.26 Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him:-“No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against such person”.

82.As per Sec.27 How much information received from accused may be proved:-Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

83.From the combined reading of Sec.25 to Sec.27 of Indian Evidence act it is clear that confession to a police officer and confession in the custody of police officer cannot be proved, provided if such information of the accused leads to discovery of any material fact, then such information is relevant and said fact can be proved. Here though Ex.P12 confession panchanama of accused was produced, there was no recovery in consequence to the confession of accused. Since nothing was discovered and recovered from accused basing on the confession or information of the accused, the said statement and Ex.P12 panchanama cannot be proved.

Here the alleged confession of accused not leads to any recovery as such this court cannot accept the alleged confession of accused as per Sec.25,

Sec.26 and Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act, and the same is not admissible.

84.Coming to the evidence of PW-15/Pittala Muthaiah, Anajipuram he acted as mediator for scene of offence panchanama at the house of deceased along with LW-9/Sathaiah, according to him police conducted

Page No.43 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 scene of offence panchanama on 26.03.2016 at 04:30 PM and police seized one scarf (MO1) and Nokia Cell phone (MO2) letter (Ex.P2) and two photographs (Ex.P3 and Ex.P4) in his presence under cover of Ex.P5 panchanama. Police also drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. In his cross-examination PW-15 deposed that he has acquittance with PW-1 and

PW-8. No sketch was prepared by police in his presence. When they entered into the room they noticed the scarf tied to the been and seized the same. Police brought Ex.P2 letter and Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 photographs from outside and shown to him and they were seized. Police obtained his signatures on two written papers and two blank papers.

(XXII) Seizer of letters, photos and mobile phone (Ex.P2 to P4 and MO:2)

Doubtful and lamination of Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 scope for suspicion .

85.The above evidence of PW-15 is contrary to the evidence of PW-1 and Ex.P5 panchanama. As per Ex.P5 panchanama PW-1 was present at the house of father of deceased and on enquiry by the mediators PW-1 shown MO-1 scarf and MO-2 Nokia Cell phone and handed over laminated love letter of two pages and two photographs of accused along with deceased to them. Hence accordingly the MO-1 and MO-2 and Ex.P2 to

Ex.P4 were seized under cover of panchanama. Whereas PW-16 did not reveal about the presence of PW-1 and that he handed over MO-1 and MO- 2 and Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 to them at the scene of offence house. According to

PW-15 they seized MO1 and MO2 at scene of offence house and police brought PW2 letter PW3 and P4 photographs out side shown to PW-15 and they were also seized. This is quite contrary to the averments of Ex.P5 panchanama moreover it is the evidence of PW1 that he handed over MO2 mobile phone and Ex.P2 letter of 4 pages and Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 photographs to police.

86.It is pertinent to note that PW-1 found MO-2 Nokia mobile phone

Ex.P2 letter and Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 photographs on 20.03.2016 after returning from Podhuturu. At that time PW-3 also revealed about the

Page No.44 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 quarrel between accused and deceased on the date of suicide. But PW-1 did not lodge any report to police till 26.03.2016. Though Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 and MO-2 were found by him on 20.03.2016 he kept the same with him till 26.03.2016 and he got laminated Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 at Bhongir and kept them in his custody. As per Ex.P5 panchanama police seized two pages of laminated love letter. But according to PW1 he handed over the letters of four pages to police. But Ex.P2 is of two pages as referred in Ex.P5. But alleged four pages were not placed before this court as deposed by PW-1.

The conduct of the PW-1 is very doubtful in this regard. From this it can be suspected whether family members handed over all the letters found by them were handed over to police or any letter or suicide note were missed.

(G) No Scientific Evidence:

87.The prosecution failed to take any steps to send Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 and

MO2 for the FSL examination and to prove that Ex.P2 letters are in the hand writing of accused and that they were written by accused and that

MO2 mobile phone belongs to accused and containing the conversation between deceased and accused through MO.2. No call data or voice record pertaining to MO2, Mobile are placed before the court to prove the abetment of accused. According to PW-4 on that day accused informed him that deceased was not lifting his calls and requested him to go to her house. But prosecution did not take any steps to show that there were last missed calls of accused to the MO-2:Mobile Phone as deposed by PW-4.

(H) Abnormal delay in F.I.R. - un-explained.

88. Though PW-5 and PW-6 revealed about the injuries on the body of the deceased on 20.03.2016, and though PW-3 disclosed about the quarrel between accused and deceased just prior to her suicide, what prevented the PW-1 from lodging the report in police station for about six days. Why he retained the letters and photographs and phone for about six days with him without taking any action. What made the PW-1 to get

Page No.45 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 the Ex.P2 letters laminated in Bhongir and keeping them with him. PW-1 failed to give any reason for waiting for about six days. When death was caused by suicide it is the primary duty of the family members to inform the same to the police immediately. But here though the suicide was committed on 18.03.2016 there was no report till 26.03.2016. Even after receiving alleged information against the accused as responsible for the suicide of deceased no action was taken by PW-1 and other family members till 26.03.2016. Moreover the anxiety shown by PW-1 in getting lamination of Ex.P2 to P4 and retaining them with him for about six days without lodging police report is one of the strongest and doubtful circumstance on the case of the prosecution. When FIR was not lodged promptly and when FIR lodged in the case of suicide of women, 8 days after her death and six-days after starting of suspicion, is no doubt a fatal.

Moreover prosecution failed to explain the delay therefore there is room for suspicion that FIR was lodged as after thought with due deliberations and embellishments.

I. No Medical Evidence – 88.A. Here except the vague evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 there is no material to show that deceased sustained injuries. Absolutely there is no evidence as to nature of injuries, and reason for said injuries. Since the dead body was cremated by pyre, there is no medical evidence to prove injuries or even cause of death. There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6. When the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 is doubtful for the reasons discussed in previous paragraphs the evidence with regard to injuries needs corroboration. Prosecution must explain who caused the said injuries and when they were caused and nature of the weapon or instrument used for it. Absolutely there is no evidence to that effect.

88.B. As per Ex.P1 report, the allegation of PW-1 was that accused might have caused her death and he suspected accused kill him. But immediately PW-1 changed his version during examination by police and

Page No.46 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 stated her death as suicide due to abetment. But absolutely there is no clarity by prosecution in this regard. Prosecution thrown doubts on its own case, with regard to cause of death and not explained about injuries.

Without any Medical Evidence benefit shall certainly go to accused.

(J) Duty of the court to separate the grain from the Chaff in the

evidence on record:

89.As seen from the above evidence of PW-1, PW-3 to PW-6 and PW-11 there are several improvements and exaggerations in their evidence. It appears that some truth and some falsehood were mixed in their evidence. In this regard this court deem it proper to refer the Judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme court reported in AIR 2009 SC 157 Bur Singh vs State

of Punjab.In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court, pleased to held that.

90.“The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be discarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called `a mandatory rule of evidence'. (See Nisar Ali v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1957 SC 366).”

In this case it was further held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that:

91.“An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto.”

Page No.47 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

92.Therefore from the above reading it is clear that when the truth and false hood are mixed in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff, i.e., to separate truth from falsehood. It was further clarified that Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in case grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and when it is not feasible to separate the falsehood from the truth and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely, in such circumstances the only option left with the court is to discard the evidence in toto.

Therefore in the present case in hand also the truth and falsehood were inextricably mixed up in the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 to PW-6 and PW-11 and it is not at all possible to separate the truth and falsehood in their evidence and if it is attempted, it may leads to reconstruction of entirely new case. In such circumstances this court has no option left with, except to discard their evidence in toto. Accordingly here this court is unable to accept the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 to PW-6 and PW-11 which is combination of some truth some falsehood and exaggerations and change of versions and improvisations as after thought.

93.Though PW-12 son of the deceased was examined to prove the acquaintance between accused and deceased it will not have any significance in proving the charges against accused. From the evidence of

PW-12/V.Manahor, son of the deceased it is revealed that the deceased and accused together came to his hostel and used to give fruits and other necessary items. PW-12 came to know through his family members that because of the harassment of the accused his mother committed suicide.

Though PW-12 was cross examined his credibility was not impeached. The second part of his evidence that he came to know through his family members that due to the harassment of the accused his mother committed suicide is only a hear say evidence of PW-12. I found no reason

Page No.48 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 to disbelieve the version of PW-12 that accused accompanied his mother and they both together visited his hostel.

94.In view of the above this court believed the evidence of PW-12 to the extent that there was some relationship in between deceased and accused. But in order to prove the charge u/Sec.306 IPC mere proving relationship or friendship between accused and deceased is not sufficient.

There must be strong evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide and he should create such situation that there is no other option to the deceased except to commit suicide. The prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that accused committed such acts with an intention and menserea that the deceased would commit suicide.

95.In this regard even if the case of the prosecution allegations against the accused are accepted, it is not sufficient to prove the instigation and abetment of suicide of the deceased as required u/Sec.306 IPC r/w.107

IPC.

(K) Even if prosecution allegations are pr oved – no case of

abetment of suicide:

96.The material allegations of the prosecution case are that:-

(i). Accused and deceased are having acquaintance.

(ii) Accused developed physical relationship with deceased and promised her to marry initially and thereafter he denied to marry her on the ground that she is patient of HIV positive.

(iii) Accused quarreled with deceased and bet her when she insisted him to marry.

(iv) In the quarrel accused asked the deceased to die.

97.Except the point (I). above i.e., acquaintance between accused and deceased, the prosecution failed to prove the rest of the above three material allegations (ii to iv) against the accused with cogent and reliable

Page No.49 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 evidence and failed to prove them beyond all reasonable doubt. Even otherwise if the above three points (ii to iv) are proved by prosecution this court is of the opinion that they are not at all sufficient to treat the same as instigation and abetment of accused to commit suicide of the deceased.

(L) Refusing to Marry not amounting to Abetment of Suicide:

98.In this regard this court relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex

Court in Kanchan Sharma Vs. state of Uttar Pradesh and another in

Criminal Appeal No.1022/2021, dated:17.09.2021 in which Hon’ble

Supreme Court, held that mere refusing to marry does not amount to

Section 306 IPC.

(M) Saying ‘Go and Die’ in heated discussion is not abetment:

99.Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs.

State of M.P. in Crl.Appeal No.572 of 2002 dated:01.05.2002. (Indian

Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/393648/ 2Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs State Of M.P on 1 May, 2002). In this case Hon’ble Apex Court referred several Judgments and held that mere uttering the words ‘Go and die’ in heated discussion is not amounts to instigation or abetment to commit suicide.

100. In this case Hon’ble Apex Court pleased to held that “Section 107

I.P.C defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Before we advert further, at this stage we may notice a few decisions of this Court, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case.

Page No.50 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

101. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr. , 1995 Supp. (3)

SCC 438, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306

I.P.C. on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die' . This Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

(N) Beating and harassment not abetment:

102. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:

"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband

Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."

103. This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107 I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.

104. In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate , in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said. "A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the

Page No.51 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."” (Emphasis added).

105. The above Judgment is very much relevant in the present case in hand. In view of the above Judgment and the analogy of Hon’ble Supreme

Court the present case cannot bring u/Sec.306 IPC.

106. The same view was expressed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Telangana in Jangam Ravinder Vs. State of A.P. on 23.09.2023 in

Crl.Appl.No.975 of 2013 also reiterated the same principle.

107. In this case Hon’ble High Court of Telangana pleased to held that “Mere uttering the words "go and die" will not constitute the offence under

Section 306 of IPC. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased to "go and die" that itself does not constitute the ingredients of "instigation". The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. In Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/78369870/ 6Jangam Ravinder vs The State Of Ap., on 23 September, 2023 the present case also, the prosecution has (1994) 1 SCC 73 KL, J & SKS, J Crl.A.No.975 of 2013 failed to prove the mens rea, the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the offences under Sections 306 and 417 of IPC.

