Fair Judgment1Dtd:19.08.2025
In the Court of The XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge:
Narasaraopet.
PRESENT:-Dr. N. Satya Sri, XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.
Tuesday, this the 19th day of August, 2025.
Sessions Case No.951 of 2022
(PRC No.16/2022 dated 13.07.2022 on the file of The II Additional Junior Civil
Judge, Narasaraopet in Cr. No.225/2019 of Phirangipuram Police Station)
Between:
State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural Circle. …. Complainant/State
And
Dhara Yakobu S/o.Samuel, Aged 65 Years, R/o.Vemavaram Village, Phirangipuram Mandal. …Accused No.1 (As per FIR)
This case came up before this Court on 12-08-2025 in the presence of In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri S.
Prasad, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused, upon considering entire material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
01.The Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural Circle laid charge sheet against sole accused for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after IPC for brevity) in Crime No.225/2019 of Phirangipuram Police Station.
Fair Judgment2Dtd:19.08.2025
02.The case of prosecution is that Accused No.1 is resident of Vemavaram Village of Phirangipuram Mandal, alleged
Accused No.2 is son of Accused No.1. About 30 years back marriage of LW.1/Chilaka Sundara Rao resident of Grandhasiri Village was solemnized with LW.4/Chilaka Malleswari i.e. mother of Dhara
Koteswaramma/herein after referred as deceased, LW.1 and LW.4 were blessed with one female and three male children and deceased is as stated daughter of LW.1 and LW.4. Marriage of LW.6/Dhara Bujji son of LW.2/Chilaka Mariyamma @ Venkayamma was solemnized with
Dhara Manohar of Vemavaram Village, Phirangipuram Mandal later said Dhara Manohar died. Accused No.1 is maternal grandfather and alleged accused Dhara Shyam Babu is maternal uncle of deceased.
About 12 years back marriage of deceased was solemnized with alleged Accused/Dhara Shyam Babu who is younger brother of LW.4.
Since marriage of deceased, deceased lead conjugal life with Dhara
Shyam Babu at Vemavaram Village of Phirangipuram Mandal and about one year back deceased gave birth to boy child. Subsequently marriage of LW.7/Dhara Vijaya Kumari was solemnized with
LW.5/Dhara Nagarjuna who is also resident of Vemavaram Village.
LW.6/Dhara Bujji is paternal aunt of deceased. Both LW.1 and family of Accused are relatives. Since long time there are disputes between family of Accused No.1 and LW.6 and they used to quarrel with each other now and then. Previously Accused No.1 was elected as
Sarpanch of Vemavaram Village but he could not develop their colony
Fair Judgment3Dtd:19.08.2025 as such some disputes existed between Accused No.1 and families with surname “Dhara”. Again in the year 2013, Accused No.1 contested as Sarpanch of the village at which time none of the Dhara family voters cast their vote due to which Accused No.1 was defeated by his opponent in the elections. Since then Accused No.1 bore grudge against Dhara families, used to hate them and did not talk with them, also used to allege that character of LW.6 was not good and demanded LW.1 and LW.4 not to visit Vemavaram Village and not to talk with ‘Dhara’ families but LW.1 and LW.4 did not listen to the words of Accused No.1 and visited house of LW.6, as such panchayat was held between Accused No.1 and LW.1, at that time Accused No.1 demanded LW.1 not to visit Vemavaram Village and not to talk with ‘Dhara’ families which was accepted by LW.1 yet LW.1 continued to visit house of LW.6. The deceased also continued her relationship with her paternal aunt/LW.6 but Accused No.1 and his son/Dhara
Shyam Babu did not like the same as such warned deceased not to talk with LW.6, also beat and harassed deceased. While things stood thus, on 08.11.2019 daughter of LW.5/Dhara Nagarjuna and LW.7/Dhara
Vijaya Kumari aged 11 months died due to ill health at which time LW.1 to LW.4 along with their relatives came to Vemavaram Village from
Grandhasiri Village, they all along with deceased visited house of LW.5, attended funeral, later LW.2 and LW.3/Chilaka Nageswara Rao stayed at the house of LW.5 while LW.1 and LW.4 along with other relatives returned to their village Grandhasiri and on said date deceased talked
Fair Judgment4Dtd:19.08.2025 with all her paternal relatives. Accused No.1 and husband of deceased/Dhara Shyam Babu came to know that deceased talked with her paternal relatives, developed ire, on 10.11.2019 raised quarrel with deceased, hired Auto of LW.13/Repudi Prasad, took deceased to
Grandhasiri, they reached at about 7:00 P.M., abused LW.1 and LW.4, quarreled with them by stating “why should you come to the house of our enemies, your daughter Koteswaramma is our daughter-in-law, but you don’t have fear, so we will see your, your daughter
Koteswaramma’s end, you are violating the promise made earlier” at which time they threatened LW.1 and LW.4, again made deceased boarded auto to return, at which time LW.1 and LW.4 obstructed
Accused by pleading them to leave deceased with them and after two days they will drop deceased at Vemavaram. But since Accused No.1 had evil intention they did not leave deceased at her paternal home and brought her back to Vemavaram Village in the same auto. On 11.11.2019 LW.6 went out of the house, when she was returning at about 7:00 A.M. she noticed Accused No.1 quarrel with deceased but she did not observe the same and returned to her house. Later at about 9:00 A.M, LW.6 noticed that Accused No.1 continued to abuse deceased as such LW.6 again went to the corner of the house of
Accused No.1, at that time deceased was cleaning her teeth with brush, Accused No.1 was cutting sticks with an Axe, when she spoke with deceased Accused No.1 on observing the same called deceased, questioned deceased as to why she spoke with LW.6, raised quarrel
Fair Judgment5Dtd:19.08.2025 with deceased as such LW.6 left from there. LW.11/Pentareddy
Thomas Reddy is working as Teacher in Mandal Praja Parishad
Elementary School, Vemavaram Village, attended school from 9:00
A.M. to 4:00 P.M., regularly used to attend school from Phirangipuram
Village, as usual on 11.11.2019 when he was coming to Vemavaram village at about 8:30 A.M., LW.1 noticed Dhara Shyam Babu along with
LW.14/Dhara Padma and LW.15/Dhara Mariya Dasu at Highway Bus
Stop at which time LW.11 made courtesy wish to LW.11. Later around 8:15 A.M., LW.11 reached school and went into school, LW.12/Paleti
Jaswanth @ Joseph also went to attend school. When LW.11 and
LW.12 were inside the school, they heard loud cries from the house of
Accused No.1, immediately they both came out of the school at which time they noticed Accused No.1 coming out from his house armed with
Axe and go towards fields from eastern side road. LW.12 noticed blood flowing from canal into drainage canal as such LW.12 informed the same to LW.11 and went to LW.8 and informed him the same. LW.8 to
LW.10/Kavuri Ashok @ Deva Dasu, Dhara Ruben and Repudi Achari along with LW.2, LW.3, LW.5 and LW.6 rushed there and found deceased with severe bleeding injuries near bath room with breath in the tip. On seeing the same LW.2 made phone call to LW.1 and informed him about the same. LW.2 and LW.3 along with LW.8 and
LW.9 took deceased with injuries in the auto of LW.5 which was driven by LW.10 to Primary Health Center, Nudurupadu, on the advice of medical staff they took deceased to Guntur in the same auto. When
Fair Judgment6Dtd:19.08.2025 they reached Phirangipuram in between 9:30 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. they noticed respiration of deceased to be stopped, on suspicion LW.2,
LW.3, LW.8 and LW.9 took deceased to Dr. Rangaiah, RMP Doctor who examined deceased and declared that she died as such in the same auto they brought dead body of deceased and kept her dead body in the auto in front of house of Accused No.1. Soon after death of deceased, LW.2 again made phone call to LW.1 and informed about death of deceased. LW.1 and LW.4 along with their relatives reached
Vemavaram Village, observed dead body of deceased, then LW.1 came to Police Station and gave report. Basing on the report of
LW.1/father of deceased LW.24/P. Suresh, the then Sub-Inspector of
Police, Phirangipuram Police Station registered the same as a case in
Cr. No.225 of 2019 under Section 302 of IPC of Phirangipuram Police
Station on 11.11.2019 at 3:00 P.M., submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers. In view of gravity of the offence LW.25/Y. Atchaiah, the then Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural Circle took up investigation. LW.25 visited scene of offence, examined the same in the presence of LW.20/Nuthakki Venu Babu and LW.21/Bondu
Seshaiah at about 4:00 P.M. on 22.12.2019 (as mentioned in the charge sheet) infact seized material objects in their presence, got photographed scene of offence through LW.19/Bandhanadham
Sandeep, drafted observation report attested by LW.20 and LW.21 and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. LW.25 held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of panchayatdars/
Fair Judgment7Dtd:19.08.2025
LW.20 to LW.22 (LW.22/Chirra Pethuru) and blood relatives from 10:00
A.M. to 1:00 P.M. on 12.11.2019 and sent dead body of deceased to
LW.23/Dr. B. Sudheer Chandra, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital,
Narasaraopet for Postmortem examination. LW.25 examined LW.1 to
LW.15 respectively and recorded their statement under Section 161 (3) of The Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after Cr.P.C for brevity).
