Page No. 1 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
Fair copy
IN THE COURT OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
JOGULAMBA GADWAL.
PRESENT: N.PREMA LATHA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
JOGULAMBA GADWAL.
Tuesday, this the 9th day of December, 2025
S.C.No.114 OF 2021
Name of the complaint : The Circle Inspector of Police, Alampur.
A1: Smt. Chakali Krishnaveni @ Haritha W/o Shalu, age: 30 yrs, caste: Chakali, Name of the accused : Occ: Attender at KGBV, Alampur, R/o Chakali Street, Alampur village and Mandal.
A2: Sankati Mahesh S/o Ramesh, age: 23 yrs, caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Agril., R/o Linganavai village of Alampur Mandal.
A3: Dadapogu Mahesh @ Gana S/o Krishna, age: 20 yrs, caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o NTR Buildings, Kurnool town.
A4: Ediga Mahendra S/o Eswar Goud, age: 20 yrs, caste: Ediga, Occ: Painter, R/o Near Aditya School, Kallur village and Mandal, now at NTR Buildings, Kurnool town.
A5: Thambali Karthik S/o Suryanarayana, age: 19 yrs, caste: Balija, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o Narayanapuram village of Manopad Mandal now at NTR buildings, Kurnool town.
A6: Hulcha Raja @ Suri S/o Maddileti, age: 22 yrs, caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o Kalugotla village of Undavelly Mandal now at NTR Buildings, Kurnool town.
Page No. 2 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
Crime No. : 102 of 2019.
Offence U/Sec. : 302, 182 r/w 34 and 109 of Indian Penal Code.
PRC.No. : 04 of 2020.
Case Committed by : Smt.A.Radhika,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Alampur.
Prosecution Conducted by : Sri J.Vinoda Chary, Learned Public Prosecutor, Jogulamba Gadwal.
Defence Conducted by : Sri R.Hemavardhan Reddy, Advocate.
Plea of the accused : Not guilty.
Sentence of Order : IIn the result, accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.182 of IPC and accordingly acquitted under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.
Further accused No.5 is found not guilty for the charged offences punishable under Ss.302 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, acquitted under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences.
Further A1 to A4 are found guilty for the charged offences punishable under Ss.302 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly convicted under Sec. 235 (2) Cr.P.C.
Further accused No.6 is found guilty for the charged offence punishable under Sec.109 IPC and accordingly convicted under Sec.235 (2) Cr.P.C.
Accused Nos.1 to 4 are convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Page No. 3 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
Further Accused No.6 is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the IPC.
The accused are informed of their right to prefer an appeal before the
Hon’ble High Court. They are further
informed that legal-aid counsel will be provided, if they so require. A free copy of the judgment is furnished to them.
The remand period of Accused No.1 from 06-06-2019 to 28-08-2019 and Accused No.2, 3 and 6 from 07-06-2019 to 28-08-2019 shall be set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
MOs1 to 5 and 14 to 16 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MOs6 to 13 shall be returned to its original owners on proper verification after expiry of appeal time.
Since Accused No.4 is called absent, Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) is ordered to be issued against Accused No.4 for execution.
For hearing on the quantum of sentence of Accused No.4, call on 22-12-2025.
This case coming on this day before me on 02-12-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri J.Vinoda Chary, Public Prosecutor, for the
State and of Sri R.Hemavardhan Reddy, Counsel for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
Page No. 4 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
J U D G M E N T
1. The Circle Inspector of Police, Alampur, has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.102 of 2019 of Alampur Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 182 r/w 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
i) On 04.06.2019 at about 02:00 hours, the complainant Kakanuri
Gopi, S/o Late Venkata Swamy, age 34 years, caste Chakali, occupation
Attender at Jogulamba Temple, resident of Chakali Street, Alampur
Village and Mandal, came to the Police Station and lodged a written complaint in Telugu. He stated that on 03.06.2019 at about 10:25 p.m., while he was present at his house, one Ravi, the husband of
Shakunthala, came and informed him that his sister-in-law Krishnaveni @ Haritha had telephoned him stating, “Somebody is beating your brother Shalu.” The complainant then collected Krishnaveni’s phone number from Ravi, contacted her, and she spoke in a tense manner informing him that they were on Alampur Road after crossing Bairapur
Village.
ii) The complainant, along with his friend Mahesh, went to the said location, contacted Krishnaveni again and met her. She informed that she, her husband Shalu, and their children Keerthi and Dheekshith had gone to Kurnool on a motorcycle for the medical treatment of Keerthi, and while returning at about 10:15 p.m., four persons came on
Page No. 5 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 motorcycles from the opposite direction with beer bottles, assaulted her husband on the head, dragged him into nearby fields, and that out of fear she and the children ran into the fields and hid.
iii) The complainant proceeded further and found his brother
Shalu (aged 36) lying dead in a pool of blood with severe bleeding injuries on his head and a cut injury on his throat. Using mobile phone torchlight, he noticed the motorcycle bearing No. TS-33-P-7327 nearby on the BT
Road, along with broken beer bottle pieces, and his brother lying in a supine position with multiple cut injuries. The place was located within the limits of Alampur Village near Imampuram Village beside the BT
Road. He requested the police to apprehend the culprits.
iv) Based on the complaint, LW-20/S.Madhusudhan Reddy, SI of
Police registered a case in Cr.No.102/2019 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, issued the express FIR and sent it to all concerned.
LW-21/G.Raju, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Alampur, received the case file from LW-20, rushed to the scene and took up investigation. He inspected the scene of offence, which was located on the BT Road between Imampur Village and Bairapur Cross Road. As it was night time, he preserved the scene and the dead body by deputing staff at the spot.
v) On the morning of 04.06.2019, LW-21/G.Raju secured the presence of LWs 1 to 6 viz., Kakanuri Gopi, Chakali Krishnaveni, Baby
Chakali Keerthi, Mahesh, Baniki Venkata Ravi Kumar and Chakali
Laxmanna respectively at the scene, examined them and recorded their
Page No. 6 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. He requisitioned the Clues
Team, Mahabubnagar and the Dog Squad, Gadwal, to visit the scene. At about 07:00 hours, in the presence of mediators LWs 11 and 12 (Shabada Banumurthy and Kurva Siddaiah), LW-21 inspected the scene and the dead body; photographs were taken from different angles. The
Clues Team collected chance prints. The exact scene was at Electric Pole
No.149 in Sy.No.881 belonging to Raja Reddy. Broken beer bottle pieces with bloodstains and blood marks were found on the BT Road; the dead body lay at a distance of 18 yards from the road.
vi) The deceased had multiple injuries, namely: (1) an axed cut injury on the throat, (2) a cut injury on the right temple, (3) another cut injury on the head, (4) a cut injury near the right ear, and (5) a scratch injury on the left knee. He was wearing a white shirt and white baniyan, both with bloodstains, and a chocolate-coloured pant.