Page No.52 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

108. The trial Court came to conclusion that accused instigated the deceased by stating that "go and die" on that deceased committed suicide without discussing the evidence on record in proper perspective. Further wrongly, convicted the accused for the offences under Section 417 and 306 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment dated 28.10.2013 is not legally sustainable and it suffers with irregularity, as such, it is liable to be interfered with to the extent of convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 417, 306 of IPC and

Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. 20. In view thereof, this

Court is of the opinion that the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the appellant/accused as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt can be given to the appellant/accused.”

109. In view of above Judgments and discussion even if the evidence of

PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-8, PW-11 is accepted in toto that accused refused to marry the deceased and quarreled with her my asking her to die, it is clear that mere refusal to marry the deceased is not comes under instigation or abetment to commit suicide with in the ambit of Sec.306 of

IPC or Sec.107 IPC. Accordingly uttering the words by the accused in a heated quarrel that ‘go and die’ cannot be treated as instigation to commit suicide.

110. From the above settled Legal position it is clear that mere uttering the words ‘go and die’ or refused to marry the deceased and bet the deceased and abusing etc., even if proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the same does not comes within the ambit of instigation to commit suicide u/Sec.306 IPC. In fact the prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused must have guilty intention and menses-era, anticipating the end result of suicide of the deceased with his acts or

Page No.53 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 words. The accused with such intention must create a situation to the deceased without leaving any other option to her except to commit suicide. Here the alleged quarrel between the accused and deceased regarding the promise of marriage and alleged cheating even it is proved the same cannot be considered as instigation and accused cannot be held liable for the suicide of deceased.

111. Therefore in view of the above discussion this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that he instigated the deceased and abetted her suicide.

(O) Case Law relied by prosecution - and their relevancy.

112. The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor relied on 2009 0 AIR SC 1893 between Mohabbat and others Vs. State of M.P. in which Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that nearly because eye witnesses are family members or close relatives their evidence cannot per say be discarded.

113. This court is very much conscious about the above legal principle.

Here in the present case this court is unable to rely upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses more particularly the evidence of PW-3 to PW-6 not on the ground of their relationship with deceased but because of the lapses and discrepancies, improvements, exaggerations and contradictions in their evidence. Therefore the above cited Judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court will not improve the prosecution case in any

manner.

114. The Addl.Public prosecutor further relied on Judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme court between Rama Nand and others Vs. The state of H.P.

in 1981 0 AIR (SC 738). This Judgment was with regard to disposing of dead body by the accused. In this case Hon’ble Apex court pleased to held that the old English law principle finding of the body of the deceased

Page No.54 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 was held to be essential before a person was convicted of committing culpable homicide and pleased to conclude that this was only rule of and not of law. With grate Honour to the above citation this court is of the opinion that the above principle is universal but here it is the case of suicide. Moreover non availability of the dead body in the present case is only an additional factor. Even if the said defence of non production of the dead body is excluded the prosecution case will not stand as there is no sufficient evidence to prove the case of abetment. Hence above Judgment will not have much relevancy in present case in hand.

115. The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor also relied on Judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme court in M.D. Rojali Ali and others Vs.State of

Assam in Crl.Apl.No.1839 of 2010. In this Hon’ble Apex Court pleased to held that the eye witnesses though close relatives of deceased they cannot be considered as interested witness.

116. This court is conscious with regard to the above principle but hear the evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 to PW-6 and PW-11 and PW-8 were discarded on the ground of the infirmities found in their evidence and due to some exaggerations, improvements and discrepancies in their evidence.

There is no spontaneity in their evidence and there is a strong room for suspicion that it was out come of due deliberations and embellishments and as after thought. Moreover there is no corroboration between one another. Prosecution is unable to answer many questions raised by the defence. Evidence of majority of the witnesses is found to be hear say. For the above reasons this court is unable to rely on the testimony of said witnesses but not on the ground of their relationship. Hence the above

Judgment is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

Page No.55 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017 (P). Conclusion of this court:

117. In view of the above discussion and case law on both sides, this court has come to the conclusion that evidence with regard to the facts are doubtful and here the settled legal propositions are in favour of the case of the defence. There is no reliable evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There are several doubts on the prosecution case. Every evidence on record which was placed by the prosecution came into light with abnormal delay, and without explaining the said delay and giving scope to suspect the same as after thought.

There is no spontaneity in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses. There is no answer by the prosecution as to why the cremation was done hurriedly without informing to police. PW-1 admitted that he has legal knowledge. But he did not choose to inform to police immediately after suicide of his sister.

118. It is also to be taken into consideration that the deceased was a patient of HIV positive and taking treatment and she was a widow having two children. If the accused cheated her on the false promise of marriage and if he harassed her as alleged by prosecution, she can take legal course of action. It is very unfortunate that two innocent kids lost both their parents for one or the other reason. Merely on the ground that the deceased committed suicide the accused cannot be punished u/Sec.306

IPC by making him responsible for the death of her. While adjudicating the dispute this court will be guided by the settled legal principles and well established law more particularly with regard to the abetment of suicide rather than sympathies and emotions. The circumstances placed are not sufficient to show that accused is responsible for the suicide and he abetted the suicide.

This court is very much conscious about the fact that Dying for

accused is different from dying due to abetment of accused.

Page No.56 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

119. In view of the above discussion this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients for the charge u/Sec.306 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There are several clouds in the prosecution case. Prosecution failed to offer reasonable and satisfactory explanation for many of the doubts raised by the defence in this case. The circumstances are not sufficient to form a complete chain to point out the guilt against the accused that he was responsible for the suicide of the deceased and he abetted the same. Considering all the above circumstances this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to give benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Hence prosecution failed to prove its case for the charge u/Sec.306 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Point is answered accordingly against the prosecution.

In the result, accused found not guilty of the offence under Section 306 of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Accused not claimed the MO-2. The case property M.O.1:Scarf shall be destroyed and MO.2:Nokia mobile phone shall be confiscated to state by selling the same in auction after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of October, 2023.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT JUDGE

BHONGIR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE P.W.1/LW-1:B.Narsing Rao/brother of the deceased P.W.2/LW-5:Bollepally Chitti Babu P.W.3/LW-4:Bollepally Pooja-None- P.W.4/LW-7:Mamidi Uday Kumar P.W.5/LW-8:Bollepally Madhavi P.W.6/LW-9:Mogilipaka Pochamma P.W.7/LW-10:Galla Venkata Chandraiah P.W.8/LW-11:Bollepally Swamy P.W.9/LW-14:Mogilipaka Kavya P.W.10/LW-15:Mogilipaka Manasa

Page No.57 of 57 Fair in SC.48 of 2017

P.W.11/LW-2: B.Narsamma (mother of the deceased) P.W.12/LW-12:V.Manahor (son of the deceased) P.W.13/LW-13:A.Hari Shankar P.W.14/LW-14:D.Manikyam P.W.15/LW-17:Pittala Muthaiah P.W.16/LW-20:B.Shekar P.W.17/LW-23:Md.Sajeedullah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1:Report Ex.P2:Letter of accused Ex.P3 :Photographs Ex.P4:Photographs Ex.P5:Panchanama of scene of offence Ex.P6:Signature of PW-14 mediator of confession panchanama Ex.P7:Panchanama dated:27.03.2016 at Barial ground (through PW-16) Ex.P8:F.I.R./PW-17 Ex.P9:Scene of offence-cum-seizure-panchanama dated:26.03.2016/PW-17 Ex.P10:Medical record of deceased/PW-17 Ex.P11:Alteration Memo dated:18.04.2016/ PW-17 Ex.P12:Confession panchanama of accused dated:21.04.2016/PW-17

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: MO1: Scarf MO2:Mobile Phone

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3/LW-4 Ex.D2:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4/LW-7

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil-

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT JUDGE,

BHONGIR.

Page No.1 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT BHONGIR

Present:-Sri K.MURALI MOHAN

Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge,

At Bhongir.

Thursday, this the 18 th day of October, 2023

SESSIONS CASE No.136 OF 2020

(On committal made by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair vide PRC No.23 OF 2018 dated 26.02.2020)

Between:- State by the Inspector of Police, Yadagirigutta Police station. …. Complainant

And

1.Kamsani Kalyani, D/o.Ramchander, Age:25 years, Occ:Prostitution Organizer, R/o.Ganesh Nagar, Yadagirigutta Village and Mandal.

2. Ambothu Santhosh, S/o.Chander, Age:21 years, Occ:Auto Driver, R/o.Jillalguda Village of Saroor Nagar Mandal, R.R.District.

…. Accused No.1 and 2

Charge:U/secs.370, 370 (A) IPC and Secs.3 to 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not fuilty Sentence or Order : In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 370 A of IPC and

Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral

Traffic(Prevention)Act,1956 accordingly Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for the said offences under

Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after

Page No.2 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020 expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 cash of

Rs.500/- shall be confiscated to state and MO2. Condoms packets shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Satyanarayana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Md.Nehal, learned counsel for accused and upon hearing, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

- :: JUDGMENT :: -

The Inspector of Police Yadagirigutta, Police Station filed charge sheet against the above accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 370 (A) (2) of Indian Penal Code and

Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 in

Cr.No.43 of 2018 of Yadagirigutta police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the accused Kamsani

Kalyani, is the organizer of prostitution at Yadagirigutta Village adjacent to the famous pilgrimage Yadagirigutta. Whereas the victim

Kamsani Sunitha, is doing prostitution forcible with manipulate of accused as her financial and family problems. The accused person

Kamsani Kalyani, recently have been running brothel house, keeping sex workers as well as innocent women like (LW-5)/Kamsani Sunitha, in house bearing No.4-75, Ganesh Nagar Yadagirigutta and continuing prostitution and living with earning money on prostitution by giving assurance that half of income of earned by the LW-5/Kamsani Sunitha, will be to her when she will go to the village. When the victim ask her share and request to leave the place the accused person refused and forcibly restrained her and continuing prostitution with the victim. On 18.02.2018 on credible information PW-7/P.Ashok Kumar, Inspector of

Police, Yadagirigutta P.S. along with the PW-1 to 3 and PW-6 (police staff) rushed to Ganesh Nagar, and raided on the house bearing No.4- 75 of the accused person. The accused persons A1 and A2 were

Page No.3 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020 taken into custody at 10:00 hours, and on interrogation the accused persons A1 and A2 has confessed to have commission of this offence keeping with the victim Kamsani Sunitha with the pimp. So the PW-7 has recorded confessional statement of the accused A-1 in presence of mediator i.e.,PW-5 and LW-7/K.Muthyam, and seized net cash of

Rs.500/- and (5) condoms packets from the possession of accused

No.1 under cover of panchanama after confessional and seizure panchanama.

3. Basing on the confession and seizure panchanama of the accused person endorsed, and LW-8/G.Mukesh Babu, A.S.I. has registered a case in Cr.No.43 of 2018 u/Sec.370, 370 (A) IPC, Sec.3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 ITP Act 1956 and handed over the CD file to the LW-9 as the offence is under specially grave nature act.