During the course of further investigation on 18.11.2019, LW.25 arrested Accused No.1 in the presence of LW.20 and LW.21, Accused voluntarily confessed about commission of murder of deceased, mediatornama to said effect was drafted which was attested by LW.20 and LW.21. In furtherance of confession made by accused, LW.25 seized Axe which was used by accused at the time of commission of offence in the presence of LW.20 and LW.21 under cover of seizure mediatornama attested by LW.20 and LW.21 and sent accused to judicial custody. LW.25 examined LW.16 to LW.18/Meda Srinu, Papula
Jaya Prakash and Banda Balaswamy respectively and recorded their statement under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. LW.15 forwarded seized material objects to RFSL, Guntur for chemical analysis and RFSL report was received with opinion that Item No.1 to 9 were examined, human blood is detected on Item No.1, 3 to 9 but blood group could not be determined, blood is not detected on Item No.2 which is received as control of Item No.1. LW.23/Medical Officer/Dr. B. Sudheer Chandra conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased, issued
Postmortem certificate with opinion that deceased died due to Head
Fair Judgment8Dtd:19.08.2025 injury. As per statement of LW.16 to LW.18 alleged Accused/Dhara
Syam Babu was present at Net-Center, Phirangipuram Village to up load application for employment in Postal Department, alleged accused was present at Net-Center of LW.18 from 9:15 A.M to 10:30 A.M. on said date, he collected job print application from LW.18, application was with Registration No.CR67A4B2638413, dated11.11.2019 at 9:55.13
A.M. and suspect Repudi Koteswara Rao was engaged in marriage works of his daughter. Investigation established that Accused No.1 who is father of alleged Accused/Dhara Shyam Babu, hacked deceased with an Axe, came out from the house armed with Axe with blood stains, alleged accused was not present at the time of occurrence, suspected Repudi Koteswara Rao was engaged in marriage alliance works of his daughter, thus prima-facie case is made out against Accused No.1 only for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC. Proposal was submitted to Superintendent of
Police, Guntur Rural, Proceedings vide in C.No.15/C1-Ref/2020 dated 10.09.2020 with instructions to LW.25 was received by him to delete names of Dhara Shyam Babu and suspect Repudi Koteswara Rao and to file charge sheet against Accused No.1 only. After completion of investigation LW.25 filed charge sheet against Accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
03.The II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet issued notice to LW.2/mother of deceased as LW.1/defacto- complainant/father of deceased died after filing of charge sheet on
Fair Judgment9Dtd:19.08.2025 15.10.2020 as Accused No.2 and suspect were deleted by investigating agency.On 01.04.2022 as per office note that defacto- complainant filed memo stating that he does not have objection to delete Accused No.2 and to take cognizance, The II Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Narasaraopet took the case on file for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC against Accused. After appearance of Accused copies of documents relied on by prosecution were furnished to him and case was numbered as PRC No.16 of 2022 dated 13.07.2022 and committedto The Hon’bleDistrict and
SessionsCourt, Guntur which was numbered as SC No.951/2022
and made over to this court for disposal according to law.
04.After receipt of record, this court issued summons to accused, after appearance of accused before this court, as accused reported no means Legal Aid Counsel was appointed.
On 26.04.2024 after hearing on charges, accused was examined for the charge punishable under Section 302 of IPC, contents of charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
05.During the course of trial, prosecution examined witnesses as PW.1 to PW.17 even though 25 witnesses were cited, got marked Exhibits P1 to P15 andMO.1 to MO.9.
Fair Judgment10Dtd:19.08.2025
06.After PW.1 was examined in chief in part, prosecution filed Crl.M.P. No.354 of 2024 under Section 319 Cr.P.C with a prayer to issue summons to proposed respondents/accused
No.2 and 3 as additional accused, said petition was dismissed on 30.08.2024.
07.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating circumstances deposed against him by prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
08.Heard both sides.
09.The In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated written arguments at the time of hearing. In the written arguments the evidence of prosecution witnesses was reproduced, referred to Judgment between State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. Uppaluru Karimulla reported in 2023 (1) (ALD) (Criminal) 726 A.P. wherein Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Amaravathi observed that “accused is not entitled to benefit under Section 84 of IPC merely for the reason that accused suffered from schizophrenia and imposition of death sentence not proper when health condition of accused is not good” and sentence of death penalty was set aside. The prosecution also filed Judgment reported in 2023 (1) ALD (Crl.) 804 (TS) between Konyala Kistaiah @ Krishna v. State of Andhra
Fair Judgment11Dtd:19.08.2025
Pradesh wherein it was held by Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad wherein conviction in a case of circumstantial evidence was upheld, referred to Para No.25 and 26 “that on the ground that accused there in failed to offer proper explanation as to how the injuries are caused on the deceased prior to her death and as to how dead body of deceased was found in their house and no general defence has been taken by the appellant to establish his innocence.” In-charge Additional
Public Prosecutor submitted that independent witnesses/PW.2 to
PW.6 corroborated with the evidence of PW.15 who is eye witness which is also supported by medical evidence and evidence of mediator. Hence In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to convict and sentence accused.
10.The Legal Aid Counsel for Accused submitted that prosecution failed to establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and
PW.15/eye witness, PW.1 is not an eye witness, LW.6 did not depose that PW.1 was in the house of PW.4, from the evidence there is no boundary wall or fencing between the house of LW.6 and accused but witnesses in their cross examination admitted that fencing is placed between house of LW.6 and accused. It is further submitted that it is not possible for PW.15 to witness scene of offence as in the rough sketch, scene of offence is shown in front of bath room, PW.1 is planted witness as she is mother of deceased thus her evidence is
Fair Judgment12Dtd:19.08.2025 not trust worthy, PW.2 is not an eye witness, is planted witness and his evidence is not truthful as PW.2 deposed that deceased sustained 4 injuries, son of accused hacked deceased twice and then accused hacked twice whereas in postmortem examination 7 injuries are mentioned and in inquest report panchayatdars mentioned 9 injuries.