vii) At 08:00 hours, LW-21/G.Raju CI of police conducted the scene of offence panchanama, prepared a rough sketch, and seized bloodstained earth, control earth, broken beer bottle pieces with blood, the deceased’s chappal and his mobile phone (black colour Intel), all under panchanama. The location was 6.2 km from Alampur Police
Station towards the west, surrounded by agricultural fields of Raja Reddy and Jithender Reddy in different directions.
viii) At 09:00 hours, LW-21 conducted the inquest over the dead body in the presence of the same mediators, and instructed the Medical
Page No. 7 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
Officer to preserve the bloodstained clothes. The body was sent for PME at CHC, Alampur, under the escort of HC 970. LW-17/Dr.P.Ramya, the
Medical Officer, conducted the autopsy and preserved the bloodstained clothes, which were later seized under panchanama in the presence of
LWs 11 and 12. The body was handed over to the relatives after PME.
ix) LW-21 thereafter analyzed the case from all angles. Since
Krishnaveni, the wife of the deceased, gave a suspicious version, he addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Gadwal, to obtain the
CDR of her mobile No. 7569486110. Upon analysis, it was found that on 03.06.2019 at 06:26 hours she first called mobile No. 6304659867 and made several incoming and outgoing calls throughout the day. Between 19:21 hours and 21:15 hours her location was at Kurnool (near Raj
Vihar, NRPeta). This raised suspicion.
x) Mobile No. 6304659867 was found registered in the name of
Sankati Mahesh, R/o Linganavai (A-2), who was the most frequent contact of deceased’s wife. LW-21 then obtained the CDRs of A-2 also.
The locations of Accused No.1 (Krishnaveni) and Accused No.2 coincided at the time of the offence. LW-21 strongly suspected the involvement of both.
xi) On 06.06.2019, LW-21 visited the house of Krishnaveni (A-1), apprehended her at 12:30 hours and brought her to the Police Station. In the presence of WPC-3262, he interrogated her. When she appeared inclined to confess, mediators LWs 13 and 14 (Gondla Ramana and
Page No. 8 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
Dabbala Sridhar) were secured, and her confession was recorded. She confessed to having developed illicit intimacy with Accused No.2 (Mahesh) for about nine months, engaging in sexual relations at her house and at the KGBV hostel. Her husband had caught them together about one month earlier and warned them, causing her and Accused No.2 to decide to eliminate him with the help of contract killers. She admitted to coordinating with Accused No.2 and the contract killers, finalizing a payment of ₹1.5 lakh, providing all movements of the deceased, and luring her husband to an isolated location on the pretext of urinating, where the assailants murdered him with beer bottles and by axing his throat.
xii) Based on her confession, her Jio keypad mobile phone (SIM No.
7569486110, IMEI No. 911606057897359) was seized. At 15:00 hours,
Accused No.1 was arrested, issued arrest memo, notices under Sections 50 and 50-A Cr.P.C., produced before Medical Officer for fitness certificate, and then produced before the JFCM Court, Gadwal (I/C
Alampur) and remanded to judicial custody.
xiii) Meanwhile, Accused No.2 to 5 remained absconding. On 07.06.2019 at about 06:00 hours, LW-21 deputed LW-20 and other staff to apprehend Accused No.2 at Linganavai Village. At 06:30 hours,
Accused No.2 to 5 were found at A-2’s house; they attempted to escape but were apprehended and brought to the Police Station along with the motorcycle used in the offence.
Page No. 9 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 xiv) LW-21 interrogated them and recorded their individual confessions in the presence of LWs 15 and 16 (Goureddy Venkateshwar
Reddy and Mahmad Mohin Pasha, including seizure panchanamas.
xv) Accused No.2 (Mahesh) confessed to his illicit intimacy with
Accused No.1, their plan to eliminate the deceased, contacting Accused
No.6 (Suri), arranging contract killers Accused No.3 to 5, accompanying the accused to Kurnool, purchasing beer, following the deceased’s motorcycle, and directing Accused No.3 to 5 to attack. He also stated that after the murder they washed at a water tank at D. Budidhapadu and avoided CCTV routes. His Jio LYF mobile and the motorcycle
TS-33-A-3749 were seized.
xvi) Similarly, Accused No.3 to 5 gave detailed confessional statements corroborating the version given by Accused No.1 and 2, including the assault with beer bottles, dragging the deceased into the fields, axing his throat, the injury caused to Accused No.5, their visit to hospital for treatment without OP ticket, and disposal of their clothes at an old shed. Their respective mobile phones were seized.
xvii) At 12:30 hours, based on Accused No.3’s lead, LW-21/G.Raju
CI of Police and the mediators went to Accused No.3’s residence at NTR
Buildings, Kurnool, where Accused No.3 produced a bag containing the bloodstained clothes worn by Accused No.3 to 5 during the offence. The clothes were seized under panchanama.
Page No. 10 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 xviii) At 15:10 hours, LW-21 arrested Accused No.2 to 5, issued arrest memos, served notices under Sections 50 and 50-A Cr.P.C. and proceeded further. Accused No.6 was later apprehended by
LW-20/S.Sudharshan Reddy, SI of Police at Alampur and brought before
LW-21. After completion of investigation LW-22/M.Venkatramaiah, C.I.
of Police filed charge sheet against the accused persons.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 302, 182 r/w 34 and 109 of
Indian Penal Code. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and the case was committed to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal under
Section 209(a) Cr.P.C., as the offence was triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions.
4. Upon the appearance of the accused before this Court, and after hearing both the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, and on perusal of the material available on record, charges were framed as follows: a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.1 to 5; a charge under
Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code against Accused No.5; and a charge under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code against Accused No.6. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in a language known to them. The accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.
Page No. 11 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
5. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P1 to P32, Ex.D1and M.Os.1 to 16.
6. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They did not choose to adduce any evidence in their defence.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record including written arguments of learned Public Prosecution and citations submitted by both counsels.
8. The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the following decisions:
1) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal No.4226 of 2012 between Anvar P.V. vs P.K.Basheer and others.
2) 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88 between Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra.
9.The learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the following decisions:
1) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal No.1519 of 2021 between Vinod Kumar vs. Ampritpal @ Chootu on 30 th November, 2021.
2) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal No.1482 of 2013 between Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and others.
3) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India AIR 2001 between Sandeep vs. State of Haryana on 26 th February, 2001.
4) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India AIR 2008, 1381 between Kunju @ Balachandran vs. State of Tamil Nadu.
5) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India AIR 2009 1636 between State of Maharashtra vs. Prakash Sakha Vasave and others.
Page No. 12 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
6) AIR SCW 1835 between Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra on 13 th March, 2007.
7) AIR 2020 Hon’ble Supreme Court 2451 between Arvind Singh vs. The State of Maharashtra on 24 th April, 2020.