4.During the course of investigation, PW-7 has examined the PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6 and victim Sunitha (LW-5) and recorded their statements. Later, PW-7 has brought the arrested accused Kamsani

Kalyani, Pimp Ambothu Santhosh and victim to the PS Yadagirigutta on 18.02.2018 at 13:00 hours and arrested accused persons Kamsani

Kalyani, Ambothu Satheesh. Later the arrested accused by issuing arrest memos and served notices u/Sec.50 & 50 ‘A’ Cr.P.C. were sent to Medical checkup regarding their health condition and were produced before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand. The victim also produced before the Court regarding her stay. After completion of investigation PW8 filed charge sheet against the accused.

5.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 370, 370 (A) IPC, Sec.3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, against accused

Nos.1 and 2 and registered the case as PRC No.23 of 2018. Copies of case documents were furnished to accused, as contemplated under

Page No.4 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020

Section 207 Cr.P.C. This case was committed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Alair, vide committal order dated 26.02.2020

under Section 209 Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Nalgonda.

The Hon’ble Sessions Court registered it as S.C.No.136 of 2020 and made over the same to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.

6.Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined and upon hearing and basing on record charges for the offences U/Secs. 370, 370(A) of IPC and Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 of

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 were framed against accused no.1 and 2. The charges against the accused were read over and explained to them in their regional language to which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During trial the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 and MO.2 are marked.

8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.Heard the arguments of learned Addl.public prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

Now the point for determination of this court is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under sections 370, 370 (A) IPC and Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:- The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the accused No1 was running brothel house by engaging LW5/Kamsani

Page No.5 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020

Sunitha, in the house of accused No.1 at Ganesh Nagar, Yadagirigutta.

Accused No.2 was the pimp found in the said house along with

LW5/Kamsani Sunitha. On 18.02.2018 at 09:30 am, the PW7/P.Ashok

Kumar, Inspector of Police, Yadagirigutta, on credible information along with his staff i.e., Pws.1 to 3 and 6 police Sub-Inspector and staff along with PW5/Chapala Narsimha, and PW-4.Katepally

Muthyam, mediators conducted raid upon the house of accused No.1.

Police caught hold the accused 1 and 2 and rescued the victim girl

LW-5/Kamsani Sunitha. At that time police recorded the confession of accused nos. 1 and 2 and recovered cash of Rs.500/- and 10 condom packets from accused no.1 under cover of panchanama.

11.The learned APP argued that PWs.1 to 3 and PW6 police personnels who accompanied the Pw7 Inspector of Police during the raid narrated the entire incident and their evidence is corroborated with each other and it is sufficiently proved that the accused No.1 is running brothel house by engaging the victim who was trafficked and accused No.2 came there for the purpose of prostitution with victim. It is further argued that the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 cannot be discarded on the sole ground that they are police personnels, hence accused are liable for conviction.

12.On the other hand the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that the accused are no way concerned with the alleged offence and that, only for the statistical purpose they were falsely implicated in this case. The learned defence counsel further argued that the neighbours and panch witnesses not supported the prosecution case. Moreover several discrepancies found during the cross-examination of PW-1 to 3, 6 and 7. Therefore it is not safe to rely on the evidence of police officials and that accused are entitle for acquittal. Moreover the prosecution failed to examine the crucial

Page No.6 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020 witness in this case LW-5 Kamsani Sunitha/victim and it is fatal to the case of prosecution.

13.On careful examination of the entire evidence on record. PW-1/

D.Ligaiah, was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Yadagirigutta, who participated in the raid along with PW-7 Inspector of Police.

PW-2K.Srinivaslu, Police Constable, PW3 D.Ashok, HC.1863,

PW6 A.Mamatha WPC.4044, are the police department persons who accompanied the PW-7 P.Ashok Kumar, the Inspector of Police,

Yadagirigutta during the raid. Pw7 leaded the raiding party and apprehended the accused no.1 and 2 seized the cash of Rs.500/- and condoms under cover of panchanama. PW-4 and PW-5 are the panch witness for scene of crime and confession of accused. The evidence of LW-5/Kamsani Sunitha victim, was closed as prosecution failed to produce her inspite of giving sufficient time. The learned Addl,.Public prosecutor given up the evidence of LW-8/G.Mukesh Babu, A.S.I. of police who issued FIR.

14.Gist of the evidence of PW’s.1 to 3 and 6 is that as per the instructions of Pw7 Inspector of Police on 18.02.2018 at 10:00 A.M.

they accompanied the Pw7 and went to the house of Accused No.1, situated at Ganesh Nagar, Yadagirigutta and there, they found the accused no.1 and 2 along with victim Kamsani Sunitha (LW-5). Then

Pw7 seized cash of Rs.500/- from accused No.1 and condoms under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW-4 and PW-5 mediators.

The learned defence counsel rightly pointed out that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 to PW-3, PW-6 and there is no consistency in between their evidence with the evidence of PW7 and except the inconsistent evidence of police personnels no independent witness supported the prosecution case. Hence it is not safe to rely on their evidence.

Page No.7 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020

15.In Cross examination of PW-1 by learned counsel for accused, it was revealed that they have not secured any document to show that the scene of offence house belongs to accused No.1. There were three rooms in the house of accused No.1. PW-1 further deposed that several houses were present around the scene of offence house. They did not examine any surrounding people. PW-1 deposed that they secured the mediators at their police station. The mediators belongs to Yadagiripally and Gandhi Nagar. PW-1 admitted that they did not to secure the local mediators in Ganesh Nagar at Scene of offence.

16.In their Cross examination PW-2, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 deposed that several houses were present around the scene of offence house and they did not examine any surrounding people. They secured the mediators at police station. The mediators belongs to different colony and not belongs to Ganesh Nagar. They admitted that they did not secure the local mediators in Ganesh Nagar at Scene of offence.

There were three rooms in the house of accused No.1. PW-7 only called the mediators from police station.

17.PW-7 Inspector of Police deposed that on 18.02.2018 09:30 hours, on credible information about prostitution at the house of Kamsani Kalyani at Ganesh Nagar, Yadagirigutta, immediately he secured PW-1 to PW-3, and PW6 along with mediators PW-4 and PW-5 proceeded to Ganesh Nagar, to the house of Kamsani Kalyani. There they found Kamsani Kalyani (A1), in the house, who is organizing prostitution, apprehended her. She revealed that she was organizing prostitution with the help of victim Kamsani Kalyani (LW-5) to gain the amounts. Immediately they searched the said house and found LW-5 Kamsani Sunitha, sex worker and accused No.2 Amboth Santosh. Both are confessed that they are doing prostitution. Immediately he recorded the confession statement of the accused and seized Rs.500/- and condom packets before mediators under cover of panchanama.

18.In his Cross examination PW-7 deposed that he did not secure any owner ship certificate of the house and he did not examine any

Page No.8 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020 document to conclude that the said house belongs to accused No.1.

They searched one room. They have mentioned the same in panchanama. The scene of offence house is surrounded by several residential houses. He did not examine surrounding people of the locality. He secured the mediators at police station and proceeded to the scene of offence along with mediators. He did not try for local mediators at scene of offence, as they proceed to the scene with the mediators who belongs to Subashnagar, of Yadagirigutta. PW-7 denied the suggestion that he did not examine any witnesses in this case and they cooked up the story and created panchanama in Ex.P4 for the purpose of this case and that he planted MO1 and MO2 in this case and filed charge sheet against the accused.

19.PW4 and PW5 are the alleged mediators for confession of the accused. According to PW-7 he secured the presence of PW-4 and PW- 5 mediators and proceeded to the scene of offence along with mediators and his staff. But both the mediators not supported the prosecution version. PW-4 and PW-5 deposed that they do not know accused No.1 and 2 and in the year 2018 on one day Yadagirigutta

P.S. called them to police station and obtained their signatures on some blank papers without disclosing anything to them. They do not know the purpose of the same. Nobody were arrested in their presence and no one confessed the offence. Nothing was seized by police in their presence. They did not accompany police to any place.

PW4 and PW-5 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and were cross examined by Addl.Public prosecutor with the permission of the

Court. Even in their cross examinations by learned Prosecution nothing favorable was elicited. They specifically denied that they acted as mediators.

20.On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that except the evidence of Pw-7 inspector of police, Pw1 to 3, 6 and PW-7, police staff, absolutely there is no other evidence to support the prosecution

Page No.9 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020 case. The evidence of Pws.1 to 3, 6 and 7 was very vague and there are several discrepancies in their evidence. None of them stated even the house number or address particulars of house of the accused

No.1. No one revealed its boundaries. It is alleged that the house belongs to Accused No.1. Pws.1 to 3, 6 and PW-7 failed to state whether A1 was owner of the house or tenant of the said premises and no ownership certificate is produced and no owner of the house was examined. Absolutely there is no evidence to connect the scene of offence house with accused No.1.

21. It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that on careful perusal of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 thee is no corroboration with regard to material aspects. According to PW-1 they found the accused No.1 and 2 victim in the house and victim was present in the room at nearest and PW-7 seized Rs.500/- from victim

Kamsani Sunitha (LW-5) and she stated that the same was paid by accused No.2 to her. They also seized condoms from victim. PW-2 deposed by quite contrary to the version of PW-1 according to PW-2 they seized Rs.500/- from accused No.1 and 10 condom packets from victim. According to PW-3 the Inspector of police seized Rs.500/- and 10 condom packets from accused No.1 under cover of panchanama.

Whereas PW-6 deposed that they found 10 condoms packets in the room and seized Rs.500/- from accused No.1. The inspector of police

PW-7 deposed that they recovered Rs.500/- and condom packets from accused under cover of mediator report. Therefore PW-1 to PW-3,

PW-6 and PW-7 gave different versions with regard to from whom they recovered Rs.500/- and condom packets. There is no corroboration in between any of the two versions of the police personnels present during the alleged raid.

22.According to PW-1 to PW-3, PW-6 there were three rooms in the house of Accused No.1. Whereas the investigating officer who raided the team deposed that there are two rooms in the house of accused

Page No.10 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020

No.1. For the reasons best known to PW-7 they did not examined any neighbouring persons.

23.Apart from that according to PW-1 they found accused No.2 and victim were present in the room at nearest. Whereas PW-2 deposed that along with accused No.1 and 2 victim was also present there.

PW-3 deposed that they found the victim and accused No.2 in the house who were doing prostitution. PW-6 deposed that the victim revealed that accused No.1 was forcibly compelling her to do prostitution. This was not corroborated by any other witness.

Moreover PW-6 further deposed that accused No.2 revealed that while he was proceeding on road accused No.1 called him inside to do prostitution and taken Rs.500/- from him. This was also not corroborated by any other witness. According to PW-7 on confession of Accused No.1 they searched the house and found the victim and accused No.2, and they confessed that they are doing prostitution. It is not the evidence of PW-7 or any other witness that accused No.2 and victim were found while in compromise position. Therefore except the alleged extra Judicial confession of accused No.1 and 2 there is no other material in support of the prosecution case.

24.The evidence of the victim LW5/Kamsani Sunitha is very crucial in this case. If the victim is examined real facts will coming to light. It is alleged by the prosecution that said victim was trafficked by accused no.1 and she was doing prostitution with her forcibly in her house. But, police failed to produce the said victim before this court and did not choose to examine her. The learned counsel for accused argued that by non examination of said victim, prosecution is trying to gain some advantage and the same cannot be permitted. I found some force in the contention of the witnesses in this regard.

Page No.11 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020

25.When running brothel house is the regular activity of the accused in the said premises as alleged by the prosecution at least one or two surrounding people need to be examined by police to prove the same. Though, PW7 and PW-1 to 3, 6 admitted that several houses were surrounded by the scene of offence house PW7 did not try to examine any of the neighbor to show that accused no.1 is running brothel house with the victim girl who was alleged to be trafficked. In absence of any independent evidence from the locality people, it is not safe to rely on the sole evidence of police officials which is full of inconsistencies.