It is further submitted that in view of admission of PW.15 in his cross examination that by 9:00 A.M. assembly will be completed and he will be present in the class, there is no possibility fo PW.15 witnessing accused, prosecution failed to examine RMP Doctor who treated deceased at the 1st instance, actual time of offence is not established by prosecution, so also motive of accused is not established as accused and deceased had good relation for a period of 10 to 15 years as is evident from the evidence of PW.2. Accused is innocent, aged 75 years and he is suffering from ill health. Hence Legal Aid
Counsel for Accused submitted to acquit Accused as prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
11.The counsel for accused filed Judgment between
Lakshman Prasad @ Lakshman V. State of Madhya Pradesh in
Criminal Appeal No.821 of 2012 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in a case of circumstantial evidence on the observation of High
Court that “one of the links to be missing and not proved” conviction ought to have been interfered with and as such allowed appeal and set aside conviction.
Fair Judgment13Dtd:19.08.2025
12.The counsel for accused also filed Judgment between Pankaj V. State of Rajasthan decided on 09.09.2016 in
Criminal Appeal No.2135 of 2009 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2016 SC 4150wherein conviction and sentence was set aside by allowing appeal as testimony of informant therein was found to be unreliable in a case under Sections 302, 452 and 34 IPC and Section 3 r/w 25 of The Arms Act, 1959.
13.In the reply arguments In-charge Additional Public
Prosecutor submitted that evidence of PW.15/eye witness is sufficient, accused had motive to cause death of deceased due to previous disputes, the Judgments filed by prosecution are relevant to this case, evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by PW.15, Citations/Judgments filed by
Legal Aid Counsel are not relevant and applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
14.In reply to the reply argument of In-charge Additional
Public Prosecutor, Legal Aid Counsel submitted that PW.17/
Investigating officer did not send finger prints on Axe to FSL, PW.17 admitted that Axe is easily available in open market, PW.15 in his cross examination admitted that he was inside the school as such his evidence cannot be relied upon, neighbourers shown in the rough sketch are not examined and investigating agency examined only relatives of deceased, so also surrounding houses inmates are not examined who are shown in the scene observation report. Hence Legal Aid Counsel for accused
Fair Judgment14Dtd:19.08.2025 submitted to acquit accused as prosecution failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
15.Now the point that arises for consideration is:
1. Whether prosecution proved guilt of
accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the
Charge punishable under Section 302 of The
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ?
2. To what findings ?
POINT No.1 :
16.At this juncture for better appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses is discussed.
17.PW.1/ChilakaVenkayamma/grandmotherof deceased deposed that accused and Shyam hacked her granddaughter to death, after marriage her granddaughter lead happy life for some time, husband of deceased used to raise dispute with deceased when she visited house of her daughter/Bujji/PW.4 and her granddaughter, husband of deceased asked her granddaughter not to visit their house and speak with them. Accused and husband of deceased took her to Grandhasiri Village where father of deceased resided, informed father of deceased not to talk with deceased as they were talking with her even though they warned and returned to their house, on the next day accused and husband of deceased hacked her to death. PW.1 further deposed that at the time of
Fair Judgment15Dtd:19.08.2025 incident he was present at the house of his daughter/Bujji/PW.4 he noticed deceased and her husband in dispute, at that time husband of deceased hacked her and accused also came there and hacked deceased with an Axe, distance from the house of his daughter to the house of deceased is about 10 feet, he witnessed as there is no boundary wall or fencing in between their houses, he rushed near deceased, noticed her lying in pool of blood meanwhile accused and husband of deceased escaped, on his raising cries neighbours came there they shifted his granddaughter/deceased to RMP doctor at
Phirangipuram, from there to Guntur, her son/LW.1(died) gave report to Police and she identified signature of her son/LW.1 in the report.
PW.1 further deposed that she was also present at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased, on the instigation of one LIC
Koteswara Rao, accused and husband of deceased hacked her granddaughter and she did not state before police to remove name of
Shyam Babu from the name of accused. In her cross examination by
Legal Aid Counsel for accused PW.1 stated that there are disputes between her younger son and accused, her daughter’s marriage was performed with son of accused, even after marriage of his daughter with accused there were disputes between accused and her younger son. PW.1 denied suggestion that she is deposing false against accused as her younger son had disputes with accused. PW.1 stated that incident occurred at 7:00 A.M., she witnessed accused hack deceased within a distance of 10 feet, she could not stop accused
Fair Judgment16Dtd:19.08.2025 because of fencing between both the houses and denied suggestion that she did not witness incident.
18.PW.2/Chilaka Nageswara Rao/junior paternal uncle of deceased deposed that his elder’s brother marriage took place about 20 years back, his elder brother begot 2 sons and 1 daughter i.e. deceased, son of accused hacked deceased, later accused also hacked deceased, incident occurred after 2 days when they returned from Vemavaram Village, when he was present at the house of his daughter and going to house of accused, they witnessed accused and his son going out from their house. PW.2 further deposed that earlier also accused and his son informed father of deceased/ LW.1 and PW.1 not to visit their house and if they visit they will see the end of deceased. He along with PW.1, his younger sister and his younger sister’s daughter went to house of deceased, noticed deceased as they were scared to go near her, they shifted her to hospital in an auto, he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased and as accused hacked deceased she died. In his cross examination by Legal Aid Counsel for Accused, PW.2 stated that there are no houses in between house of accused and house of his younger sister, he also witnessed incident, son of accused hacked deceased twice, accused also hacked twice and he stated the same to police, he never went to the house of accused for panchayat and he came to know that accused threatened to do away with the life of
Fair Judgment17Dtd:19.08.2025 deceased to LW.1 over phone. PW.2 denied suggestion that he is deposing false as accused had disputes with his daughter.
19.PW.3/Dhara Nagarjuna/grand son of PW.1 and nephew of father of deceased deposed that when his 11 month old daughter passed away, father of deceased, PW.1, PW.2 and other relatives came to his house to offer their condolences and on the next day they left to their village, as such accused and his son raised disputes with them as father of deceased asked deceased to leave her at Grandhasiri village for few days but accused and his son took back deceased to their village Vemavaram, father of deceased informed him about dispute on the next day, he noticed accused and
Shyam Babu abusing at about 7:00 A.M. and going around village but they continued with their daily village, after some time he heard cries of his grandmother/PW.1, rushed out of house, noticed accused/
Dhara Yacobu, hacked deceased with a sickle and by the time they reached near him, accused escaped, they shifted her to Hospital, as he could not drive auto due to shock, one Repudi Achari/PW.6 drove his auto to Hospital at which time father of deceased, PW.1 and others accompanied them, as they noticed that there was no breathing they stopped on the way to Guntur Hospital at
Phirangipuram where they were informed about death of deceased as such returned with dead body to their village and father of deceased gave report to police, he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased and along with accused Shyam Babu was
Fair Judgment18Dtd:19.08.2025 also present. In his cross examination by Legal Aid Counsel for
Accused, PW.3 admitted that there are disputes between him and accused since the year 2013 Panchayat elections, he did not have cordial relation with deceased, so also his wife, they are neighbourers but they are not in talking terms and denied suggestion that due to disputes between him and accused he deposed false against accused.