10. Now, the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Ss 302, 182 r/w 34 and 109 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
POINT:
11. PW-1 – Kakunuri Gopi (Brother of the deceased)working as an
Attender in Jogulamba Temple, stated that the deceased Shalu was his elder brother who earned his livelihood by running an auto. Accused
No.1, wife of the deceased, was working as an Attender in KGBV,
Alampur. They had three daughters and one son and lived beside PW-1’s house. PW1 deposed that Accused No.1 developed an illicit relationship with Accused No.2/Sankati Mahesh, and the deceased used to admonish her. On 03.06.2019, around 10:20 PM, LW-5 informed PW-1 that
Accused No.1 said some persons were attacking the deceased near
Imampuram–Bhairapur road. PW1, along with LW-4 Mahesh, went to the spot and found the deceased lying dead with head injuries and a cut throat. Broken beer bottles and the deceased’s motorcycle were found nearby. PW-1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint at 2:00 AM. He suspected Accused
No.1, along with Accused No.2 to 6, of killing his brother as he was an obstacle to Accused No.1’s illicit affair.
12. During cross-examination PW-1 admitted knowing Accused No.2 earlier as a friend of the deceased but had no prior acquaintance with
Page No. 13 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
Accused no.3 to 6. He admitted not mentioning the alleged illicit intimacy in Ex.P1 or to police. He stated for the first time in court that Accused
No.1 to 6 killed his brother. He denied suggestions of false implication, property disputes, or influence over police. He admitted his wife got
Accused No.1’s job after the death of the deceased.
13. PW-2 – Mahesh (Colleague of PW11) Attender in Jogulamba
Temple, stated that on 03.06.2019, PW1 informed him about an attack on his brother. Both went to the spot around 10:40 PM, contacted
Accused No.1, who said four persons attacked the deceased. They found the deceased dead with bleeding head and neck injuries, broken beer bottles, and the motorcycle. Police were informed, and later the body was shifted for post-mortem.
14. During cross-examination PW2 stated he had no prior acquaintance with Accused No.2 to 6 and saw them first in the police station. He denied deposing at the instance of PW-1.
15. PW-3 – Chakali Laxmanna (Brother of the deceased) deposed that on 04.06.2019 night, he received information from neighbours that his younger brother was killed. He went to the scene and found the body with injuries on the head and neck. Accused No.1 was present there and told that four persons attacked her husband with beer bottles. PW-1 lodged the complaint and after post-mortem, the body was handed over to the family.
Page No. 14 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
16. PW-4 – Chakali Keerthana (Daughter of deceased and A1) stated that on 03.06.2019, as she was unwell, her father took her to a hospital at Kurnool along with Accused No.1 and her younger brother. While returning at 10:00 PM near Imampur, four persons (Accused No.2 to 5) came on a motorcycle, waylaid them, and Accused No.4 hit her father with a beer bottle. Accused No.1 gagged her mouth when she and her brother cried. Accused No.2 to 5 dragged her father into nearby fields.
Accused No.1 then called LW-5 and informed about the attack. Soon
PW-1 and PW-2 arrived. They searched and found the deceased lying dead with deep neck and head injuries. PW-1 lodged a complaint. PW-4 identified M.Os.1 to 4 as the beer bottle pieces and clothes of her father.
17. During cross-examinationPW-4 admitted she and her siblings now stay with PW-1. She stated she saw Accused No.3 to 5 for the first time on the date of incident and again in court. She admitted she did not tell police about Accused No.2’s frequent visits, Accused No.1’s illicit relation, or that four persons came on one bike. She denied being tutored by PW-1 and denied false implication of Accused No.1 to A5.
18. PW-5 – Bandike Venkata Ravi Kumar (Private teacher) deposed that Accused No.1 requested his wife (LW-7) for a motorcycle to take her daughter to Kurnool for treatment. He gave his Hero Glamour bike to the deceased. Around 10:20 PM, Accused No.1 phoned him saying they were attacked between Bairapur and Imampur. PW-5 informed PW-1, who contacted Accused No.1 and went to the spot, later, PW-5 learnt of the
Page No. 15 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 deceased’s death and found the body with head and neck injuries and his motorcycle nearby.
19. PW-6 – Kamarthi Shakunthala (Wife of PW-5, Teacher at KGBV) deposed that Accused No.1, her colleague, called her at 5:00 PM on 03.06.2019 seeking her husband’s motorcycle to go to Kurnool. PW6 arranged it, and Accused No.1 with her family took it. At 10:00 PM,
Accused No.1 called PW-6 crying and disconnected. Later, she again called and disconnected. PW6 informed her husband, who went to
PW-1’s house. Later, they came to know that Accused No.1’s husband was murdered. After a few days, PW-6 learnt that Accused No.1 had an illicit relationship with Accused No.2 and, to remove her husband who objected, got him killed with hired assailants. Police recorded her statement after five months.
20. During cross-examinationPW-6 admitted she learnt the next morning that Accused No.1 killed her husband with the help of hired persons but disclosed it only after five months. She stated her husband told her about Accused No.1’s affair with Accused No.2. She denied false implication at the instance of PW1.
21. PW-7 – S. Bhanu Murthy (Retired VRO), deposed that on 04-06-2019 at about 8:00 a.m., while at Alampur Tahsildar Office, he was directed by the Tahsildar to act as a mediator in a murder case.
Along with LW-12 Kurva Siddaiah, he went to the outskirts of Alampur village and saw a male dead body with multiple injuries. CI Raju
Page No. 16 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 conducted the scene of offence panchanama and prepared rough sketch under Crime Details Form (Ex.P2). Police seized broken beer bottles, chappals, cell phone and motorbike. Thereafter, inquest panchanama was conducted (Ex.P3). He identified M.O.1 (beer bottles), M.O.5 (chappals), and M.O.6 (cell phone). Later, at CHC Alampur, police seized the clothes of the deceased under Ex.P4, and he identified M.O.2 to
M.O.4 as the said clothes.
22. PW-8 – Gondla Ramana Rao (Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj
Department) deposed that on 06-06-2019 at about 12:30 p.m., on a call from CI, he went to Alampur Police Station with LW-14/D. Sridhar. In their presence, CI interrogated Accused No.1 (LW-1) and recorded her confession. A Jio mobile phone was seized under confession-cum-seizure panchanama (Ex.P5). He identified M.O.7 (Jio mobile phone).
23. During cross-examination PW-8 stated that he admitted he had not taken written permission from his superior and had not recorded his departure from office. He did not personally question Accused No.1 and stated that the panchanama was prepared by police after recovery. He admitted similar mobile phones are available in open market and no specific identification marks were present. Denied defence suggestion that he signed panchanama without attending and deposed falsely at the instance of police.