26.The learned Addl.PP relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court reported in 2007 (6) Supreme 49 between Girija Prasad v/s State of Madhya Pradesh. In this case Hon’ble Apex Court held in para No.24 that “It is well settled that credibility of the witness has to be tested on the touch stone of truthfulness and trustworthyness. It is quite possible that in a given case a Court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of complainant or a police official but is not the law that police witnesses would not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But if the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence.”

27.This court is very much conscious about the above settled legal position that the evidence of police witnesses cannot be thrown away

Page No.12 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020 only on the simple reason that they are the police personnels. The evidence of Pws.1 to 3, 6 and 7 can also by taken like any other witness. If it is found to be truthful and trustworthy. Here at best the prosecution could elicit from the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, 6 and 7 police witnesses that accused Nos.1 and 2 were present in that house.

As discussed above it is not their evidence that accused No.2 and victim were found in objectionable manner. Except the alleged confession of accused there is no other material to connect the accused with the offence and the charges leveled against them.

Though all the police witnesses deposed that accused No.1 was running brothel house there is no basis to conclude the same. The circumstances which made them to come to such conclusion were not revealed by Pws.1 to 3, 6 or by PW-7 in their evidence.

28.It is pertinent to note that in their evidence Pws.1 to 3, 6 and 7 did not disclose exactly, where the alleged couple i.e.,accused No.2 and victim Kamsani Sunitha were found. It is not their evidence that they were found in a closed room or in an objectionable manner. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the couple were found in compromising position or while doing any sexual act. Nothing was revealed from them to infer or suggesting that accused No.2 came there to do prostitution with victim Kamsani Sunitha or with any other woman. No reliable evidence is placed before this court to infer the same. Moreover the cash of Rs.500/- was alleged to be recovered from the possession of A1. But there is no corroboration in between the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, 6 and 7 in this regard. Admitelly nothing was recovered from accused No.2. Therefore there is no evidence to show that accused No.2 was present there for the purpose of prostitution.

29.It is rightly argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the alleged confession of accused before police is hit by Sec.25,26 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The cash of Rs.500/- is not an

Page No.13 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020 objectionable material. It is very common to possess Rs.500/-. Hence, the recovery of said amount of Rs.500/- is not sufficient to connect with the alleged charge. Except the alleged extra Judicial confession of accused nothing was placed before the court to show that accused no.1 was running brothel house with Sunitha and accused no.2 came there for prostitution.

30.Coming to search, seizure and alleged confession of accused

PW-4 and PW-5 mediators denied the prosecution case and denied their presence during the confession and seizure of MO-1 and MO-2 mediators denied their presence at the house of accused No.1 along with police. Pws.1 to 3, 6 and 7 deposed that accused confessed the offence and that cash of Rs.500/- was seized from the possession of accused Nos.1. The confession, search and seizure were not proved with any independent evidence.

31.As seen from the record the investigating officer secured the mediators at police station and proceeded to scene of offence who conducted search. Hence, PW-7 failed to follow the procedure contemplated under section 100 (4) Cr.P.C while conducting the search in closed premises. It is mandate of Sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C “that

before conducting a search the police officer shall call upon two or

more independent and respectable inhabitance of that locality to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them.” Though PW-7 stated to secure the presence of PW-4 and PW-5 mediators for conducting search, PW4 and PW-5 independent mediators denied their presence during the search and seizure.

Therefore there is no corroboration to the version of PW-7 that two independent mediators were called by them to witness the search. It was also revealed that the mediators not belongs to the scene of offence locality and they were brought from different area. Hence, it is clear that PW-7 failed to comply the mandatory requirements of

Page No.14 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020 search as provided under section 100 (4) Cr.P.C which vitiates the search and seizure.

32.Apart from the above, It is pertinent to note that though PW1 to

PW3, PW6 and PW7 deposed that the scene of offence is surrounded by several residential houses, they did not choose to secure the local inhabitants as mediators to witness the search. For the reasons, best known to PW7, the mediators were brought from police station. In cross-examination, PW7 failed to give reasons for not securing local mediators. All these ambiguities clearly shows that the police failed to follow the required procedure as contemplated. Hence, the circumstances are supporting the version given by PW4 and PW-5 mediators that their signatures were taken by police on blank paper.

33. The learned counsel for the accused rightly contended that the alleged confession of the accused before police is not admissible. As per Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act confession of accused to police officer and confession during police custody cannot be proved.

As per Sec.24 of the Evidence Act the confession obtained by inducement threat or promise are irrelevant. As per Sec.27 of

Evidence Act if any material fact is discovered in consequence of the information received from accused such information may be proved.

Therefore it is clear that except the confession leads to recovery the confession of accused which was given to police cannot be proved against the accused persons. Here the independent mediators PW-4 and PW-5 denied their presence. Except police personnels no body were present during the alleged confession and recovery. Therefore, the said confession of accused No.1 and 2 is hit by Secs.25, 26 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In view of the bar under Indian Evidence Act the alleged confession of accused before PW-7 cannot be proved against them. Though the evidence of police witnesses cannot be brush aside on the sole ground that they are police persons the

Page No.15 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020 alleged confession which was stated to be given by the accused No.1 and 2 to PW-7 cannot be proved. No independent mediators were present during search and seizure. There is no corroboration between police witnesses. Hence, this Court unable to rely upon the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused in absence of any independent corroboration.

34.The learned counsel for the accused relied on judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.Appeal No.135/2010 between

Budda Dev Karmaskar v/s State of West Bengal and others

dated 19.05.2022 “In this case Hon’ble Apex Court held that sex

workers are entitled to equal protection of law when sex worker is an adult and is participating with consent the police must refrain from interfering or taking any criminal action.” It is pertinent to note that in the present case the charges against the accused are in connection with running a brothel house. Therefore, this court is of the humble opinion that the above referred judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to voluntarily sex work is a profession like any other work is not relevant to the present case in hand.

35.In view of the discrepancies found in the evidence of PW1 to 3, 6 and PW-7 it is not safe to rely on their vague evidence. Hence, It appears that PW-7 being the Inspector of police his subordinates

Pws.1 to 3, and 6 deposed on the same lines to support the version of

PW-7. Non securing the independent mediators during search and not examining the locality people by PW-7 clearly shows that PW-7 not followed the procedure contemplated under law and committed several irregularities. Here in the present case the prejudice caused to accused because of the irregularities committed by PW-7.

36.In view of the above discussion this Court is of the opinion that, prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the charges.

Page No.16 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020

None of the independent witness supported the prosecution case. The alleged victim not examined by the prosecution. No neighbours are examined and mediators denied the prosecution case. Except the evidence of police witnesses with regard to the alleged confession of accused, there is no other material to connect the accused with the case. The confession of accused before the police cannot be proved.

The recovery of M.O.1 and MO2. from the possession of Accused is not proved sufficiently. Therefore, it is a fit case to give benefit of doubt in favour of the accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused not claimed the M.O.1 . It is the contention of the defence counsel that M.O.1 and MO2 are planted by police. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the charges under sections 370 A of IPC and Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956 and point is answered against the prosecution.

In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 370 A of IPC and Secs.3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 accordingly Accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for the said offences under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 cash of Rs.500/- shall be confiscated to state and MO2.

Condoms packets shall be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Directly typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of October,

2023.

PRL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE

BHONGIR.

Page No.17 of 17Fair S.C No. 136 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1:D.Lingaiah P.W.2:K.Srinivasullu P.W.3:D.Ashok-None- P.W.4:Katepally Muthyam P.W.5:Chapala Narsimha P.W.6:A.Mamatha P.W.7:P.Ashok Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-4 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama

dated:18.02.2018.

Ex.P2:Signature of PW-5 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P3:Search proceedings issued by Assistant Commissioner of police Yadadri Division. Ex.P4:Relevant portion on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P5:F.I.R.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:100 x 5 = 500 Rupees. M.O.2:10 boxes (each box contains 5 packets).

PRL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE

BHONGIR.

Page No. 1 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT JUDGE,

AT :: BHONGIR

Present:-Sri KANNOJU MURALI MOHAN.,

Prl.Assistant Judge,

Bhongir.

Tuesday, this the 08 th day of November, 2023

SESSIONS CASE No.77 of 2016

Between:- State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yadagirigutta Police station. …. Complainant AND

A1:Budige Uppalaiah, S/o.Ilaiah, Age:60 years, Caste:Kurma, Occ:Agriculture,R/o.Dharmareddigudem,H/o.KacharamVillage, Yadagirigutta Mandal.

A2: Dusari Lingam, S/o.Laxminarsaiah, Age:35 years, Caste:Goud, Occ:Toddy taper, R/o.Tanguttur Village.

A3: Samula Srinivas @ Srinu, S/o.Nagabhusanam, Age:29 years, Caste:Padmashali, R/o.Tanguturu Village of Alair Mandal.

... Accused Nos.1 to 3

Charge:U/secs.120 (B), 341, 324, 307 r/w.109 IPC

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not guilty Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offences under

Section 452, 307 IPC. and they are accordingly acquitted of the said offences under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The case property MO1: is pillow shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.MO2:Motor Cycle bearing

Page No. 2 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016

No.TS-30-A-1236 depicting in photograph belongs to father of accused No.1 and

MO3: MI Cell phone which were stated to be seized from Accused No.1 shall be returned to accused No.1 and MO4:OPPO

Cell phone, which was stated to be recovered from Accused No.4 shall be returned to accused No.2 on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P. Satyanarayana, Addl.P.P. learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Nehal, learned counsel for accused No.1 to 3 and upon hearing, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

- :: JUDGMENT :: -

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yadagirigutta Police Station filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 above for the offences under Sections 120 (B), 341, 324, 307 r/w.109 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.154 of 2015 of P.S.Yadagirigutta Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, PW-1/Bugga Sukanya came to police station and lodged a complaint in which she stated that on 09.07.2015 morning at about 10:00 AM her father Budige Kistaiah PW2, mother Budige Laxmi PW3 were attended Alair Court and returned to home on bike. When they reached outskirts of Alair at 12:40 hours someone made a call from mobile No.9949107685 to the mobile of her mother mobile No.9000089314 and asked their location. When her parents reached Vadige Mallaiah land on the outskirts of Kacharam Village, two persons masked their faces came against them on a bike at about 13:00 hours, waylaid the bike of her father and beat her father with a stick on face and caused severe injuries to right eye and nose. Immediately her

Page No. 3 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016 father was shifted to Alair Government Hospital for treatment. Further the complainant stated that there were land disputes since 3 years between her father and grandfather Budige Uppalaiah filed a case against her parents. While her parents coming back after attending that case, her grandfather attacked and beat her father, she expressed suspicion.

3.Basing on the above complaint PW-10/S.Rajashekar Reddy, the then

Sub Inspector of police of PS Yadagirigutta, registered the report of PW- 1/Bugga Sukanya a case in Cr.No.154 of 2015 for the offences U/Sec.120 (B), 341, 324, 307 r/w.109 of IPC. PW-10 examined PW2 and recorded his statement in part-II CD in detail. On 10.07.2015, PW-10 visited the hospital where PW2 was undergoing treatment, examined the injured PW- 2/Kistaiah and his wife PW-3/Budige Laxmi and recorded their statements in part-II CD as PW-2 and PW-3 visited scene of offence, secured the presence of two mediators PW-6 examined the scene and recorded scene of offence panchanama and draw rough sketch of the scene. After that,

PW10 examined and recorded the statement of eyewitness PW-4.