20.PW.4/Dhara Bujji/paternal aunt of deceased deposed that when her granddaughter died, father of deceased came to her house to offer condolences, at that time father of deceased went and visited deceased at her in-laws house, they left to their village
Grandhasiri, PW.2 and LW.4/Chilaka Malleswari i.e. mother of deceased stayed at her house, accused and Shyam Babu went to
Grandhasiri along with deceased and raised disputes with father of deceased as to why they visited their house, on the next day Yacob and Shyam Babu raised dispute with deceased, when deceased was brushing her teeth, her husband and her father-in-law/accused hacked her to death with an Axe, on their witnessing the same they escaped, they noticed deceased in a pool of blood, shifted her to
Hospital for better treatment as she was referred to Guntur, when they reached Phirangipuram they suspected about death of deceased, after showing her to Doctor as she was declared dead, then in the same auto they returned to village and her elder brother/LW.1 gave report to police. PW.4 further deposed that she
Fair Judgment19Dtd:19.08.2025 was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased.
In her cross examination by Legal Aid Counsel for accused, PW.4 stated that in her son’s auto deceased was shifted to Hospital along with their relatives, there is no cordial relationship between her daughter-in-law and deceased, her daughter-in-law might have had cordial relation with her son. PW.4 admitted that there are disputes between them and accused, there are no talking terms between father of deceased and deceased. PW.4 denied suggestion that as there are disputes between them and accused, she is deposing false against accused.
21.PW.5/Kavuri Ashok deposed that when he was present at his house, one school child from the nearby school came to him, informed him that blood was flowing in the drainage, he rushed there, along with others went to the house of Yacob, by the time he reached there, other relatives and family members were present, auto of PW.3 was brought by LW.10/Achari and when going to Guntur for further treatment, deceased died as such they returned to Vemavaram Village. In his cross examination by Legal Aid
Counsel for accused PW.5 stated that he studied up to 10th class, he is a signatory, police obtained his signature in his statement, he does not know that Dhara Yacob committed murder, he does not know where there are any disputes between PW.3/his uncle by courtesy and accused, PW.5 denied suggestion that he is deposing false at the instance of PW.3.
Fair Judgment20Dtd:19.08.2025
22.PW.6/Repudi Achari deposed that there are disputes between deceased and her husband, when he returned from his fields, he heard disputes between them, by the time he reached there he noticed some other people were also present, he noticed deceased in a pool of blood, he came to know that family members of deceased beat her and caused her death i.e. her husband, father-in- law and mother-in-law. PW.6 further deposed that deceased was shifted in auto to Primacy Health Centre as driver of auto stated that he could not drive auto, he drove auto on said date, when they were going to Guntur for further treatment on the way as they had suspicion they stopped at RMP Doctor where deceased was declared dead as such they returned to Vemavaram Village and informed to relatives of deceased. In his cross examination by Legal Aid Counsel
for accused he admitted that accused worked as Sarpanch earlier of
their village and he had enmity with several persons, PW.3 is his distant relative, he went to fields early in the morning and returned by 9:00 A.M., he has good relation with accused, he is not an eye witness to the incident, PW.6 denied suggestion that at request of
PW.3 he is deposing false.
23.PW.7/Pentareddy Thomas Reddy did not support the case of prosecution. PW.7 deposed that he knew both deceased and accused, also her relatives, he came to know that deceased died and that she was shifted in auto to Hospital through school children.
Nothing material is elicited in his cross examination by prosecution
Fair Judgment21Dtd:19.08.2025 except marking his entire Section 161 Cr.P.C statement to police as
Ex.P1. PW.7 denied suggestion that he witnessed accused escape with Axe and that he stated the same before police.
24.PW.8/Dhara Padma deposed that since accused hacked deceased with an Axe deceased died, there are disputes between maternal aunt/Dhara Bujji of deceased and accused, as such there are differences between accused and deceased and she went and observed dead body of deceased. In her cross examination by Legal Aid Counsel for Accused, PW.8 stated that she does not know about family affairs of accused and deceased, she does not know since when there were disputes between Dhara Bujji and accused prevailed, to her knowledge deceased and her maternal aunt
Dhara Bujji were in talking terms, she noticed Dhara Shyam Babu move in a hurried manner, she went to Guntur at 8:15 A.M. and at about 8:30 or 8:45 A.M. she noticed Dhara Shyam Babu, she returned to their village Vemavaram in the evening. PW.8 further stated that she does not know complete details of this case.
25.PW.9/Meda Srinu did not support case of prosecution. PW.9 deposed that he does not know how deceased died and anything about this case. In his cross examination by prosecution nothing material is elicited except marking his entire
Section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P2. PW.9 denied suggestion
Fair Judgment22Dtd:19.08.2025 that he is deposing false to help accused as they both are residents of same village.
26.PW.10/Papula Jaya Prakash Narayana did not support case of prosecution. PW.10 deposed that he does not know anything about this case, also does not know accused and deceased.
In his cross examination by prosecution nothing material is elicited except marking his entire Section 161 Cr.P.C statement to police as
Ex.P3. PW.10 denied suggestion that he has acquaintance with accused and deceased and he is deposing false to help accused.
27.PW.11/Bandhanadhan Showry Sandeep did not support case of prosecution. PW.11 deposed that he did not take photographs and he does not know anything about this case. In his cross examination nothing material is elicited by prosecution. PW.11 denied suggestion that he took photographs at request of police and that he is deposing false to help accused.
28.PW.12/Banda Balaswamy did not support case of prosecution. PW.12 deposed that he does not know anything about this case, also accused and deceased. In his cross examination by prosecution nothing material is elicited except marking entire Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.12 to police as Ex.P4.
29.PW.13/Nuthakki Venu Babu/VRO deposed that he was present at the time of scene observation, preparation of scene observation report/Ex.P5, in his presence police seized control earth
Fair Judgment23Dtd:19.08.2025 and blood stained earth, he was also present on the next day at the time of inquest in the presence of blood relatives of deceased and inquest report/Ex.P6 was prepared. PW.13 further deposed that he was present along with police personnel at the time of apprehension of accused at Ponugupadu village near canal, identified accused, further deposed that accused confessed about commission of crime in his presence, lead them to donka near Vemavaram Village from near the bushes, produced Axe used in the commission of offence and clothes worn by accused at the time of commission of offence, police seized Axe, white shirt/MO.1, white Pancha/MO.2, Dhoti (Kanduva)/MO.3 of accused and Axe/MO.4 basing on confession of accused/Ex.P9 two marked portions in the confessional mediatornama of accused under seizurenama/Ex.P7. In his cross examination by Legal Aid Counsel for accused, PW.13 stated that accused was apprehended at 7:00 A.M., he observed dead body of deceased in prone position, accused does cultivation, accused from nearby bushes from the scrubs at Ponugupadu culvert produced blood stained clothes and Axe, he cannot say why the place after date has been left blank, at the time of inquest police obtained signature of blood relatives of accused in the inquest report. PW.13 further stated that there are disputes between Dhara Nagarjuna/LW.5 and Dhara Bujji/PW.4. PW.13 denied suggestion that he and
LW.21/Bondu Seshaiah affixed their signature in the inquest report at
Police Station and that he had disputes with accused when accused
Fair Judgment24Dtd:19.08.2025 was Sarpanch of Vemavaram Village and as such he is deposing false against accused. In his reexamination PW.13 stated that scene of offence is inside the house of accused and in his re-cross examination also PW.13 stated that scene of offence is inside the house of accused.
30.PW.14/Dr. B. Sudheer Chandra deposed that on receipt of requisition he conducted Postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased, he observed external and internal injuries i.e.