24. PW-9 – G. Venkateshwar Reddy (Junior Assistant, S.P. Office,
Gadwal) deposed that on 07-06-2019, as instructed by Tahsildar, he
Page No. 17 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 went to Alampur Police Station where CI requested him to act as mediator. In their presence, Accused No.2 to 6 confessed to the offence.
Police recovered from Accused No.2 one Jio mobile and a TVS Star City
Plus motorcycle (M.O.8 & M.O.9); from Accused No.3 to 6, one mobile each (M.O.10 to M.O.13). Later, the accused led them to Accused No.3’s house, from where clothes of Accused No.3 to 5 were seized (M.O.14 to
M.O.16) under Ex.P11. He identified the material objects.
25. During cross-examination PW-9 stated that he admitted there were no written instructions from Tahsildar or CI to act as mediators. Panch slips were said to be pasted on seized items, but no such slips were visible on M.Os.8 and 10 to 13. Admitted that such mobile phones are common in market and police did not obtain accused signatures on panchanamas or verify clothes before seizure. Stated he had earlier deposed in about 10 cases. Denied defence suggestion that no such recovery or confession occurred and that he signed documents at police instance.
26. PW-10 – Dr. P. Ramaya (Medical Officer) deposed that on 04.06.2019 at 11.00 A.M., he conducted post-mortem examination on the body of Chakali Shalu at the request of the Station House Officer,
Alampur. He found multiple ante-mortem lacerations over the neck, ears, cheeks, and scalp, and abrasions on the knee. In his opinion, the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to a deep laceration over the neck extending up to the trachea, caused by a sharp object. He
Page No. 18 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 estimated the time since death as 12 to 18 hours prior to examination.
Ex.P12 is the post-mortem report issued by him.
27. PW-11 – Perapogu Prabhudas (House Owner) deposed that after retirement, he settled at Yerravalli village and let out one room to
Accused No.1 and 2 in August 2019 on a monthly rent of ₹2,000/-. A rental agreement (Ex.P13) was executed. Later, police informed him that
Accused No.1 and 2 were having illegal relations, and upon his request, they vacated the room in January 2020.
28. During cross-examination PW-11 admitted there was no prior acquaintance with the accused and that Ex.P13 bears the date 01.11.2019. He denied suggestions that Accused No.1 and 2 never occupied his premises or that Ex.P13 was created at police instance.
29. PW-12 – G. Jithender (Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio Info
CompanyLtd.) stated that on 08.08.2019, he received a requisition from
SP, Jogulamba Gadwal, seeking call data records (CDRs) of certain mobile numbers belonging to Chakali Krishnaveni, Sankati
Chinnaswamy, Thambali Karthik, and Hulcha Raju for the period 04.04.2019 to 04.06.2019. He retrieved the data from the server at
Mumbai and handed over a CD (Ex.P14), 65-B Certificate (Ex.P15), and covering letter (Ex.P16) to the police along with attested copies of the customer application forms (Exs.P17 to P20).
30. During cross-examination he admitted he filed no proof of designation and that Ex.P15 did not specify the person in charge of the
Page No. 19 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 computer or the server number. He denied that the 65-B certificate was fabricated or non-compliant with the Evidence Act.
31. PW-13 – A. Sudheer Kumar (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.) deposed on behalf of S. Deepak Kumar, former Nodal Officer, authorized to produce records and 65-B Certificate (Ex.P28). He received requisition from SP, Jogulamba Gadwal, on 13.08.2019 for CDRs of mobile numbers registered in the names of K. Krishna, Ediga Mahender Goud, and
T.Karthik for the period 04.04.2019 to 04.06.2019. The CDRs (Exs.P21 to P23) and application forms (Exs.P24 to P26) were produced along with authorization (Ex.P27).
32. During cross-examination he admitted no documents were filed to show succession of office or signatures of S.Deepak Kumar. He accepted that Ex.P28 was silent on server location and details of technical issues.
He denied that the 65-B certificate was invalid or fabricated.
33. PW-14 – Dadapogu Krishna (Father of Accused No.3) stated that he owned a Lava mobile phone with an Airtel SIM, occasionally used by his son (Accused No.3). The police later seized the said mobile (M.O.10) after Accused No.3’s involvement in the case came to light.
34. During cross-examination he admitted that all family members used the phone and it usually remained at home. He denied that
Accused No.3 never used the mobile.
Page No. 20 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
35. PW-15 – M. Madhusudhan Reddy (Sub-Inspector of Police,
Alampur) stated that on 04.06.2019 at 2:00 A.M., PW-1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1), based on which he registered Crime No.102/2019 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR (Ex.P29). He recorded
PW-1’s statement and informed the Circle Inspector, handing over the case file.
36. During cross-examination PW-15 admitted the distance between
Alampur PS and JMFC Court is 1 km. He denied the defence suggestion that FIR was issued at 3:00 P.M. and not at 2:00 A.M. The endorsement on FIR showing receipt by Court at 3:00 P.M. was confronted. He denied allegations of ante-timing and fabrication.
37. PW-16 – G. Raju (Investigating Officer) took up investigation on the night of 03/04.06.2019, visited the scene at Imampur village, observed the dead body, and prepared scene of offence panchanama (Ex.P2) and rough sketch in the presence of mediators. He seized material objects (M.Os.1 to 6), photographed the scene (Ex.P32), conducted inquest (Ex.P4), and sent the body for post-mortem. Later, basing on call data records, he apprehended Accused No.1 and recorded her confession (Ex.P5) leading to recovery of M.O.13 (mobile).
Subsequently, Accused No.2 to 6 were arrested, and their confessions (Exs.P6 to P9) led to recovery of M.Os.8 to 12 and blood-stained clothes (M.Os.14 to 16) under panchanamas (Exs.P10 to P11). He collected
Page No. 21 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
CDRs, PME report, FSL report, and rental agreement (Ex.P13), and established call linkages among Accused No.2 to 6.
38. During cross-examination PW-16 admitted no requisition copies or emails regarding CDRs were filed. He denied suppressing SMS data or fabricating CDRs. He admitted A1 was apprehended on suspicion before being shown as accused. He acknowledged that accused signatures were not obtained on panchanamas, and that CLUES team report was not filed as chance prints were unfit for comparison. He denied defence suggestions of manipulation and fabrication.
39. PW-17 – M. Venkatramaiah (Subsequent Investigating Officer) took up further investigation on 06.03.2020, verified records, collected the remaining 65-B Certificates, and filed the charge sheet along with material objects.
40. During cross-examination PW-17 denied the suggestion that he filed the charge sheet without proper verification or collecting certificates.
41. The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1 is the wife of deceased and was working as Attender at KGBV, Alampur where she got acquainted with accused No.2 who used to come to the School where his sisters were studying. Later the said acquaintance turned into illegal intimacy between accused No.1 and 2. Subsequently, the deceased came to know about the said illegal intimacy and warned both of them.