4.On 20.07.2015 the PW-10 apprehended the accused persons A1 to

A3 at 08:00 hours at the house of A1. On interrogation, the PW-10 found them that they are ready to confess something. Immediately, the PW-10 has secured the presence of two mediators PW’s 7 and 9 and recorded confessional statement of A1 to A3. According to their confession, the PW- 10 has seized Super XL moped bearing No.AP 24 Q 1587 that was used in the commission of offence and also Samsung mobile phone along with

Airtel SIM No.9949107685, which was used to know the movement of injured, After that, the arrested accused persons were brought to Police

Station at 11:00 hours and affected their arrest by issuing arrest memo besides explaining grounds of arrest. Basing on the confession of accused persons, section of law 307 IPC is added in addition to the existing sections of law 341, 324 r/w.34 IPC and sent alteration memo to the Hon’ble Court as well as to all concerned. The arrested accused persons were produced

Page No. 4 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016

before the Hon’ble court for judicial remand. After completion of

Investigation PW10 filed Charge Sheet.

5.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair, has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 120 (B), 341, 324 and 307 r/w.109 of Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 to 3 and registered the case as PRC No.29 of 2015. Copies of case documents were furnished to accused Nos.1 to 3, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. This case was committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair, vide committal order dated 25.01.2016 under Section 209 Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble

Court of Sessions, Nalgonda. The Hon’ble Sessions Court registered the case as S.C.No.77 of 2016 and made over the same to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.

6.On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 3 before this Court, they were examined and framed charges for the offences U/Sec.120-B, 341, 324, 307 r/w.109 of IPC. The charges against Accused Nos.1 to 3 were read over and explained to them in their regional language for which they denied, the charges pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW10 marked Ex.P1 to P9 and Ex.D-1 and MO1 and MO2.

8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, accused

Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused Nos.1 to 3 denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Page No. 5 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused

No.1 to 3 for the offences under section 120-B, 341, 324, 307

r/w.109 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

It is the story of prosecution that the accused No.1 and PW-2 are agents and having property disputes which leads to filing of criminal cases against each other. In this connection accused No.1 engaged Accused

No.2 and 3 and conspired to attack on PW2 and wrongfully restrained the

PW-2 and PW-3 while they were proceeding on the motorcycle and accused No.2 and to 3 with the abetment of accused No.1 the other accused persons i.e., Accused 2 and 3 attacked on PW-2 with deadly weapon stick and bet him on his face and caused bleeding injuries and they attempted to commit murder of PW-2. In this regard police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/Sec.120-B, 341, 324, 307 r/w.109 IPC.

10.In order prove the charges prosecution examined PW-1 to Pw-10.

PW-1 is the defacto complainant who is the daughter of PW-2 and PW-3.

She came to know about the incident through PW-2 and PW-3. PW- 2/Budige Kistaiah, is the injured victim. PW-3/Budige Laxmi, is the wife of

PW-2 and eye witness to the incident. PW-4 and PW-5 reached the scene of offence subsequently and shifted the injure Hospital . PW-6 is panch witness for scene of offence. PW-7 and PW-9 are mediators for confession and recovery panchanama. PW-8/Medical Officer examined the injured and issued Wound Certificate. PW-10/Investigating Officer, registered the case investigated into and filed charge sheet.

11.In her evidence of P.W.1/Bugga Sukyana, deposed that there were land disputes between her father and accused No.1. In this regard a case was pending before Alair Court against her father. The case was ended in

Page No. 6 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016 acquittal on 09.07.2015. On that day after closing of the case her parents

PW-2/Kistaiah and PW-3/Budige Laxmi, were returned from Alair Court, at about 12:30 noon. At that time her mother PW-3 received a phone call from unknown number i.e., 9949107685. The said person asked her mother as to where they were. Then her mother replied that they were present near Alair Gate and further enquired about the person who called her but they without replying toy her mother cut of the phone. PW-2 and

PW-3 were returning to their village Dharmareddy gudem from Alair Court or motor cycle. When PW-2 and PW-3 reached the outskirts of Kacharam village at about 01:00 PM on motor cycle, two persons came there on motor cycle and stopped her parents and bet her father with stick on his face, and caused injuries on nose and eye. His father fell down and her mother was crying. Thereafter PW-2 was shifted to Government Hospital

Alair, from their to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. After receiving the information from her mother and after attending her father PW-1 lodged

Ex.P1 report in P.S.Yadagirigutta, on 09.07.2015, she was examined by police. According to PW-1 Keeping in view of disputes accused No.1 planned to kill her father and through others he committed the said attack.

Police examined and record her statement.

12.As seen from the evidence of PW-1 it is clear that she is not the direct witness to the incident. She came to know about the incident through PW-2 and PW-3. As per Sec.60 of Indian Evidence Act, every evidence must be direct. Therefore the evidence of PW-1 will not have any importance as she is not the direct witness to the incident. In her cross examination PW-1 admitted that she omitted to mention in her Ex.P1 report and also in her statement that she was not direct witness to the incident. However she categorically deposed in her cross examination that she came to know about the incident through her mother PW-3. Therefore the evidence of PW-1 will not improve the prosecution case in any manner.

At best from her evidence it is elicited that there were some disputes between her family and accused No.1.

Page No. 7 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016

13. P.W.2/Budige Kistaiah is the injured/victim and PW-3/Budige Laxmi, is his wife and eye witness. The incident was occurred when Pw2 & 3 were coming on motorcycle. According to PW-1 on 09.07.2015 himself and his wife PW-3 Laxmi, attended the court case in Alair Court, and the case was closed on that day and they left the court and were proceeding to their

Village on motor cycle. PW-2 was riding the motor cycle and PW-3 was pillion rider. At about 12:00 Noon when they crossed Alair railway gate PW- 3 received a phone call and one person enquired his wife about where they were. His wife/PW3 informed them that they were in Alair and proceeding to their village. When they reached near Dharmajigudem i.e.,

At the outskirts of Kacharam Village two persons came on a motorcycle on their opposite direction and bet him with stick on his face and caused bleeding injury on his face, nose and below the right eye. Then he fell down on the ground along with bike.

14. P.W.2/Budige Kistaiah further deposed that, his wife/PW-3 raised hues and cries and listening her shoutings the workers and farmers in the surrounding fields came there. On seeing them the said two culprits left the stick at scene of offence and absconded on their motor cycle. PW-4 who was attending agriculture work in the near by land came there. PW-5

Siddulu, Auto Driver also present there. Then PW-3 and PW-5 and others shifted him to Government Hospital, Alair. As per the doctor’s advise from there he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Police examined him and record his statement in the hospital on the next day. PW-2 was treated as in patient in Gandhi Hospital for about 15 days.

15.PW-2 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination PW-2 deposed that he omitted to state to police that twice or thrice accused No.1 threatened him to bet near the well.

PW-2 failed to state the motorcycle number used by the culprits.

Page No. 8 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016

According to him nearly 10 or 15 persons gathered at scene of offence.

But he cannot give their names.

16.According to P.W.2/Budige Kistaiah, the persons who bet him covered his face by tieng with a karchief to hide their identity. As face was covered he cannot compare the said person but later with the help of phone number and hair style they were traced. He came to know that accused

No.1 planned the attack on him through two persons. He was examined by police and his statement was recorded.

17. P.W.3/Budige Laxmi, wife of the PW-2 was examined to corroborate the evidence of PW-2. According to PW-3, 8 years ago on one day herself and her husband PW-2 had been to Alair Court and returned from the court on motorcycle to their village. When they reached Alair Railway gate she received a phone call from unknown person and enquired about where they were. She replied that they were near Railway gate Alair and immediately the said person disconnected the call without revealing his name. When PW-2 and PW-3 were proceeding to Dharmareddygudem on motorcycle of her husband she was pillion rider and her husband/PW-2 was riding the motorcycle. When they reached well near Kacharam village, at about 01:00 P.M. two persons came there on motorcycle by covering their faces except their eyes and they stopped motorcycle and bet her husband with sticks. They gave two blows on face of PW-2 with stick and caused bleeding injuries on his nose.

18. P.W.3/Budige Laxmi, further deposed that then she shouted the name of PW-4/Narayana, as he was present in the fields ploughing the land. Then PW-4 rushed to the scene of offence. Then the said persons absconded from the place on motorcycle. PW-4/Narayana came there and enquired her Then she revealed that they have enmity with accused

No.1. PW-5/Siddulu, was coming on the way with auto and on seeing them he stopped the auto. As PW-2 received bleeding injuries on the nose and

Page No. 9 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016 cheeks PW-5 and herself shifted the PW-2 to Government Hospital, Alair.

The doctors applied sutchers to PW2. As the bleeding was not controlled doctors advised them to shift to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.

Accordingly they have taken the PW-2 to Gandhi Hospital. There PW-2 was treated for one week as in patient. Her daughter PW-1 lodged the report to police. Police examined her and recorded her statement. They are having land disputes with accused No.1. They suspect accused No.1 only as responsible for the incident.

19. P.W.4/Narayana alleged eye witness, deposed that 8 years ago on one one day at about 01:00 P.M. while he was ploughing his fields in

Kacharam outskirts, he heard the shoutings of PW-3 calling him loudly from the road. Then he noticed PW-2 was fell down near the temple on road side on motorcycle. Then he rushed to the scene of offence and found bleeding injury on the face of PW-2. The surrounding people came there and they lifted the PW-2 and cleaned the bleeding injury with water and administered water to him. At that time PW-5 Siddulu was coming on his auto they stopped him and shifted the PW-2 to hospital in said auto.

When PW4 enquired with PW-3 she informed him that two persons came there and bet the PW-2 and ran away. On the next day police examined him and recorded his statement. PW-3 informed him that they were having land disputes with accused No.1.

20. P.W.5/Siddulu deposed that he is resident of Kacharam Village and working as auto driver. In the month of July 2015 on one day while he was proceeding from Kacharam to Alair on his auto he found PW-2 with bleeding injuries on the road at the outskirts of Kacharam Village. PW-2 to

PW-4 and some others gathered there. When PW5 enquired with PW-3 she revealed that two unknown persons came on motorcycle and bet PW-2. As

PW-2 received bleeding injuries on his nose and right side of the face then himself and PW-3 shifted the PW-2 to Government Hospital, Alair in his

Page No. 10 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016 auto for treatment. PW-3 informed him that there were land disputes between them and accused No.1. Police examined and recorded his statement.

21. P.W.8/Dr.V.Vani, on 09.07.2015 Medical Officer deposed that she received a requisition from SHO, Yadagirigutta P.S to examine PW-2/Budiga

Kistaiah. Accordingly on 09.07.2015 at 06:15 PM she examined PW- 2/Budige Kistaiah, and noted two injuries 1) Confession of right eye, size 3x1 cm which is simple in nature (2). swelling over the nose and bleeding, size 2x1 cm, which is grievous in nature. She referred the patient to the

Gandhi Hospital Secunderabad, where x-ray was taken which was suggesting fracture of right nassal bone. Basing on that she issued Wound

Certificate Ex.P5 is Wound Certificate of PW-2 issued by PW-8. According to PW-8 the above injuries are possible with blunt object.

22. P.W.10/S.Raja Shekar Reddy, Inspector of police, Traffic P.S. deposed that On 09.07.2015 at about 18:00 hours, PW-1/B.Sukanya, came to police station and lodged a report before Yadagirigutta P.S. and he registered the

FIR in Cr.No.154 of 2015 u/Sec.341, 324 r/w.34 IPC. The original was sent to court and copies to all concerned. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW-1/B.Sukanya. On the next day he visited Area Hospital Bhongir, where he examined and recorded the statements of PW-2/Bodige Kistaiah, (injured) and his wife PW-3/Bodige

Laxmi. Later PW-10 visited scene of offence situated at outskirts of

Kacharam Village, i.e., Vadige Mallaiah’s land. Where he secured presence of two mediators PW-6 and LW-7/Anjaneyulu, and he conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drafted rough sketch, in the presence of the above mediators.