6 lacerated injuries bone deep on the head of deceased, also noticed other internal and external injuries, he issued Postmortem certificate/
Ex.P8 with opinion that deceased would appear to have died of head injury, on the date of conduct of Postmortem examination he handed over blood stained clothes of deceased to Inspector of Police and when confronted with Axe, PW.14 deposed that death of deceased might have occurred due to injuries caused by Axe which was confronted to him. In his cross examination by Legal Aid Counsel for accused, PW.14 admitted that as per Ex.P8/Postmortem Certificate dead body of deceased was in the state of rigor mortis all over the body. PW.14 admitted that he did not mention time of death in
Postmortem certificate. PW.14 stated that it is not necessary to mention nature of weapon whether blunt or sharp object in
Postmortem Report and said fact has to be mentioned in case of wounds in wound certificate. PW.14 further stated that since there are multiple injuries over head of deceased he mentioned cause of
Fair Judgment25Dtd:19.08.2025 death of deceased due to head injury. PW.14 denied suggestion that death of deceased might be caused with Axe.
31.PW.15/Paleti Jaswanth @ Joseph/minor eye witness deposed that deceased died when he was studying 5th standard, when he was present at his school he witnessed accused coming out of his house with an Axe and go towards eastern side of village and by that time their school class did not commence, prior to accused coming out of his house, he heard cries of deceased, after accused left he went and observed deceased in front of bath room of her house, along with him his school master also came with him but he does not remember his name. In his cross examination by Legal Aid
Counsel for Accused, PW.15 stated that he witnessed accused coming out of his house with an Axe at about 9:00 A.M., his school classes started at 9:00 A.M. by 9:00 A.M. assembly will be completed, at the time when he noticed accused coming out of his house with an Axe classes commenced and he was present in the class, to the eastern side of house of accused and deceased there are no houses and only fields. PW.15 further deposed that along with him some of the students and teachers also noticed deceased lying in front of bath room, he does not know what happened prior to the same. PW.15 denied suggestion that he did not witness accused coming out of his house with Axe and that he is deposing false at the instance of police.
Fair Judgment26Dtd:19.08.2025
32.PW.16/Prathipati Suresh/the then Sub-Inspector of
Police, Phirangipuram Police Station deposed that LW.1/Chilaka
Sundara Rao came to police station, basing on report/Ex.P10 of LW.1 he registered FIR/Ex.P11, he sent original to concerned court and copies to all officers concerned and handed over CD file to Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural Circle. PW.16 further deposed that immediately after registration of case he posted Guard at scene of offence. In his cross examination by Legal Aid Counsel for Accused,
PW.16 stated that LW.1 did not mention time of information about offence, there is delay of 6 hours in presenting report and he did not mention about delay in the FIR.
33.PW.17/Y. Atchaiah/the then Inspector of Police,
Narasaraopet Rural Circle deposed that on receipt of information he rushed to Phirangipuram Police Station, secured and examined LW.1, along with mediators visited scene of offence situated at Vemavaram
Village, drafted observation report, rough sketch/Ex.P12 of scene of offence and got photographed/Ex.P13/photographs scene of offence, he seized blood stained earth/MO.5 and control earth/MO.6 at the scene of offence, then he secured and examined PW.1, got shifted dead body of deceased to Government Hospital Mortuary at
Narasaraopet. PW.17 further deposed that he held inquest in the presence of panchayatdars, at the time of inquest he seized clothes over dead body of deceased/MO.7 to MO.9. PW.17 further deposed that he examined witnesses, also got photographs of deceased/
Fair Judgment27Dtd:19.08.2025
Ex.P14/(dead body of deceased). On receipt of credible information he along with mediators identified accused at Ponugupadu canal, recorded confessional statement of accused, basing on confession of accused he seized clothes of accused and Axe, forwarded material objects to
RFSL, Guntur for analysis, received report/Ex.P15 also received, postmortem certificate, sent requisition to Superintendent of Police,
Guntur Rural and obtained permission to delete names of Dhara
Shyam Babu and Repudi Koteswara Rao. In his cross examination by
Legal Aid Counsel for accused, PW.17 admitted that there is no endorsement of scribe in the confessional mediatornama of accused, also stated that as per rough sketch distance from scene of offence to school is approximately 30 to 40 feet. PW.17 denied suggestion that
PW.1 has to take a round about route to reach scene of offence i.e.
bath room PW.17 admitted that he did not show fields in the rough sketch, also admitted there is possibility of school children and other children hearing cries of deceased. PW.17 further stated that he did not send finger prints of accused for analysis, he does not have knowledge that there are previous disputes between accused and
PW.1 but witnesses stated before him that there are differences between accused and family members of deceased, he does not know whether accused and family members of accused were in a talking terms. PW.17 denied suggestion that he foisted Axe and implicated accused.
Fair Judgment28Dtd:19.08.2025
34.In due consideration of above evidence on record, this
Court has to appreciate evidence of all prosecution witnesses as to whether prosecution established guilt of Accused that accused committed the offence and evidence of eye witness is trust worthy and is corroborated by other evidence on record.
35.After commencement of trial i.e. when PW.1 was examined in chief in part, prosecution filed Crl.M.P. No.354 of 2024 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C which was dismissed on 30.08.2024.
The said petition was filed with a prayer by prosecution to issue summons to proposed Accused No.2 and 3 i.e. Dhara Shyam Babu and Repudi Koteswara Rao on the ground that PW.1 in her chief examination stated their names as after completion of investigation by following due process of law name of Accused No.2 has been deleted from the array of accused by giving notice to defacto- complainant/LW.1 and his wife/PW.2 and they also filed no objection to delete name of Accused No.2 said petition was dismissed in due consideration of material on record.
36.The case of prosecution is supported by PW.1 to
PW.6, PW.7/teacher in the school near scene of offence did not support case of prosecution. PW.8 circumstantial witness supported case of prosecution. PW.9 to PW.12 circumstantial witnesses and photographer did not support case of prosecution. PW.13/VRO at the time of scene observation and seizure basing on confession of
Fair Judgment29Dtd:19.08.2025 accused, PW.14/Doctor who conducted Postmortem supported case of prosecution. PW.15/eye witness to incident supported case of prosecution. PW.16 and PW.17/Police Officers deposed in support of case of prosecution.
37.It is evident from Ex.P11/FIR that initially case was registered against accused i.e. accused on record along with his son/
Dhara Shyam Babu basing on report/Ex.P10 of LW.1. As per Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 offence took place prior to 9:00 A.M. on 11.11.2019, there are long standing disputes between accused/Dhara Yacob and his relative Dhara Yesobu, since Dhara Bujji being relative as resided adjacent to house of deceased along with her daughter/Vijaya
Kumari, accused and his son/Shyam Babu used to harass deceased, they used to conduct mediation and resolve said differences, about 3 days prior to presentation of report LW.1 and his relatives visited house of daughter of Dhara Bujji, as such on said date accused and his son came to their/LW.1 house along with deceased in the auto, raised dispute with LW.1/father of deceased and his family members as to why they visited house of daughter of LW.6 even though they were not in talking terms with said Dhara Bujji and her daughter at which time they requested accused and his son to leave deceased in their house but by threatening with life of deceased they took her back in the same auto and went back, meanwhile on the next day morning i.e. on 11.11.2019 at about 9:00 A.M. he received information that accused and his son raised dispute, with an Axe
Fair Judgment30Dtd:19.08.2025 caused death of deceased, said contents of report are corroborated by the evidence of prosecution witnesses. As per Ex.P5/scene observation report, scene of offence is in-front of the bath room of house of the deceased/marital home.