As the deceased became hurdle to their relationship accused No.1 and 2
Page No. 22 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 hatched a plan to kill him. Accordingly accused No.2 approached accused No.6 to arrange the contract killers and hired accused No.3 to 5 through him. As per plan on 03-06-2019 when the deceased along with his wife accused No.1 and children i.e., PW-4 and son by name Dekshit went to Kurnool for medical checkup and while returning, at about 10 pm when they reached near Imampur Village, accused No.2 to 5 came on motor cycles attacked the deceased with beer bottles and dragged him into nearby fields and cut his throat with broken beer bottle and killed him.
42. To prove its case, prosecution examined PWs1 to 17 and got marked Ex.P1 to P31. PW-1 is the defacto complainant and brother of the deceased who deposed that on 03-06-2019 at about 10-20 pm, PW-5 came to his house stating that the accused No.1 made a phone call to him informing that some persons have attacked his brother near
Imampur village, upon which PW-1 along with PW-2 went to that place and found the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood with his throat cut. As per PW-1 when he enquired accused No.1 as to why they were at that place, accused No.1 informed that they were returning from
Kurnool after consulting a doctor for the ill-health their daughter PW-4.
Thereafter PW-1 informed his family members and friends and also police Alampur about the incident and later he lodged complaint with police.
43. In this regard evidence of PW-1 is that on 03-06-2019 at about
Page No. 23 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 10-20 pm, he came to know through PW-5 that deceased was attacked by some unknown offenders near Imampur village, upon which he along with his colleague PW-2 went to that place and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Evidence of PW-1 is that at that time wife of deceased/accused No.1 and her daughter/PW-4 and son were present at that place who informed that some unknown offenders attacked her husband with beer bottles and killed him and due to fear she along with children went at a distance and made call to PW-5 informing about the incident. PW-2 also deposed in same lines as that of PW-1 stating that he went along with him to the place of offence and observed the dead body. PW-3 is another brother of deceased and his evidence is that he also came to know about the incident through PW-1 and he visited the dead body. PWs-5 and 6 are the witnesses who spoke about the receiving of phone call from accused No.1 on the date of incident. Thus, all the above witnesses PWs-1 to 3, 5 and 6 are hearsay witnesses and their evidence is only with regard to receiving of information about the incident.
44. PW-4 is daughter of deceased and accused No.1 who is the only eye witness to the incident. PW-4 stated that on that night while they were returning from Kurnool at about 10-00 pm, four persons came in opposite direction and attacked her father. PW-4 categorically stated that accused No.2 to 5 are the persons who attacked and killed her father on that day. PW-4 clearly stated that accused No.4 attacked her father on his head with beer bottle causing bleeding injury. During
Page No. 24 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 cross-examination PW-4 admitted that she has seen the accused No.3 to 5 for the first time on the date of incident and again saw them for the first time in court. PW-16/Investigating Officer stated that he did not conduct any Test Identification Parade with PW-4 whether she can identify the culprits. The evidence of PW-4 shows that she has no prior acquaintance with accused No.3 to 5. In the absence of any such prior acquaintance identifying the accused for first time in court cannot be believed without there being any corroboration. Further, as per PW-4 presently she along with her sister and brother are staying with PW-1 and family and there is a possibility of PW-4 being influenced by PW-1 and other family members, hence evidence of PW-4 cannot be wholly reliable.
45. Now the prosecution case rests entirely upon the circumstantial evidence. In this regard it is relevant to refer the decision in Sharad
Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein
Hon’ble Apex Court laid down five principles to be fulfilled in order to
convict a person solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence which are as follows:
i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be finally established.
ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. iv) every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved should be excluded, and
Page No. 25 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
46. As per prosecution the motive for the offence was the illegal affair between accused No.1 and 2 which was objected by the husband of the accused No.1 i.e., deceased and in order to get rid of him, they hatched a plan and killed him. To prove the said illegal affair the prosecution examined PW-11/house owner in whose house the accused No.1 and 2 lived together after the incident. As per PW-11 in the month of August, 2019 he gave one room on rent to accused No.1 and 2 on a rent of
Rs.2000/- per month and a rental agreement was also executed between them. Ex.P13 is the rental agreement. A perusal of Ex.P13 dt.01-11-2019 it is seen that the accused No.1 and 2 have taken a portion of PW-11 on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- and the said agreement was for a period of eleven months. As per PW-11 the accused No.1 and 2 took the room on rent in October, 2019 and executed the rental agreement on the next day. The said agreement was signed by accused
No.1 and 2. Though PW-11 was examined in cross at length but nothing could be elicited to disprove his version. PWs-1 and 4 who are the family members of deceased and accused No.1 also stated that there illegal affair between accused No.1 and 2. The evidence of PW-11/house owner coupled with the evidence of PWs-1 and 4 clearly establishes the fact of illegal intimacy between accused No.1 and 2 which continued even after the death of deceased which is evident from Ex.P13/rental agreement
Page No. 26 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 and the evidence o PW-1/house owner. Thus, prosecution has proved the motive of the accused to commit the offence.
47. Further, as per prosecution after registering the case and recording the statements of witnesses, the police suspected the role of wife of deceased (accused No.1) and collected her mobile number (7569486110) and verified the call data by collecting the same from the
Nodal Officer Jio Network and thereafter apprehended accused No.1 on 06-06-2019. On interrogation accused No.1 confessed to have killed her husband along with accused No.2 to 6. Further as per prosecution accused No.1 confessed that there was an illegal affair between her and accused No.2 and on coming to know about the same her husband (deceased) warned them and in order to get rid of him they both hatched a plan to kill him through contract killers from Kurnool.
48. As per prosecution the police have conducted confession and recovery panchanama in presence of witnesses wherein accused No.1 confessed to have committed the offence along with other accused.
PW-8 is the panch for confession and recovery panchanama of accused
No.1. PW-8 deposed that on enquiry accused No.1 confessed that she has illegal affair with accused No.2 and to get rid of her husband, hatched a plan and killed him with the help of accused No.3 to A6.
During the panchanama police seized one Jio mobile phone from her which is marked as MO-7. Relevant portion of confession and recovery panchanama is marked as Ex.P5. Thereafter, the police also
Page No. 27 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 apprehended accused No.2 to 6 and recovered their mobile phones which are marked as MOs-8, 10 to 13 and MO-9/motor cycle used by the accused at the time of offence. PW-9 is the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of accused No.2 to 6. Relevant portions of confession and recovery panchanama of accused No.2 to 6 are marked as Ex.P6 to P10.
49. It is as per PW-16 Investigating Officer that he sent requisition to
Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel and Jio Nodal Officer for collecting call data records of mobile phone numbers viz., 6304659867 pertaining to accused No.2, 8374349755 pertaining to accused No.3, 9985936010 pertaining to accused No.4, 9652133058 and 6300149337 pertaining to accused No.5, 8688137117 pertaining to accused No.6 for the relevant period when the incident took place.