23.PW-10/ further deposed that on 27.07.2015 while investigation is in progress he apprehended A1 to A3 and as they were in mood to confess he secured two mediators PW-7 and PW-9 and I recorded the confession and recovery statement of accused and seized one super XL moped

Page No. 11 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016 bearing No.AP 24 Q 1587 and SAMSUNG mobile with Airtel SIM

No.9949107685 under cover of confession-cum-seizure report. Thereafter he produced the accused persons before the Hon’ble Court for Judicial

Remand. PW-10 examined and recorded the statements of PW-4 and PW-5 who were eye witness to the incident. PW-10 collected wound certificate from PW-8 Dr.V.Vani, Area Hospital Bhongir.Aftercompletionof investigation he filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 3 u/Sec.341, 324, 307 r/w.109 IPC.

24.PW6 is the panch witnesses for scene of offence. He deposed that he do not know the facts of the case and police obtained their signatures on blank papers without disclosing anything and they do not know the purpose of the same. As PW-6 turned hostile to the prosecution the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor cross examined the PW6 with the permission of the court. But nothing favour was elicited in the cross examination of PW6.

25.The accused were not identified the injured and Eye witness. The only evidence on which prosecution relied is alleged confession of

Accused . It is the prosecution case that accused confessed the offence in the presence of PW7 and 9 the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama. PW7 and 9 deposed in one voice that they do not know the facts of the case and at about eight years ago on one day police obtained their signatures on some blank papers, without disclosing anything and they do not know the purpose of the same. As PW7 and 9 were treated as hostile the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor cross examined the PW7 and 9 with the permission of the court. But nothing favour was elicited in the cross examination of PW7 and 9. PW7 and 9 categorically deposed that they never acted as mediators and accused never confessed any offence in their presence.

Page No. 12 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016

26. As seen from the above evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 though they are eyewitness to the incident they failed to identify the culprits who attacked on PW-2 and bet him with stick. It is the version of PW-2 that he came to know that accused No.1 planned the attack on him with two persons. But

PW2 failed to state how he came to know the involvement of the Accused

No.1. On what basis he concluded about the plan of Accused No1 behind the attack against him. As those two persons covered their faces with karchief PW2 could not compare the said persons. Though Pw-2 deposed that accused No.1 warned him to bet the said fact was proved as omission as PW-2 failed to reveal the same to police during his examination. The said fact was admitted by PW-10 investigating Officer so also by PW-2.

Since it is a material and significant omission proved from the evidence of

PW2 can be considered as contradiction as per explanation of Sec 162

Cr.P.C.

27. Apart from the above there are some more omissions in the evidence of Pw2 and 3. PW10 I.O specifically deposed that PW2 &3 did not reveal the names of Eye witnesses to the incident and they did not state to PW10 the PW4 &5 witnessed the incident . Pw2 &3 omitted to state to police that they can identify the persons who bet PW2. PW2 also omitted to state to police that twice or thrice Accused No.1 threatened him to kill. All these omissions are very significant in nature. Hence the evidence of PW2 &3 to that extent can’t be considered and the same can be treated as

Contradiction as per sec 162 Cr.P.C

28.On perusal of the entire evidence on record all the material witnesses including injured and eye witnesses failed to identify the accused. None of the prosecution witnesses did not choose to support the charges against the accused. From the evidence of PW1 to 9 it is clear that, absolutely there is no direct evidence against the accused. Police did not choose to conduct any Test Identification Parade for the identification of the accused. None of the witnesses opened their mouth against the accused No.1 to 3.

Page No. 13 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016

29. PW-1/injured himself deposed that he cant identify the culprits as they covered their faces with kerchiefs. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that accused bet the PW-2 and caused injuries to him. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that accused No.2 and 3 attempted to commit the murder of PW-2 as per the instigation of accused no.1.

30. Admittedly Pw1,4 and 5 are not the direct witnesses to the incident.

They came to know about the attack on PW2 by unknown persons through

Pw3. Though Pw3 is eye witness she also failed to identify the accused persons.

31..As seen from the record, even the panch witnesses not supported the prosecution evidence. PW6,7,9 and PW-10 in one voice deposed that they do not know the facts of the case and police obtained their signatures on blank papers and they do not know the contents of said panchanama.

The mediators for the confession and recovery also denied the prosecution case. Therefore absolutely there is no evidence to prove that PW-2 received injuries in the hands of accused 2 and 3 as engaged by Accused no1. There is no evidence to show that all the accused conspired the attack on Pw2 and A2 &A3 went there and stopped PW2 &3 and bet PW2 with sticks and attempted to kill him. PW2 and # did not speak any thing against A2 &A3. There is no material to connect the Accused 2 & 3 with

Accused No1 and also their common agreement and also with the offence and with the injuries of PW-2. Absolutely there is no reliable evidence to show that A-2 and A3 attempted to commit the murder of PW2 as instructed by Accused No1.

32.It is pertinent to note that when the injured him self and his family members not identified the accused no 2&3 and when the alleged confession of accused is not proved it is not possible to infer the nexus between A1 and A2, A3. The case against accused No.1 to 3 is not made out. When none of the prosecution witnesses deposed against the

Page No. 14 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016 accused, the guilt or involvement of the accused cannot be inferred. The evidence of PW10 Investigating officer will not improve the case of prosecution with out any direct evidence against accused no 1 to 3. When the injured himself deposed that he can’t identify the persons who bet him, the accused cannot be made responsible for the charge of attempt to commit murder of PW-3.

33. According to PW10 he registered the case, took up the investigation examined the witnesses observed the scene of offence and prepared scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators. According to

PW10 he apprehended the accused and recorded the confession of accused. When the PW-7 and PW-9 mediators denied their presence during arrest of accused and they denied the fact that accused confessed the offence in their presence, the confession of accused is not proved. The

MO-1 and MO-2 mobile phones are not sufficient to connect the accused with the offence. The phones were not sent for FSL to find out the call data to prove the connection between A1 to A3. Hence there is no reliable evidence against the accused to prove the charges.

34. In view of the non identification of accused by the injured and eye witness who are crucial prosecution witnesses and evidence given by Pws1 to Pw10, it is evident that some unknown persons bet PW2. As accused were not identified by any of the witnesses, their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case in any manner. Prosecution failed to produce any reliable evidence to connect the accused with this case.

35.On careful perusal of the entire material available on record and the evidence of prosecution witnesses none of them had disclosed any thing against the accused with regard to the alleged attempt made by accused to kill PW-3 . The relation ship between Accused no.1 and A2,A3 is not proved. There is no evidence for alleged conspiracy. In view of the material available on the record and inconsistent evidence adduced by the

Page No. 15 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016 prime material witnesses, and in view of the omissions and contradictions elicited in the evidence of PW2 &3 no case is made out against accused

Nos.1 to 3, for the charges u/Sec.120 (B), 341, 324, 307 r/w.109 IPC. The evidence of Pws.1 to 10 is not at all helpful to the prosecution case in any manner to establish the conspiracy and the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3.

Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case for any of the charges beyond all reasonable doubt,

Accordingly point is answered against the prosecution.

36. In the result, accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offences under Sections 120 (B), 341, 324, 307 r/w.109 IPC, and they are accordingly acquitted of the said offences under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Accused No.1 to 3 shall be set at liberty. The accused No.3 can be released in this case as his presence his no longer required in the present case.

The case property MO-1: Super XL moped bearing No.AP 24 Q 1587 which was given for interim custody to the Accused No.1 and same shall holds good and made absolute after appeal period is over. Accused not claimed the MO-2: SAMSUNG mobile with Airtel SIM No.9949107685.

Hence MO-2 shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08th day of November, 2023.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT JUDGE

BHONGIR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1:Bugga Sukyanna P.W.2:Budige Kistaiah

Page No. 16 of 16 Fair S.C No.77 of 2016

P.W.3:Budige Laxmi-None- P.W.4:Narayana P.W.5:Siddulu P.W.6:Vadlakonda Ramulu P.W.7:Nagapuri Anatham P.W.8:Dr.V.Vani P.W.9:Medaraboina Ravi P.W.10:S.Raja Shekar Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Is report, dated:09.07.2015. Ex.P2:Signature of PW-6 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3:Signature of PW-6 on rough sketch Ex.P4:Signature of PW-7 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama

dated:20.07.2015

Ex.P5:Wound Certificate of PW-2 Ex.P6:Signature of PW-9 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama

dated:20.07.2015 at 08:00 A.M.

Ex.P7:FIR in Cr.No.154 of 2015 of P.S.Yadagirigutta Ex.P8:Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P9:Portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama

FOR DEFENCE:

D-1:Portion marked in u/Sec.161 Cr.P.c. statement of PW-3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

MO-1: Super XL moped bearing No.AP 24 Q 1587 (which was given for interim custody to the Accused No.1)

MO-2: SAMSUNG mobile with Airtel SIM No.9949107685.

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil-

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT JUDGE,

BHONGIR.

Page No. 1 of 10Fair S.C No.55 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT JUDGE,

AT :: BHONGIR

Present:-Sri KANNOJU MURALI MOHAN.,

Prl.Assistant Judge,

Bhongir.

Friday, this the 10 th day of November, 2023

SESSIONS CASE No.55 of 2023

Between:- State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bommalaramaram Police station. …. Complainant AND

A1: Jalandhar Bag, S/o Selu Bag, Male, aged 33 years, Occ: Labourer, Caste, Harijan Mala, SC, R/o H.No. Rangapuram, Rangapuram Chowrastha, Kottarangapuram, Bommalaramaram, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Telangana N/o.H.No. Majhipada, Majhipada, Lakhna, Naupada, Odisha.

... Accused

Charge:U/sec.307 IPC.

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not guilty Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences under Section 307, IPC. and he is accordingly acquitted of the said offences under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty. He shall be released forthwith if his presence is not required in any other cases. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property

MO1: Knife shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P. Satyanarayana incharge Addl.P.P. learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri S. Jaipal Reddy, Chief Legal Aid defence counsel for accused and upon

Page No. 2 of 10Fair S.C No.55 of 2023 hearing, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

- : JUDGMENT : -

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Bommalaramaram Police Station filed charge sheet against above named accused for the offences under Section 307 of

Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.101 of 2023 of P.S Bommalaramaram Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 18.06.2023 at 1600 hrs the complainant/injured Smt.Geethanjali Maji @ Anjali, W/o Kaliya Maji lodged a written complaint stating that her marriage was performed 15 years ago with her husband Kaliya Maji and they blessed with three children. Since some days her husband addicted to alcohol and do not care their family needs. Hence she went to her paternal house. Some days before she met Jalandhar Bag (Accused) and they were in relationship. One month before they both came to Vijayawada for work.

Thereafter, they shifted to Hyderabad and stayed with some known person for work. On 17.06.2023 on knowing about the nursery work at Rangapuram village, they came to Rangapur village at about 08:00 A.M. Thereafter the accused had a doubt on said Geethanjali Maji @ Anjali that she had an illegal affair with nursery person. On 18.06.2023 at 6.00 hours when she returned from bathroom the

Jalandhar (Accused) locked the door and asked her that “Ippatidaka Evadi

Daggraku Poyinaavu, Ninnu eeroju elaagaina Champuthaanu” and picked the vegetable cutter knife and tried to stab her, then she tried to escape. In the incident she received severe injuries on her both hands, then accused tried to kill her by caught hold her throat, then she has decided that he may kill her, and shouted loudly and escaped from him by jumping through window. Then the

Nursery owner Suresh/PW1 and his son Dileep/PW2 observed and asked her.