38.As per Ex.P6/inquest report, all the panchayatdars came to conclusion that due to misunderstandings of family of accused with Dhara Bujji, as deceased and her parents maintained relationship with said Dhara Bujji and her family members, accused and his son around 9:00 A.M. on 11.11.2019 caused death of deceased with an Axe for which one LIC employee by name
Koteswara Rao encouraged them. As per column No.7 of Ex.P6/ inquest report 9 injuries are mentioned, 7 injuries are evidently caused by blunt object, fracture of left hand wrist and one swollen injury. As per Ex.P8/Postmortem Certificate also 7 injuries corroborate with Injures No.1 to 7 in the inquest report, Postmortem was conducted on 12.11.2019 at 2:30 P.M. whereas inquest was held at 10:00 A.M. on 12.11.2019, as per inquest report rigor mortis passed of all over the body and thus mere non mention of swollen injury and what appeared to be fracture on the left hand (twisted) cannot efface evidence. Further inquest report is only relevant to the extent of ascertainment of cause of death of deceased ascertained by panchayatdars from circumstances ascertained from family members of deceased and thus mere non mention of either “scorched injury ((kamilina gayamu)” which implies a wound which has started to dry
Fair Judgment31Dtd:19.08.2025 up or loose its vitality or appearance of twisted injury to the left hand is not fatal to case of prosecution since after examination by competent person i.e. Doctor, Postmortem certificate is issued and evidence of Doctor without any basis or being discredited cannot be discarded in its entirety. As per Ex.P12/rough sketch of scene of offence, scene of offence is towards northern side from the terraced house of accused and no fencing or boundary wall is shown in the rough sketch and more over from the scene of offence towards northern side after cement road there is vacant site of school and to its left school building is situated. Further as per Ex.P12/rough sketch house of Dhara Nagarjuna is shown towards southern side of house of accused towards east which particulars are in consonance with
Ex.P5/scene observation report.
39.As per Ex.P9/two marked portions in the confessional statements of accused, basing on which accused produced Axe from the donka road nearby bushes of Vemavaram
Village his blood stained clothes which he wore at the time of commission of offence. Dried blood stained Axe was seized and seizurenama/Ex.P7 was prepared. As per Ex.P15/RFSL Report,
Guntur, human blood is found on Axe as well as clothes of deceased and of accused but not found on control earth. Thus evidence of mediators and investigating officer coupled with recovery of axe and blood stained clothes of accused basing on confession of accused is a circumstance which points out towards guilt of accused which
Fair Judgment32Dtd:19.08.2025 needs to be arrived at from the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as eye witness/PW.15 who is a minor and trustworthiness of his evidence coupled with motive.
40.It is the evidence of PW.1/grandmother of deceased that husband of deceased used to raise dispute with deceased whenever she visited house of PW.4/Dhara Bujji and LW.7/ Dhara Vijaya
Kumari/daughter-in-law of PW.4 i.e. wife of PW.3. PW.1 further deposed that accused and his son took deceased to her parents house, warned her parents that deceased spoke with PW.4 and his family members and on the next day accused along with his son hacked deceased. Though not an eye witness, PW.1 deposed that accused had disputes and accused hacked deceased. PW.1 deposed that she can witness house of deceased as there is no boundary wall or fencing between their houses as such on witnessing the same she rushed near deceased and noticed her lying in pool of blood and accused escaped from there. The entire evidence of PW.1 cannot be discarded for the reason that she did not witness incident as she deposed she witnessed from her house, PW.1 evidence that she noticed accused and husband of deceased escape from there, since evidence of PW.1 that husband of deceased used to raise dispute with deceased whenever deceased spoke with PW.4 and her daughter-in-law is corroborated by other prosecution witness. Thus contention of Legal Aid Counsel that entire evidence of PW.1 is unreliable is devoid of consideration. It is also evidence of PW.1 that
Fair Judgment33Dtd:19.08.2025 there are disputes between her younger son and accused, her daughter’s marriage was performed with accused, thus also motive of accused is evident that there are disputes between family members of deceased with accused since PW.1 deposed that even after marriage of her daughter with accused there were disputes between accused and her son indicating towards motive of accused in commission of offence and circumstances point towards accused.
41.PW.2/junior paternal uncle of deceased also deposed that accused and his son hacked deceased though not an eye witness, also stated that as parents of deceased came to
Vemavaram Village and went back to house of PW.4 as her granddaughter died and at that time they spoke to deceased, accused and his son asked parents of deceased not to visit their house and if they visit they will see end of deceased is trustworthy and also corroborated by other witnesses. Even though PW.1 deposed that there is fencing between her house and house of accused, PW.2 stated that there are no houses between house of accused and house of PW.4 which is also corroborated by rough sketch/Ex.P12 that there is no boundary to the houses shown in rough sketch.
42.PW.3/son of PW.4 deposed that as parents of deceased came to their house and left on the next day of their visit, on the next day accused along with his son took deceased in auto to
Fair Judgment34Dtd:19.08.2025 her paternal home, raised dispute as to why they (parents of deceased) spoke with them/(PW.3 and PW.4), when father of deceased asked accused to leave deceased at his house, they brought deceased back to maternal home along with them, on the next day morning he noticed accused and his son abuse deceased around 7:00 A.M., going around village but they continued with their daily work, after some time they heard cries of his grandmother/PW.1 (also grandmother of deceased), when he rushed out of house he noticed accused hack deceased with sickle and escape they shifted deceased to hospital. Thus evidence of PW.2 when corroborated with evidence of other witnesses that he witnessed accused go with sickle has to be considered in view of entire evidence of PW.2. PW.3 also admitted that there are disputes between him and accused since the year 2013 panchayat elections which was elicited by counsel for accused himself, thus it is evident that there are disputes between family of accused and deceased as such accused and his son used to raise dispute with deceased not to speak with PW.4, PW.3 and daughter-in-law of PW.3. Further PW.3 stated that he does not have cordial relation with deceased and so also with his wife even though they are neighbours and there are no talking terms between them but in view of evidence of PW.3 that soon after incident, immediately deceased was shifted in his auto as he could not drive auto due to shock establishes that despite disputes as a prudent man PW.3
Fair Judgment35Dtd:19.08.2025 acted and thus his evidence as regards witnessing accused escape is trustworthy.
43.PW.4/paternal aunt of deceased also deposed that accused and his son hacked deceased to death with an Axe, on their witnessing them, they escaped, he along with others shifted deceased to hospital, thus it cannot be conclusively arrived at conclusion that PW.4 is tutored witness and her evidence as regards accused escape from their house can be relied upon which is a circumstance against accused though PW.4 admitted that there are no talking terms between her and deceased and there are disputes between them and accused and so also there are no talking terms between LW.1 and deceased, thus it is evident that deceased was forced not to talk with her family members due to dispute between their families.
44.Evidence of PW.5 is as regards shifting of deceased to hospital along with others and as deceased died enroute, they returned to village. PW.6 also deposed that there are disputes between deceased and her husband, he observed deceased in pool of blood, he came to know that family members of deceased beat her and caused her death and thus evidence of PW.6 cannot be relied upon to said extent but PW.6 cogently deposed that he drove auto on said date from scene of offence to hospital. PW.6 in his cross examination admitted that accused earlier worked as Sarpanch of
Fair Judgment36Dtd:19.08.2025 their village and he had enemity with several persons which is evident of nature of accused that he is a person with enmity nature. PW.6 further deposed that he had good relation with accused, he is not an eye witness and in view of his evidence that accused had enmity with several persons is also a circumstance against accused and corroborates the case of prosecution.
45.PW.8 circumstantial witness deposed that there are disputes between PW.4/maternal aunt of deceased and accused and as such there were differences between accused and deceased, thus from the evidence of PW.8 it is evident that accused did not accept deceased have cordial relation with her paternal family members.