50. PW-12 is the Nodal Officer of Jio Reliance Group through whom police collected call data record of accused No.1, 2, 5 and 6. PW-12 deposed that at the request of Superintendent of Police, Gadwal he furnished the call data in the shape of compact disk (CD) for the phone numbers i.e., 7569486110 registered in the name of accused No.1, 6304659867 registered in the name of Sankati Chinna Swamy (grandfather of accused No.2), 6300149337 registered in the name of accused No.5 and 8688137117 registered in the name of accused No.6 for the period from 04-04-2019 to 04-06-2019. Compact disk (CD) is marked as Ex.P14. PW-12 issued 65-B certificate for the above call data
Page No. 28 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 record which is marked as Ex.P15. PW-13 is the Nodal Officer of Bharti
Airtel through whom police collected call data records of accused No.3 to 5 viz., 8474349755 registered in the name of D.Krishna father of accused No.3, 9985936010 registered in the name of accused No.4, 9652133058 registered in the name of accused No.5 along with CAF (Customer Application Form of D.Krishna, accused No.4 and 5) which are marked as Ex.P21 to P26. PW-13 deposed that LW-19/S.Deepak
Kumar was the then Nodal Officer who issued 65-B certificate for the above call data records which is marked as Ex.P28 and as LW-19 left the company as such he/PW-13 was authorized by his company to give evidence on behalf of LW-19. Authorization letter is marked Ex.P27.
51. To prove its case, the prosecution relied upon the call data records of accused No.1 to 6 to show that they have acted with common intention and killed the deceased. PW-12 and LW-19 are the Nodal
Officers who have collected the data from the main server and furnished the call data records to the police and they have also issued certificates under Sec.65-B of Evidence Act which are marked as Ex.P15 and P28.
In this regard, it is relevant to refer Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
Section 65B, Admissibility of electronic records
65B(1): Any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original.
Page No. 29 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely: ––
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether––
(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this
Page No. 30 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, ––
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
(5) For the purposes of this section, ––
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.
52. Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the procedure
Page No. 31 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 for admitting secondary evidence of electronic records. It prescribes the conditions under which electronic records, when produced in the form of printouts, CDs, DVDs, pen drives, or other copies, can be treated as evidence and mandates the filing of a certificate certifying their authenticity.While considering such certificate under Sec. 65-B of
Evidence Act, the courts should take note of the requisite certificate produced as per the terms of provisions of Sec. 65-B (4) along with oral evidence of a competent person who issued the same.
53. In the present case on hand PWs-12 and 13 are Nodal Officers who have deposed in unequivocal terms that the certificate issued by them are as per prescribed format and are authentic. A perusal of
Ex.P15/65-B certificate issued by PW-12 shows that it is the certificate certifying the electronic data produced for the mobile phone numbers of accused No.1, 2, 5 and 6 have been generated from the company’s computer system and its contents are true to the best of his knowledge and further the conditions laid down in 65-B (2) (a) to 65-B (2) (d) of
Evidence Act with regard to the admissibility of computer output in relation to the information and the computers in question are fully satisfied in all aspects. PW-12 is the Nodal Officer of Jio Reliance Group and his evidence goes to show that he deals with the work of retrieving the call data and customer application thus he is a responsible Officer of his Company.
54. PW-13 is the Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel and as per his evidence
Page No. 32 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
LW-19 has retrieved the call data of mobile numbers of accused No.3 to 5 from the server and system of their CDR portal and issued Ex.P21 to
P23 call data records of accused No.3 to 5 and Ex.P24 to P26 Customer
Application Forms of accused No.3 to 5. LW-19 is the person who issued 65-B certificate which is marked as Ex.P28. Ex.P28 also reveals that the call data records of accused No.3 to 5 for the period from 04-04-2019 to 04-06-2019 was retrieved from the electronic records maintained in the usual and ordinary course of business stored in the server installed at their office at Hyderabad and the said data is true reproduction of the original data to the best of his knowledge, belief and the conditions laid down in Sec.65-B (2) (a) to 65-B (2) (d) of Evidence Actare fully satisfied.
LW-19 is the person who issued the above certificate and as he left the office PW-13 was authorized by his company to give evidence on behalf of LW-19. Thus, PWs12 and 13 are the responsible officers and representatives of their respective companies therefore their evidence with regard to the certificates and call data records issued by them cannot be disbelieved.
55. Further it is not the case that the said mobile numbers does not pertain to the accused. The accused have not denied the said mobile numbers nor given any explanation with regard to the said fact of mobile numbers standing in their name. PW-14 is the father of accused No.3 in whose name the mobile number 8374349755 is registered. Ex.P24 is the CAF (Customer Application Form) showing the name of one
D.Krishna who was examined as PW-14. PW-14 deposed that accused
Page No. 33 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
No.3 is his son and his mobile having Airtel sim was used by his son accused No.3 now then. Further the prosecution also cited
LW-8/Sankati Chinna Swamy grandfather of accused No.2 in whose name the mobile number 6304659867 is registered. Ex.P19 is the CAF (Customer Application Form) showing the name of Sankati Chinna
Swamy with regard to the above mobile number. The prosecution did not examine the said witness and given up his evidence for the reasons best known to them. However, the accused No.2 never claimed that the said mobile number was not used by him at any point of time. None of the accused claimed that they have not used the mobile numbers standing in their name and they have also not stated anything in their examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the said mobile numbers. Further, the accused have also not adduced any evidence to show that the said mobile numbers do not pertain to them and they have not used the said mobile numbers at any point of time.In the absence of any such evidence this court holds that the call data records furnished by Jio Reliance and Airtel Company pertains to the accused persons and are admissible in accordance with Sec.65-B (4) of Evidence
Act.
56. Now coming to the call data records produced by the prosecution, it is seen that there are high number of communications between accused No.1 and 2 during the relevant point of time when the incident occurred. The call data records of mobile number 7569486110 pertaining to accused No.1 shows that several calls were made from
Page No. 34 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
February, 2019 to 03-06-2019 i.e., date of incident to the mobile number 6304659867 which is the number of accused No.2. It is seen that there was communication between accused No.1 and 2 from February, 2019 onwards as per the call data contained in Ex.P14 (compact disk) but there was sudden rise of communication between them on 02-06-2019 and 03-06-2019 i.e., a day prior to the date of incident and also on the date of incident. It is seen that there are 50 calls between accused No.1 and 2 on 03-06-2019 i.e., on the date of incident. Further, there are 64 calls on 02-06-2019 on a day before incident. On the day of incident i.e., 03-06-2019 the calls began at around 6-30 am, and continued till 21-56 pm i.e., till the exact time of incident as per prosecution. It is pertinent to note here that the accused No.1 was in contact with accused No.2 by making continuous calls from 20-08 pm till 21-56 pm. There is no explanation by the accused No.1 as to why she was in contact with accused No.2 till 21-56 pm on that day, when she was along with her husband and children. Thus, it is clear that accused No.1 was in continuous touch with accused No.2 informing about their whereabouts from their house to Kurnool and their return from Kurnool till the place of incident.