LW1/Geethanjali & Anjali revealed everything. Then they shifted her to Bhongir

Hospital, after that taken her to Gandhi Hospital for better treatment. Basing on the report of LW1/G.Geethanjali, Police registered a case and investigated.

3.During the course of investigation PW5/ Sub Inspector of Police,

Bommalaramaram PS has examined and recorded the detailed statement of

Complainant . Later proceeded to the scene of offence situated in a room Attala

Page No. 3 of 10Fair S.C No.55 of 2023

Company at Rangapuram chourastha, Rangapuram village of Bommalaramaram mandal, there secured the presence of two mediators, observed the scene minutely and also conducted the scene of offence CDF panchanama in the presence of the

PW3/B. Laxma Reddy and LW5/ Jupally Ganesh observed the scene minutely but did not find any incriminating material to seize, drafted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch of the scene. Caused enquiries, examined and recorded the detailed statement of injured and recorded the statements of

PW1, PW2, LW4/S. Rajkumar circumstantial witnesses.

4.On 19.06.2023 at 6.00 hours the PW5/SI of Police, Bommalaramaram PS Sri

G. Srinivas Reddy along with his staff rushed to Rangapura Chourastha and apprehended the accused Jalandhar Bag. On interrogation, the accused admitted his guilt and since he was about to confess something with regard to the commission of this offense, the PW5 has secured the presence of two mediators

PW4/M. Maisaiah, LW8/ R. Darshan and recorded the confessional cum seizure statement of accused. In pursuance of the confession of the accused, the PW5 has seized one knife length 7 inches, under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of above mediators by duly affixing their signed panch chits.

5.The learned Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 307, of Indian Penal Code against the accused and registered the case as PRC No.18 of 2022. Copies of case documents were furnished to accused , as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. This case was committed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, vide committal order dated 20.09.2023 under Section 209 Cr.P.C to the Hon’ble

Court of Sessions, Nalgonda. The Hon’ble Sessions Court registered the case as

S.C.No.55 of 2023 and made over the same to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.

6.On appearance of accused before this Court, he was examined U/sec.228

Cr.P.C. Framed charges for the offences U/Sec.307of IPC. The charge against

Page No. 4 of 10Fair S.C No.55 of 2023

Accused was read over and explained to him in the vernacular language for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to 5, marked Ex.P1 to P. 8 and MO1.

7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.

Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence

under section 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

8. This is a case of attempt to murder. It is alleged that the defacato complainant Geethanjali Maji was living with accused and working in a nursery. The accused developed suspicion on LW1/Geethanjali Maji and stabbed her with knife on 18.06.2023 and attempted to commit her murder. She escaped from his hands and lodged the report.

9.To prove the charges prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-5. Inspite of giving sufficient time and several opportunites prosecution failed to serve summons and produce the LW1 Geethanjali Maji for her evidence. Prosecution failed to examine the injured/defacto complainant.

10.PW1 is the nursery owner and PW2 is his son. It is the evidence of PW1 that he do not know the facts of this case and stated that LW1/Geethanjali Maji never came to their nursery for work and he was not the witness to any incident pertaining to this case and he never shifted her to Government Hospital Bhongor and police did not examine nor recorded his statement.

Page No. 5 of 10Fair S.C No.55 of 2023

11.PW-2 who is son of PW1 deposed that he too do not know the facts of this case and stated that LW1/Geethnjali Maji never came to their nursery for work and he was not the witness to any incident pertaining to this case and he never shifted her to Government Hospital Bhongir and police did not examine him nor recorded his statement.

12.According to prosecution this incident was occurred in the nursery. Since The injured was not examined by the prosecution the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is very crucial in this case. It is surprise that Pw1 and PW2 deposed that they do not know the injured and they did not witness any incident pertaining to this case. PW1 and 2 were turned hostile to the prosecution case and they were cross-examined by the

Additional Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court. But nothing favour

was elicited. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 and 2 is not helpful to the case of prosecution in any manner.

13.The other witness are PW-3 and PW4 mediators. PW3 is medaitor for Crime

Details Form and PW4 is mediator for confession and recovery panchanama. In his evidence, PW3 deposed that he is resident of Rangapur village. PW3 never acted as mediator. But three or four months ago while he was present at petrol bunk at

Rangapuram village, police Bommalaramaram, came to him and obtained his signatures on some blank papers without disclosing anything to him. PW3 further deposed that he do not know the purpose of the same and he do not know its contents.

14.The confession cum seizure panch witness PW-4 deposed that he is the resident of Rangapur village and he never acted as mediator. According to PW4 three or four months ago while he was present at check post at Rangapuram village, police Bommalaramaram, came to him and obtained his signatures on some blank papers without disclosing anything to him. PW3 further deposed that he do not know the purpose of the same and he do not know its contents. PW4

Page No. 6 of 10Fair S.C No.55 of 2023 specifically deposed that no one confessed the offence before him and nothing was seized in his presence.

15.From the above evidence of PW3 and PW4, it is clear that they were not present during the panchanama and they did not witness anything. PW4 denied about the confession and recovery of crime weapon from the accused. PW3 and

PW4 were treated as hostile by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and he cross- examined the PW3 and PW4 but nothing was elicited in the cross-examination in favour of the prosecution.

16.PW5/G. Sreenivas Reddy is the SI of Police, Bommalaramaram PS, who registered the case and investigated. During trial, PW-5/SI of Police,

Bommalaramaram deposed that he received complaint from LW1/Geethanjali Maji and he registered a case in Crime No. 101/2023 under Section 307 IPC and issued

FIR. PW5 recorded the detailed statement of LW1/Geethanjali Maji. Later he visited scene of offence where he examined PWs 1 and 2 and LW4/S.Rajkumar and recorded their statements followed by conducting scene of offence panchanama under CDR, in the presence of PW3 and LW5/J. Ganesh. Later on 19.06.2023 he apprehended the accused and as accused was in a mood to confess then the SI of

Police secured two mediators PW4 and LW8/R. Darshan and recorded the confession panchanama of accused before the above mediators and seized one knife under cover of panchanama. Later he arrested the accused and produced

before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation PW5 filed

charge sheet against the accused.

17.On perusal of the entire evidence on record, except PW5 investigating officer, no one supported the prosecution case. The injured was not examined by the prosecution. In spite of issuance of summons and even-after giving several opportunities, prosecution failed to serve the summons and produce the injured

Geethanjali Maji /LW1 for her evidence. Finally, the SHO filed memo by returning the summons stating that she left the village and her whereabouts are not known.

The certificate issued by panchayath Secretary Bommalaramaram to that effect

Page No. 7 of 10Fair S.C No.55 of 2023 was also filed by police. As there is no other option, this court closed the evidence of LW1 /Geethanjali Maji basing on the report filed by the police along with certificate of panchayath secretary.

18. The only witness supported the prosecution case is PW5/investigating officer. His evidence is about registration of the case and examination of the witnesses. However, PW5 arrested the accused on 19.06.2023 and recorded the confession of accused in the presence of PW4 /M.Maisaiah and LW8 /R. Darshan mediators. The confession mediator PW4 denied the prosecution case and deposed that police obtained his signatures on blank papers and no one arrested in his presence and no confession was recorded. The evidence of LW8/Reddiboina

Darshan was given up by the addl. Public Prosecutor. Therefore, except the testimony of PW5 there is no evidence to prove the prosecution case and the alleged confession of the accused.

19.As per Section 25, 26 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, the confession of the accused in the custody of the police and the confession to the police officer is not admissible and cannot be proved. However, if the confession or any information given by the accused leads to discovery of any material fact, the same is relevant under Section 27 of Indian evidence Act. Here the prosecution failed to prove the confession and recovery as required under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

20. As per Section 100(4) CrPC during search the police officer has to secure at least two independent local inhabitants as mediators to witness the same. But in the present case PW4 mediator denied his presence during said search and seizure.

The other mediator LW8 /R. Darshan was not examined by the prosecution.

Therefore, obsolutely, there is no evidence to show that police complied mandatory requirement of Seciton 100(4) CrPC during search and seizure.

22. Though PW5 deposed that he received Ex.P5 report from LW1 Geethanjali

Maji the same is not proved as the said injured LW1/Geethanjali was not examined by prosecution. Mere producing Ex.P6 CDF, ExP7 relevant portion of confession ,

Page No. 8 of 10Fair S.C No.55 of 2023

ExP8 wound certificate and Ex.P9 FIR will not serve any purpose when there is no direct and reliable evidence. In the above circumstances without any corroboration it is not at all safe to rely on the evidence of PW5 investigating officer who deposed about alleged confession of the accused. In view of the bar under Indian

Evidence Act the said confession cannot be proved against the accused. Rest of the evidence of PW5 is about investigation and registration. Therefore, prosecution failed to produce any reliable evidence to prove the charges against the accused.

23.From the above evidence of PW1 to 5 it is clear that absolutely there is no material against the accused. PW1 to PW4 did not open their mouth against the accused. There is no evidence to show that accused stabbed the LW1/Geethanjal

Maji and caused injuries to her. Though, wound certificate is marked as Ex.P8, the same is not sufficient to connect the accused. Though MO.1 was seized there is no reliable evidence to connect the MO.1 with the accused so also so with the injuries received by LW1/Geethanjali. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that accused attempted to commit the murder of LW1/Geethanjali Maji. The panch witnesses not supported the prosecution evidence. PW1 to PW4 deposed that they do not know the facts of the case. Therefore absolutely there is no evidence to prove that

LW1/Geethanjali Maji received injuries in the hands of accused and accused attempted to commit her murder. There is no material to connect the accused with the offence and with the injuries.

24.It is pertinent to note that when the injured herself not examined by the prosecution, and other witnesses turned hostile the guilt of the accused cannot be recorded. When all the material witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution the evidence of PW5 Investigating officer will not improve the case of prosecution in any manner.

24.On careful perusal of the entire material available on record and the evidence of prosecution witnesses adduced before this court, none of them had disclosed any incriminating evidence against the accused with regard to the alleged attempt made by accused to kill LW1/Geethanjali Maji with deadly weapon

Page No. 9 of 10Fair S.C No.55 of 2023 knife. But the defacto complainant not entered into witness box to give her evidence. Other witnesses turned hostile. In view of the material available on the record and hostile evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, no case is made out against the accused. The evidence of Pws.1 to 5 is not at all helpful to the prosecution case in any manner to establish the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case for any of the charges beyond all reasonable doubt, Accordingly point is answered against the prosecution.

In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences under Section 307,

IPC. and he is accordingly acquitted of the said offences under Section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty. He shall be released forthwith if his presence is not required in any other cases. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property MO1: Knife shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, Prl. District and Sessions Court, Bhongir, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of November, 2023.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT JUDGE

BHONGIR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: Konda Suresh P.W.2: Konda Dilip P.W.3: D.Laxma Reddy-None- P.W.4: M. Maisaiah P.W.5: G. Sreenivas Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: is the 161 CrPC statement of PW1. Ex.P2: is the 161 CrPC statement of PW2 Ex.P3: Signature of PW3 on CDF Ex.P4: Signature of PW4 on confession cum seizure panchanama

Page No. 10 of 10Fair S.C No.55 of 2023

Ex.P5: is the report of LW1 / Geethanjali Maji Ex.P6: is the CDF Ex.P7: is the Portion of confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. Ex.P8: is the wound certificate Ex.P9: is the FIR.