PW.8 though deposed that she noticed son of accused move in hurried manner but she did not depose about time, thus effort has been made by the witnesses to implicate son of accused. It is the duty of court to separate chaff from the grain, upon which it is evident that accused had motive to cause death of deceased more particularly in view of the incident prior to date of death of deceased, accused and his son taking deceased to her parents house, warn parents of deceased not to maintain relation with their family and family of PW.4 which occurred prior to date of incident.
46.The evidence of PW.13 remained unshaken being mediator at the time of scene observation and inquest, further PW.13 evidence is that accused was apprehended in his presence, accused
Fair Judgment37Dtd:19.08.2025 confessed about commission of offence, basing on confession of accused
Axe was seized from donka of bushes of Vemavaram Village thus also case of prosecution is corroborated by evidence of PW.13. PW.13 in his cross examination denied suggestion that he had disputes with accused when accused was Sarpanch of village and as such he deposed false, from said suggestion it is evident that accused had disputes with several persons and his nature of being in dispute with several persons is evident.
In his reexamination, PW.13 stated that scene of offence is beside house of accused, as per Ex.P5/scene observation report scene of offence is mentioned towards eastern side of bath room of house of accused. It is the case of prosecution that at the time of dispute, deceased was brushing her teeth near the bath room (thus scene of offence is also established) at which time accused raised dispute with her as she spoke to PW.4, thus evidence of PW.13 that actual scene of offence is inside house of accused cannot be relied upon either his entire evidence cannot be brushed aside and more over there is no eye witness who witnessed accused hack deceased except evidence of PW.15 who witnessed accused go away from his house with blood stained Axe in a hurried manner.
47.The evidence of PW.14 also supports case of prosecution PW.14 also stated that death of deceased might have occurred due to injuries caused by Axe/MO.4 and more over in his cross examination it is elicited that since there are multiple injuries over the head of deceased, she mentioned cause of death of
Fair Judgment38Dtd:19.08.2025 deceased due to head injury and denied suggestion that she deposed false that death of deceased might be caused with Axe.
48.This court has to appreciate evidence of PW.15 who is minor eye witness who witnessed accused coming out of house with an Axe and go towards eastern side of village, PW.15 evidence remained unshaken even in his cross examination. PW.15 deposed that prior to accused coming out of his house, he heard cries of deceased, after accused left he went and observed deceased in front of bath room of her house, along with him, his school master/ PW.7 also came there but said school master did not support case of prosecution. Even in the cross examination of PW.15 it was elicited that he witnessed accused come out of his house with an Axe at about 9:00 A.M. PW.15 further stated that his school classes commenced at 9:00 A.M., at that time he noticed accused coming out of his house with an Axe and he was present in the class. Further it was elicited in the cross examination of PW.15 by Legal Aid Counsel
for accused that along with him some of students and teachers also
noticed deceased lying infront of bath room, he does not know what happened prior to the same, PW.15 denied suggestion that he did not witness accused come out of his house. Thus this court places reliance on the evidence of PW.15 and his trustworthiness, even though being minor witness, from cross examination of PW.15 accused himself got elicited that he witnessed accused come out of his house with an Axe after class commenced and for said reason his
Fair Judgment39Dtd:19.08.2025 entire evidence cannot be effaced. Further it was elicited in the cross examination PW.15 that to the eastern side house of accused and deceased there are no houses and only fields which also corroborates with Ex.P12/rough sketch .
49.The case of prosecution is further supported by evidence of PW.16 and PW.17 who registered the case and conducted investigation respectively. PW.17 in his cross examination stated that witnesses stated before him that there are differences between family members of accused and deceased, except the same nothing material has been elicited to discredit evidence of PW.17 investigating officer. Also it was elicited by Legal Aid Counsel for
Accused in the cross examination of PW.17, wherein PW.17 himself admitted being Investigating Officer that there is possibility of hearing of cries of deceased by the school children and other children, thus case of prosecution also is established which is corroborated by evidence of PW.15.
50.Further PW.13/mediator identified accused in open court proceedings before whom accused confessed and basing on said confession blood stained clothes of accused and Axe were recovered and seized by PW.17 who is also corroborated by RFSL
Report/Ex.P15. It is also evident from evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 that
Fair Judgment40Dtd:19.08.2025 implicate son of accused whose name was deleted after completion of investigation, but as discussed herein before investigating agency also found son of accused was not present in the house by the time of incident, son of accused was present elsewhere, from said evidence it is also evident that there are disputes between family of accused and ‘Dhara’ families which is also case of prosecution but it is the duty of court to chaff from grain and appreciate the evidence deposed by them before this court and only for the reason that PW.1 to PW.4 stated about son of accused, their evidence as regards accused being present at the scene of offence cannot washed out.
More over elicitations made by PW.1 in her cross examination since being old aged and not being defacto-complainant said elicitations accused cannot be acquitted.
51.Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of
Madhya Pradesh V. Balveer Singh reported in 2025 INSC 261 summarized principles to deal with cases involving child as a witness i.e.
(I) The Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum age for a witness, and as such a child witness is a competent witness and his or her evidence and cannot be rejected outrightly. (II) As per Section 118 of The Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter IE Act for brevity)before the evidence of the child witness is recorded, a preliminary examination must be conducted by the Trial Court to ascertain if the child-witness is capable of understanding sanctity of giving evidence and the import of the questions that are being put to him.
Fair Judgment41Dtd:19.08.2025 (III) Before the evidence of the child witness is recorded, the Trial Court must record its opinion and satisfaction that the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and must clearly state why he is of such opinion.
(IV) The questions put to the child in the course of the preliminary examination and the demeanour of the child and their ability to respond to questions coherently and rationally must be recorded by the Trial Court.
(V) The testimony of a child witness who is found to be competent to depose i.e., capable of understanding the questions put to it and able to give coherent and rational answers would be admissible in evidence.
(VI) The Trial Court must also record the demeanour of the child witness during the course of its deposition and cross- examination and whether the evidence of such child witness is his voluntary expression and not borne out of the influence of others.
(VII) There is no requirement or condition that the evidence of a child witness must be corroborated before it can be considered. A child witness who exhibits the demeanour of any other competent witness and whose evidence inspires confidence can be relied upon without any need for corroboration and can form the sole basis for conviction. If the evidence of the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, the same does not require any corroboration whatsoever.
(VIII) Corroboration of the evidence of the child witness may be insisted upon by the courts as measure of caution and prudence where the evidence of the child is found to be either tutored or riddled with material discrepancies or contradictions. There is no hard and fast rule when such corroboration would be desirous or required, and would depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
(IX) Child witnesses are considered as dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded and as such the courts must rule out the possibility of tutoring. If the courts after a careful scrutiny, find that there is neither any tutoring nor any attempt to use the child
Fair Judgment42Dtd:19.08.2025 witness for ulterior purposes by the prosecution, then the courts must rely on the confidence-inspiring testimony of such a witness in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the absence of any allegations by the accused in this regard, an inference as to whether the child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition.
(X) The evidence of a child witness is considered tutored if their testimony is shaped or influenced at the instance of someone else or is otherwise fabricated. Where there has been any tutoring of a witness, the same may possibly produce two broad effects in their testimony; (i) improvisation or (ii) fabrication.
(XI) Merely because a child witness is found to be repeating certain parts of what somebody asked her to say is no reason to discard her testimony as tutored, if it is found that what is in substance being deposed by the child witness is something that he or she had actually witnessed.
(XII) Part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, can be relied upon, if the tutored part can be separated from the untutored part, in case such remaining untutored or untainted part inspires confidence.
52.Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Rojali Ali
V. The State of Assam reported in 2019 (19) SCC 567 wherein it was held at Para No.13 that “As regards the contention that all the eye witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an interested witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. There is difference between interested and related witnesses.. a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, with in the contest of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused.
Fair Judgment43Dtd:19.08.2025
Related is not equivalent to interested. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of offence would be natural. The evidence of such witness cannot automatically be discarded by leveling the witness as interested. In case of a related witness the court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent. The court has to be cautious in appreciating and accepting evidence given by interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistence. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person to his closely related to the victim. The said principles were more recently reiterated in a three Judge bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2025 INSC 47 between Goverdhan
and Another V. State of Chattisgarh.
53.The above being settled legal position of law as regards interested and related witness and the parameters to receive such evidence, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 aspires confidence of this court, if it is contention of Legal Aid Counsel for Accused that their evidence cannot be relied upon in view of their contradictory statement in their cross examination, then entire evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 has to be effaced but even then evidence of PW.15 supports case of prosecution. It is evident from the material on record coupled with oral evidence of witness that
Fair Judgment44Dtd:19.08.2025 accused had dispute with deceased and her family members as she had continued her relation with family of PW.4 and her parents even though asked not to do so and thus prosecution is able to prove motive of accused in the commission of offence which is further supported by evidence of
PW.15. The Judgments relied upon by counsel for Accused are related to a case which solely was based on circumstantial evidence and later
Judgment is related to Arms Act and Sections of IPC which in the facts and circumstances of this case are not relevant as in the later case dying declaration therein was found not reliable and made to be in suspicious circumstances as the deceased was stated to be unconscious prior to his giving statement. It is also further contention of counsel for Accused that this court cannot rely upon evidence of PW.15 but in view of above settled legal position, since this court has recorded evidence of PW.15 after posing preliminary questions is satisfied, also upon observation of demenaour of child during his chief and cross examination, this court does not find any in-consistencies or cannot arrive at conclusion that PW.15 was doctored or tutored intoto and his evidence to be discarded as unreliable, more over no motive was imputed or attributed to PW.15 to depose falsely nor his presence at the school adjacent to scene of offence was created to be doubtful, thus in the absence of tutoring and unreliableness this court is inclined to also place reliance on the evidence of PW.15 who witnessed accused come out of his house with blood stained Axe. Accused is naturally expected to explain about the incident but did not choose to state
Fair Judgment45Dtd:19.08.2025 even in his 313 Cr.P.C examination or took pleas as is admissible under law or that he was not present in his house.
54.The accused as herein before mentioned also did not choose to offer any plausible explanation in his Section 313 Cr.P.C examination even though he was confronted with evidence of prosecution witnesses who supported case of prosecution. Accused also did not choose to offer any explanation as regards dead body of his daughter-in- law being found near the bath room of their house nor took any specific plea of his false implication. It is the duty of accused to explain as to how his daughter-in-law died and which fact is within exclusive knowledge of him and his family members and persons if any who witnessed him at the time of incident, since no evidence is elicited by accused in view of evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 corroborated by PW.15 coupled with documentary proof that on the date of incident there was dispute between accused, his son and deceased, prosecution established its case.
Accused did not choose to disprove proved facts or motive attributed to accused or that PW.15 was won over by tutoring or was influenced either by cross examining PW.15 at length to elicit either material discrepancies or contradictions from his evidence nor chose to suggest to PW.15 that there are disputes or some strife between him or his family members and accused. In due consideration of evidence of prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence on record and attending circumstances coupled with motive established by prosecution of accused not wanting deceased
Fair Judgment46Dtd:19.08.2025 to speak with her parents and other family members, prosecution established guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
55.In view of the above discussion prosecution has established guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such accused is convicted for the charge punishable under Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Sd/- N. Satya Sri.
XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.
56.On questioning about quantum of sentence
In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to award appropriate sentence
Accused stated that he has nothing to say
Legal Aid Counsel for Accused submitted that accused is aged and suffering from ill health.
57.InAlister Anthony Pareria Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in AIR 2012 SC 3802 Hon’ble Apex Court held that “Sentencing policy is an important task in the matters of crime.
One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing
Fair Judgment47Dtd:19.08.2025 and accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles : twin objectives of the sentencing policy is difference and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence”. Hence, this court considering submission of accused, his legal aid counsel and In-charge Additional
Public Prosecutor coupled with age of accused and in due consideration of submission of ill health, since this case does not fall under the rarest of rare case, deems it fit and appropriate to award minimum sentence only which is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
POINT No.2:
58.In the result, accused is found guilty for the charge punishable under Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is accordingly convicted under Section 235 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Fair Judgment48Dtd:19.08.2025
Accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
Remand period of Accused i.e. from 18.11.2019 to 20.02.2020 shall be set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Accused is informed about his right of appeal and of free Legal Aid.
Furnish free copy of Judgment to accused.
Case property in CPR No.9 of 2024 in MO.1 to
MO.3, MO.5 to MO.9 i.e. White Shirt, White Pancha, Dhoti (Kanduva), Blood stained earth, Control earth, Cotton night dress having brown colour and designed with white colour, Blue colour long petticoat and Light Yellow colour inner skirt shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.
Case property in CPR No.9 of 2024in MO.4 i.e. Axe shall be destroyed as per procedure after lapse of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 19th day of August, 2025.
Sd/- N. Satya Sri.
XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.
Fair Judgment49Dtd:19.08.2025
APPENDIX OF E VIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:
PW.1Chilaka Venkayamma.
PW.2Chilaka Nageswara Rao.
PW.3Dhara Nagarjuna.
PW.4Dhara Bujji.
PW.5Kavuri Ashok.
PW.6Repudi Achari.
PW.7Pentareddy Thomas Reddy.
P.W.8Dhara Padma.
PW.9Meda Srinu.
PW.10 Papula Jaya Prakash Narayana.
PW.11 Bandhanadhan Showry Sandeep.
PW.12 Banda Balaswamy. PW.13 Nuthakki Venu Babu. PW.14 Dr. B. Sudheer Chandra.
PW.15 Paleti Jaswanth @ Joseph.
PW.16 Prathipati Suresh.
PW.17 Y. Atchaiah.
For Defence : - None -
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: Ex.P1Entire 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7/Pentareddy Thomas Reddy. Ex.P2Entire 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9/Meda Srinu.
Ex.P3Entire 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.10/Papula Jaya Prakash Narayana. Ex.P4Entire 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.12/Banda Balaswamy.
Ex.P5Scene Observation Report dated 11.11.2019 at 4:00 P.M.
Ex.P6Inquest Report dated 12.11.2019 at 10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Ex.P7Seizurnama dated 18.11.2019 at 9:30 A.M.
Ex.P8Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P9Two marked portions in the confession mediatornama
dated 18.11.2019 at 7:00 A.M. leading to recovery of Axe
and seizure of Clothes of Accused.
Fair Judgment50Dtd:19.08.2025
Ex.P10 Report dated 11.11.2019 at 3:00 P.M.
Ex.P11 Original FIR dated 11.11.2019 under Section 302 of IPC.
Ex.P12 Rough sketch.
Ex.P13 Two positive Photographs.
Ex.P14 Six Positive Photographs along with C.D.
Ex.P15 RFSL Report dated 04.09.2020.
For Defence: NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS
MO.1White Shirt.
MO.2White Pancha.
MO.3Dhoti (Kanduva).
MO.4Axe.
MO.5Blood stained earth.
MO.6Control earth.
MO.7Cotton night dress having brown colour and designed with white colour. MO.8Blue colour long petticoat.
MO.9Light Yellow colour inner skirt.
Sd/- N. Satya Sri.
XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.
// True Copy //
Sd/-N. Satya Sri.
XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Narasaraopet.