57. Further the call data of accused No.2 for the mobile number 6304659867 shows that he made calls to accused No.3, 4 and 6 for several times more particularly before and after the date of incident. The call data record of accused No.2 under Ex.P14 Compact Disk (CD) shows that there was communication between accused No.3, 4 and 6 on
Page No. 35 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 03-06-2019 during entire day from morning hours till 9-00 pm, and thereafter there was a sudden gap of 2 hours and again the communication started at about 11-00 pm which continued till the next day i.e., 04-06-2019. The said gap of 2 hours is the exact time when the alleged incident took place which supports the prosecution case that at that point of time all the accused were together waiting for attack.
58. Coming to call data records of accused No.3 which is marked as
Ex.P21, it is seen that accused No.3 was also in continuous touch with accused No.2 and 4 on 03-06-2019 i.e., the date of incident from 8-27 am, which is the 1st call and later there were several calls between them during the entire day. It is further seen that there was a sudden increase in the number of calls from 18-38 pm to 20-54 pm, and later there was a sudden gap till 23-09 pm, which goes to show that they all were together and participated in the offence. It is also seen that thereafter there was further communication between accused No.2, 3 and 4 during odd hours i.e., after 23-09 pm till 3-38 am, on next day.
59. The call data record of mobile phone bearing No.9985936010 of accused No.4 marked as Ex.P22 shows that on the date of incident i.e., 03-06-2019, the accused No.4 communicated with accused No.2 and 3 from 4-00 pm onwards till 20-58 pm. Thereafter there was a gap of around 2 hours and the next call was at about 22-57 pm between them and continued till 23-58 pm on that day.
60. As per prosecution accused No.2 approached accused No.6 and
Page No. 36 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 hired accused No.3 to 5 through him for the purpose of murder of the deceased. The call data record of accused No.6 for the mobile
No.8688137117 which is marked as Ex.P31, it is seen that there was communication between accused No.6 and accused No.2 from 29-05-2019 and thereafter there were several calls exchanged between them till 04-06-2019. It is seen that there were 5 calls on 29-05-2019 and 30-05-2019, and there were 6 calls each on 31-05-2019 and 01-06-2019 and there were11 calls each on 02-06-2019 and 03-06-2019 exchanged between them and finally on 04-06-2019 there were only 3 calls between them. The above data also gives support to the prosecution case that the accused No.2 approached accused No.6 for hiring the contract killers and communicated with him extensively on 02-06-2019 and 03-06-2019 i.e., a day prior to the incident and also on the date of incident.
61. Thus, the call data records of accused No.1 to 4 and 6 clearly shows that on the date of incident and day before incident there was extensive communication between the accused which clearly shows the coordination between them with regard to the commission offence. It is also observed that the accused No.1 was continuously in touch with accused No.2 on the date of incident from 7-00 pm on that day till 9-57 pm i.e., immediately before the occurrence of the incident. The above communication between accused No.1 and 2 clearly reveals that accused No.1 was informing the accused No.2 with regard to their whereabouts from the moment they started to Kurnool till they reach the
Page No. 37 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 place of occurrence. The entire call data record of accused No.1 shows that though there were several calls between accused No.1 and 2 till the time of occurrence of the incident but strangely there is a complete silence thereafter with no communication clearly supporting the prosecution version that the murder of the deceased was committed by them in conspiracy.
62. The Hon’ble Apex court in Kum.Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs.
State of Karnataka and another in Crl. Appeal No.1029 of 2011 dt.14-07-2025 held thus:
86. From the aforesaid materials, it is impossible for us to come to any other conclusion, than the one put forth by the prosecution, as the communications between the accused persons are too many, having a distinct pattern, following one after the other and even during odd hours of the night. The sudden rise in communications on the date of the incident and even a day prior to it, followed by a sudden drop in the communications on the very night of the unfortunate incident and days thereafter, consistently point only towards the guilt of the accused and serve as proof of the conspiracy that was hatched to murder the deceased. At this juncture, we would like to point out that while CDR data may not be construed as a substantive piece of evidence, it is certainly to be used for appropriate corroboration. One has to see the attending circumstances to decide the evidentiary value of CDR. For example, where the evidence is so overwhelming and the conduct of an accused is such that he is bound to give a sufficient explanation for it, but fails to do so, as in the instant Criminal Appeal No. 1029 of 2011 & Connected Matters 69 of 132 case, the CDR might even take the position of substantive evidence. Therefore, in a given factual scenario, the Court can place heavy reliance upon the same for the purpose of rendering a conviction. Suffice it is to state that proving the guilt depends upon the degree of probability.
In the present case on hand the call data records of accused clearly establishes that accused No.1 was continuously informing accused No.2 with regard to their whereabouts from the moment they
Page No. 38 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 started to Kurnool and accused No.2 has observing and monitoring them by communicating with accused No.3 and 4 till the commission of offence, while accused No.6 facilitated the offence by way of engaging accused No.3 and 4 for the commission of offence. In the light of clear proof of the offence in the shape of call data records of accused No.1 to 4 and 6, this court is inclined to accept the same.
63. Though prosecution collected the call data record of accused No.5 under Ex.P23 and Ex.P30 for his mobile numbers 6300149337 and 9652133058 respectively but nothing incriminating was found from the said call data record. There are no calls either received or called from phone numbers of other accused to the above phone numbers of accused
No.5 on any date. The prosecution has also not adduced any evidence to prove the role of accused No.5 in the commission of offence. In the absence of any such evidence the accused No.5 cannot be roped in for such grave offence.
64. The prosecution case is that while the deceased along with his wife and children returning to his house from Kurnool, when they reached near Imampur village, the accused persons have attacked him with beer bottles, hit him on his head and dragged him into the fields and cut his throat with beer bottle and killed him. As per the prosecution during the course of scene of offence panchanama the police have seized broken beer bottles, clothes, chappal and mobile phone of deceased. PW-7 is the panch for Crime Details Form who deposed that the police conducted
Page No. 39 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 scene of offence panchanama and seized the broken beer bottles, clothes, chappal and mobile phone of deceased which are marked as MOs.1 to 6.
Police also conducted confession and recovery panchanama of accused
No.2 to 6 and seized the clothes of accused No.3 to 5 used by them at the time of commission of offence. PW-9 panch for confession and recovery of accused No.2 to 6, stated that all the accused confessed to have committed the offence and the police seized MOs.8 to 16 from their possession out of which MOs.14, 15 and 16 are the clothes of accused
No.3 to 5 used by them at the time of commission of offence. As per
PW-16/Investigating Officer, he sent the material objects viz., broken beer bottle pieces and the clothes of the deceased and clothes of accused
No.3 to 5 to Forensic Science Laboratory and received the reportshowing that the deceased blood group was found on the clothes of accused No.3 and 4. Though the said report was not marked however the same is available in the record and a perusal of the same shows that human blood is detected on the beer bottle pieces, clothes of the deceased and clothes of accused No.3 and 4. The blood group of the blood stains on the above said material objects is of “A” blood group. There is no explanation from the accused as to how human blood is detected on their clothes. Thus, the prosecution proved the seizure which further establishes the involvement of accused No.3 and 4in the alleged offence.
65. Accused No.1 is also charged with offence under Sec.182 of IPC, giving false information to a public servant to cause injury or annoyance to another person.
Page No. 40 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
Sec.182 of IPC: False information, with intent to cause public
servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.-- Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Illustrations
(a) A informs a Magistrate that Z, a police-officer, subordinate to such Magistrate, has been guilty of neglect of duty or misconduct, knowing such information to be false, and knowing it to be likely that the information will cause the Magistrate to dismiss Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(b) A falsely informs a public servant that Z has contraband salt in a secret place, knowing such information to be false, and knowing that it is likely that the consequence of the information will be a search of Z's premises, attended with annoyance to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(c) A falsely informs a policeman that he has been assaulted and robbed in the neighbor-hood of a particular village. He does not mention the name of any person as one of his assailants, but knows it to be likely that in consequence of this information the police will make enquiries and institute searches in the village to the annoyance of the villagers or some of them. A has committed an offence under this section.] A- Block, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003, INDI
66. As per prosecution PW-1 brother of deceased is the person who lodged complaint with police with regard to occurrence of incident.
Initially, accused No.1 was cited as witness and shown as LW-2. As per prosecution accused No.1 informed PW-1 that some unknown
Page No. 41 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 offenders attacked her husband and killed him. Accused No.1 has not given any information to the police with regard to involvement of any other person in the commission of offence. When accused No.1 has not given any information, the question of police questioning other person and causing injury or annoyance does not arise. Police have also not placed any evidence to show that such injury or annoyance is caused to any person. Thus, prosecution failed to prove the charge under Sec.182 of IPC.
67. From the above discussion, it is held proved that there is illegal intimacy between Accused Nos.1 and 2, which constituted the motive for committing the murder of the deceased. The call data records of Accused
Nos.1 to 4 and 6, proved through the evidence of PWs-12 and 13 (Nodal
Officers), establish that all the accused acted with common intention.
Accused No.6 abetted the act of murder and in consequence of such abetment, the deceased was killed by accused No.2 to 4. Since the abetted act of murder was committed accused No.6 is liable for punishment for the said offence equally along with accused No.1 to 4.
Further, the blood-stained clothes of the accused, sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory, confirm the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence.
68. Accordingly, the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and they are liable to be sentenced
Page No. 42 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 accordingly. Further prosecution proved that Accused No.6 abetted the commission of the offence of murder and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 109 IPC, for which he is also liable to be sentenced accordingly.
69. In the result, accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under
Sec.182 of IPC and accordingly acquitted under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.
Further accused No.5 is found not guilty for the charged offences punishable under Ss.302 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, acquitted under
Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offence.
Further accused No.1 to 4 are found guilty for the charged offence punishable under Ss.302 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly convicted under
Sec. 235 (2) Cr.P.C.
Further accused No.6 is found guilty for the charged offence punishable under Sec.109 IPC and accordingly convicted under Sec.235 (2) Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of December,
2025.
Sd/-
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
JOGULAMBA GADWAL.
Heard the accused with regard to quantum of sentence:-
70. When questioned with regard to quantum of sentence Accused
No.1 to 3 and 6 stated that they have not committed any such offence
Page No. 43 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021 and pleaded to take a lenient view. In view of the severity of offence and no lenient view is taken.
Accused Nos.1 to 4 are convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Further Accused No.6 is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the IPC.
The accused are informed of their right to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. They are further informed that legal-aid counsel will be provided, if they so require. A free copy of the judgment is furnished to them.
The remand period of Accused No.1 from 06-06-2019 to 28-08-2019 and Accused No.2, 3 and 6 from 07-06-2019 to 28-08-2019 shall be set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
MOs1 to 5 and 14 to 16 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MOs6 to 13 shall be returned to its original owners on proper verification after expiry of appeal time.
Since Accused No.4 is called absent, Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) is ordered to be issued against Accused No.4 for execution.
Page No. 44 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
For hearing on the quantum of sentence of Accused No.4, call on 22-12-2025.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, seen, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of December, 2025.
Sd/-
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
JOGULAMBA GADWAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined for
Prosecution: Defence:---nil---
PW-1 Kakunuri Gopi PW-2 Mahesh PW-3 ChajkaliLaxmanna PW-4 Chakali Keerthana PW-5 Venkata Ravi PW-6 Kamarti Shakunthala PW-7 S.Banumurthy PW-8 Ramana Rao PW-9 GoureddyVenkateshwar Reddy PW-10 Dr.P.Ramya PW-11 PerupoguPrabhudas PW-12G.Jithender PW-13 A.S.Sudheer Kumar PW-14 Dadapogu Krishna PW-15 Madhusudhan Reddy I.O. PW-16 G.Raju, I.O. PW-17 M.Venkatramaiah I.O.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
Prosecution:
Ex.P1 complaint Ex.P2 crime details form Ex.P3 inquest report Ex.P4 seizure of panchanama Ex.P5 confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 Ex.P6 to P10 confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A2 to A6 Ex.P11 relevant portion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P12 PME report Ex.P13 rental agreement Ex.P14 C.D. Ex.P15 65-B certificate Ex.P16 covering letter
Page No. 45 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No.114 of 2021
Ex.P17 application form of A1 Ex.P18 application form of A6 Ex.P19 application form of A2 Ex.P20 application form of A5 Ex.P21 to 23 call records of K.Krishna, A4 and A5 Ex.P24 application form of K.Krishna Ex.P25 application form of A4 Ex.P26 application form of A5 Ex.P27 authorisation letter Ex.P28 65-B certificate Ex.P29 FIR Ex.P30 CDR of A5 Ex.P31 CDR of A6 Ex.P32 photos
Defence:-
Ex.D1 is line in 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO1 is broken beer bottles MO2 is white color shirt of deceased MO3 is white banian of deceased MO4 is chocolate color pant of deceased MO5 is cheppals MO6 is mobile intel company MO7 is Jio mobile phone of A1 MO8 is Jio mobile A2 MO9 is TVS motor bike MO10 is Lava company mobile phone MO11 is Samsung mobile phone MO12 is Samsung Galaxy model phone MO13 is Jio mobile phone Ex.P14 is T-shirt and pant of A3 Ex.P15 is T-shirt and pant of A4 Ex.P16 is T-shirt and pant of A5
Sd/-
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
JOGULAMBA GADWAL.