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

MO1: is the knife.

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil-

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT JUDGE,

BHONGIR.

Page No.1 of 8 Fair H.M.O.P No.47 OF 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BHONGIR

(Dated this the 25th day of October, 2023 Wednesday)

PRESENT:- Sri.K.Murali Mohan,

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

HMOP No.47 OF 2023

Between :- Rapolu Rajani @ Bodasu Rajitha, W/o.Rapolu Rambabu @ Ramu, D/o.Bodasu Dasharatha aged about 27 years, Occ:House Hold, R/o.Bommalaramaram Village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. …Petitioner No.1

AND

Rapolu Rambabu @ Ramu, S/o.Yadagiri, aged about 28 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Kurella Village, Athmakur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. …Petitioner No.2

This petition coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri V.Narsi Reddy learned counsel for petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 and the petition having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

: : ORDER ::

The present petition was filed by petitioners before this court under

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, with a prayer to dissolve their marriage dated:14.06.2020 by passing a decree of divorce on their mutual consent.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the marriage between

Petitioner No.1 and 2 was performed on 14.06.2020, at Bommalaramaram

Village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, as per Hindu rites and customs and their marriage has been consummated. Out of their wedlock one daughter by name Akshara born on 19.03.2021. The petitioners lead their marital life for a period of 1 ½ years only. Thereafter there are misunderstandings between both of them and they do not want to continue their marital life. Further due to disputes among them the parties are unable to live together. There is no chance to live together

Page No.2 of 8 Fair H.M.O.P No.47 OF 2023 and there is no possibility of any reconciliation for their re-union. The petitioner No.1 left the society of the petitioner No.2, on 28.12.2021 and thereafter she did not turn up to join the company of petitioner No.2.

Several panchayats were held and the elders of both sides tried their level best, but their efforts went futile. As such finally both the petitioners agreed to take Divorce with their mutual consent. Therefore in the interest of both parties and their future the marriage between them may be dissolved by passing of a Decree of Divorce, so that they may be able to lead their lives independently and happily and remarry if they so desire. Accordingly they filed the joint petition for divorce.

3.The petitioners are living separately and it is also settled by the elders that whatever Streedhana amounts etc., presented by the parents of the petitioner No.1 shall be returned by the petitioner No.2. As such both parties have been received their belongings which were presented at the time of their marriage from each other.

4.The petitioner No.2 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only) to the petitioner No.1 and to the child towards the permanent alimony and future maintenance, out of which the petitioner No.2 already paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner NO.1, and an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) has agreed to be deposited by way of F.D.R in the name of daughter and an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) will be paid to the petitioner No.1 at the time of granting decree of divorce by the Court, for which the petitioners NO.1 and 2 agreed.

5.Further, the petitioner No.1 is not seeking anything in future against the petitioner No.2 towards permanent alimony and future maintenance from the petitioner No.2 and moreover the parties are voluntarily took the

Decree of Divorce. Further the petitioner No.1 agreed that she will

Page No.3 of 8 Fair H.M.O.P No.47 OF 2023 withdraw the cases filed by her against the petitioner NO.2 and his family members and further agreed that she will not file any claim or maintenance case against the petitioner NO.2 in the court of law. Further the petitioner No.1 agreed that if any cases filed against the petitioner

No.2 or his family members will be withdrawn.

6.The HMOP was filed on 27.03.2023 under section 13-B of Hindu

Marriage Act. The parties are living separately since 28.12.2021. After filing of the HMOP, statutory period of six months as per Sec.13 (B) of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was also completed. The steps taken by this

Court for reconciliation between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were failed.

Reconciliation talks were not fruitful and both the parties not ready for reunion and they decided to take divorce.

7.During the enquiry petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.P1: is wedding card dated:14.06.2020. Ex.P2: Photo copy of Adhar Card of

Petitioner No.1 Ex.P3 Photo copy of Adhar Card of Petitioner No.2 Ex.P4

Photo Copy of B irth Certificate of Akshara, dated:10.06.2021 Ex.P5

Marriage Photograph. Ex.P6 Receipt issued by me for Rs.2,50,000/-

dated:20.10.2023 infavour of Petitioner No.2 acknowledging towards

maintenance of minor daughter Akshara to kept in F.D.R. Ex.P7: Receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- dated:20.10.2023 issued infavour of petitioner No.2 towards part of my permanent alimony. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners so also the parties and perused the record.

8.The point that arises for consideration of this court is:-

“Whether petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for the

dissolution of their marriage by Decree of Divorce on

mutual consent U/S.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955,

as prayed for?

9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

Page No.4 of 8 Fair H.M.O.P No.47 OF 2023

POINT:

10.The present petition was filed by the petitioner No.1/wife and petitioner No.2/husband for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent u/Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are the legally wedded wife and husband respectively and their marriage was performed on 14.06.2020 at Bommalaramaram Village and

Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District as per Hindu rites and customs prevailed in their community and the said marriage was consumated. Out of their wedlock they blessed with one baby girl namely Akshara on 19.03.2021.

It is further stated that they lead their marital life happily for a period of 1 ½ only. Due to disputes and misunderstandings they were separated on 28.12.2021 and living separately. The elders of both side families tried their level best for the reunion of the couple but in vain. Finally at the intervention of elders from both sides, they decided to approach the court to dissolve their marriage on mutual consent by way of present petition.

11.In support of their case, petitioner Nos.1 & 2 were examined themselves as P.W.1 and produced Ex.P1 to P7 documents. In their evidence affidavit in chief, they reiterated the version stated by them in the petition. It is the evidence of Pws.1 and PW.2, that they were married on 14.06.2020 at Bommalaramaram village and Mandal,

Yadadri-Bhongir District as per Hindu rites and customs prevailed in their community, They blessed with one baby girl namely Akshara on 19.03.2021. They lived happily for a period of 1 ½ years and thereafter the quarrels and misunderstandings started between them. Due to disputes petitioner Nos.1 and 2 got separated and petitioner NO.1 company of petitioner No.2 on 28.12.2021 and since then they are living separately without serving the purpose of their marriage. There were quarrels and disputes between them and happiness was disappeared. The elders of both petitioners tried to convince them several times and tried their level best for the reunion of the couple but in vain. Finally both the

Page No.5 of 8 Fair H.M.O.P No.47 OF 2023 petitioners decided to take divorce by mutal consent and filed the present petition under Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

12. Both the parties entered in to terms of compromise. The petitioner

No.2/husband agreed to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only) to the petitioner No.1/wife towards full and final settlement and permanent alimony and also for the maintenance of the minor. Accordingly the petitioner No.2 paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner

No.1 towards maintenance of minor daughter Akshara vide Ex.P6 receipt

dated:20.10.2023 in order to keep the same in F.D.R. in the name of

minor daughter Akshara. An amoount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner No.1 vide Ex.P7 receipt dated:20.10.2023 towards part payment of the permanent alimony. The petitioner No.2 also agreed to pay balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1 on the date of divorce. Accordingly the petitioner No.2 paid an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1 today. Ex.P8 is the receipt,

dated:25.10.2023. Ex.P9: is the photocopy of receipt for the F.D.R. of

Rs.2,50,000/- deposited by petitioner No.1 in the name of minor daughter

Akshara as paid by petitioner NO.2 under Ex.P6. The Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are filed through the joint memo and marked by consent of both parties.

Total settlement amount received by petitioner NO.1. Therefore there are no claims against each other. Both the parties exchanged their articles and ornaments and there are no claims between them.

13.It was also agreed by PW-1 and PW-2 that custody of the minor daughter Akshara shall be with petitioner No.1/mother till the minor attains majority.

14.It is further stated that there is no collusion between both the parties in filing the present application seeking decree of divorce by

Page No.6 of 8 Fair H.M.O.P No.47 OF 2023 mutual consent. Both the petitioners requested the Court to pass a decree by dissolving their marriage by mutual consent.

15.All the above facts were deposed by PW-1 & PW-2 in their evidence.

The evidence between PWs.1 and PW.2 is corroborated with each other and also with Ex.P1 to P7. PW-1 and PW-2 in one voice deposed that all the efforts for reconciliation were went in vain and there is no chance for their reconciliation and they firmly decided to take divorce.

16.It is clear from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that there is no possibility for reconciliation and they decided to dissolve their marriage by taking divorce with their mutual consent. This Court conducted reconciliation talks between petitioner Nos.1 and 2 but the same could not be materialized. The petitioners No.1 and 2 got separated from 28.12.2021. All the efforts made by the elders for reconciliation were not materialized. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have also not withdrawn their mutual consent divorce petition during pendency of the proceedings. There is no hope that in future petitioner Nos.1 and 2 will reconcile and may withdraw from the present petition for divorce.

17.Both the parties settled all their terms amicably to take divorce. In his evidence Petitioner No.2 as PW-2 agreed to pay an amount of the

Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only) to the petitioner

No.1 towards full and final settlement of petitioner No.1 and for the maintenance of minor daughter. Accordingly petitioner No.2 paid

Rs.3,50,000/- under Ex.P6 and P7 receipts to petitioner No.1. The

balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is paid today under Ex.P8.

Accordingly the petitioner No.1/PW-1 accepted and received the said amount and relinquish all her claims. The amount which was paid for the maintenance of minor daughter Akshara, under Ex.P6 was kept in F.D.R by petitioner No.1 as agreed and Ex.P9 is the copy of said F.D.R.

Page No.7 of 8 Fair H.M.O.P No.47 OF 2023

18. Up on perusal of entire material on record it is evident that there is no compatibility between the petitioners. They are living separately for the last two years. Both of them taken decision to take divorce. The petitioners agreed that the custody of the minor daughter shall be with the petitioner No.1 till minor attain majority. All the essential conditions to grant divorce on mutual consent are fulfilled in this case.

19. As seen from the record, it is clear that the Petitioner No.1

and 2 have not been able to live together and that they were

separated two years ago and living separately and they have

mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved. On

careful perusal of entire material on record, it is clear that both

the parties not ready to continue as wife and husband and they

decided to lead their life independently by taking divorce.

Therefore, this Court feels that it is appropriate to grant divorce

to the petitioners on their mutual consent under Section 13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as prayed by the petitioner Nos.1 and

2. Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the petition is allowed. Marriage in between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 dated 14.06.2020 is hereby dissolved by Decree of

Divorce on mutual consent Under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the date of this order. Accordingly the decree of divorce on mutual consent is passed.

Directly typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of October, 2023.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHONGIR.

Page No.8 of 8 Fair H.M.O.P No.47 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONERS

P.W.1 :Siripuram Vedavathi @ Kandula Parijatha

P.W.2 :Kandula Narsaiah @ Narsinga Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1: Marriage Wedding card, dated:08.03.2015.

Ex.P2: Marriage Photograph.

Ex.P3: Copy of Adhar Card of petitioner No.1.

Ex.P4: Copy of Adhar Card of petitioner No.2.

Ex.P5: Report of issued by P2.

Ex.P6: Receipt issued by me for Rs.2,50,000/- dated:20.10.2023 infavour of petitioner No.2 acknowledging towards maintenance of minor daughter Akshara to kept in FDR.

Ex.P7: Receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- dated:20.10.2023 issued by petitioner NO.1 infavour of petitioner No.2 towards part of her permanent alimony.

Ex.P8: Receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- dated:25.10.2023 issued by petitioner No.1 infavour of petitioner No.2 towards permanent alimony.

Ex.P9: is the copy of F.D.R. dated:25.10.2023, for Rs.2,50,000/- kept in the name of minor daughter Akshara, as received under Ex.P6.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHONGIR.