XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,1SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : PITHAPURAM
Present: N.Solomonraju
XII Addl. Sessions Judge, Pithapuram
Friday, the 8 th day of April, 2022
SESSIONS CASE No.262/2019
(P.R.C.No.3/2019 on the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, in Cr.No.113/2018 of Thondangi Police Station )
Complainant :State, Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural Circle
Accused:Vennela Naidu Babu, S/o. Bhima Naidu, Age 30 years, C/K.Velama, Vennelapalem village, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam Rural District, now at Gopalapatnam village, Thondangi Mandal.
Prosecution conducted by :Mr. Addl. Public Prosecutor Pithapuram
Accused is defended by:Sri G.Mohana Murali and Sri R.Sitanna, Advocates, Kakinada & Pithapuram.
Charge framed against Accused: Section 302 and 201 I.P.C.
Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Finding of Judge: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.302 and 201 I.P.C.
Sentence::In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be inforce for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the same shall stand cancelled. M.Os.1 to 6 i.e., Leggin, Chunni, two wheeler cover, top of the dress, pillow and white banian and the unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.
Date of: Offence: 12.08.2018
Report or complaint: 13.08.2018
Apprehension of accused : 20.08.2018
Committal Order: 16.10.2019
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,2SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022
Commencement of trial : 28.03.2022
Closure of trial: 04.04.2022
Sentence or order: 08.04.2022
Explanation for delay and remarks:
The Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural Circle, filed charge sheet against accused for offences under sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.113/2018 of
Thondangi Police Station. Case was committed to Sessions Court, Sessions
Division, E.G.Dt., Rajamahendravaram, after observing the legal formalities, the
Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram registered the same as
S.C.No.262/2019 and made over to this Court on 05.11.2019 and received by this
Court on 15.11.2019 and charge was framed on 17.11.2020 and on 28.03.2022 the trial was commenced and concluded by 04.04.2022 and 313 Cr.P.C., examination of accused was conducted on 06.04.2022 and arguments heard on 08.04.2022 and judgment pronounced on 08.04.2022. Hence, the delay.
Sd/- N.Solomonraju,
XII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
PITHAPURAM
Copy to:
1. The Registrar, (Judicial) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi
2. The Principal Sessions Judge, E.G.Dt., Rajamahendravaram
3. The Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Rajamahendravaram
4. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni 5 The District Collector, Kakinada.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.
7. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Pithapuram
8. The Accused/the counsel for accused.
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,3SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : PITHAPURAM
Present: N.Solomonraju
XII Addl. Sessions Judge, Pithapuram
Friday, the 8 th day of April, 2022
SESSIONS CASE No.262/2019
(P.R.C.No.3/2019 on the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, in Cr.No.113/2018 of Thondangi Police Station )
Complainant :State, Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural Circle
Accused:Vennela Naidu Babu, S/o. Bhima Naidu, Age 30 years, C/K.Velama, Vennelapalem village, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam Rural District, now at Gopalapatnam village, Thondangi Mandal.
Prosecution conducted by :Mr. Addl. Public Prosecutor Pithapuram
Accused is defended by:Sri G.Mohana Murali and Sri R.Sitanna, Advocates, Kakinada & Pithapuram.
Charge framed against Accused: Section 302 and 201 I.P.C.
Plea of Accused : Not guilty
Finding of Judge: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.302 and 201 I.P.C.
This Sessions Case coming on this day i.e., on 08.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Kasi Viswanadha Reddy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state/complainant and of Sri G.Mohana Murali and Sri R.Sitanna, Advocates
for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.The factual matrix of Prosecution Case is briefed hereunder :
(i)The accused is native of Vennelapalem village of Parawada Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District, but now at Appannapalem village of Atchutapuram
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,4SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022
(ii)P.Ws.1 and 2 are parents and P.W.3 is brother of the deceased
Vennela Veera Lakshmi, who is native of Uddandapuram village, Nakkapalli
Mandal, Visakha District. Earlier the marriage of the said Veera Lakshmi was performed with second son of Konkipudi Apparao of S.Rayavaram village,
Visakhapatnam District, during the year 2001 as per Hindu customs and tradition.
She gave birth to a female child. Thereafter, due to family disputes, Veera
Lakshmi separated from her husband and she used to live with her parents P.Ws.1 and 2 at Uddandapuram village along with her daughter and eaking out her livelihood by doing tailoring work.
(iii)Four years prior to the commission of offence, the deceased Veera
Lakshmi changed her residence to Gopalapatnam village of Thondangi Mandal, took a house belongs to L.W.4 Atti Buramma. Thereafter, the accused developed intimacy with the deceased Veera Lakshmi and finally he married the deceased in the year 2016. Thereafter, the accused addicted to bad vices and also suffering from HIV disease and used to cause attrocity against the deceased by suspecting her fidelity. While the matter stood thus, on 08.05.2018 night at about 11.00 p.m., the accused committed murder of deceased at her house by causing suffocation with a pillow and also strangulated the neck of the deceased with a banian, on the cot preferred by the deceased. Thereafter, he thrown away the dead body of deceased into the well situated near to his rented house in order to conceal the evidence of murder committed against his wife. For the time being, the accused covered the body surface of the deceased with mattress. On 9.5.2018, P.W.1 attempted to contact his deceased daughter over her mobile phone, but did not receive any response. Due to suspicion, P.W.1 contacted the accused and received arrogant reply from the accused stating that the deceased had been to Hyderabad and he is also about to leave the place for Hyderabad.
(iv) Thereafter on 12.8.2018 the owner of the house of deceased detected mattress in respect of the deceased in the well under suspicious
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,5SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022 circumstances. In turn, she reported the matter to P.W.1. As a result, P.W.1 with his relatives visited scene of offence and traced out the dead body of the deceased in the well in a highly decomposed state. Later, he gave Ex.P.1 written report to P.W.18 Sub Inspector of Police, Thondangi Police Station on 13.8.2018 at 1.00 p.m., and P.W.8 registered a case in Crime No.113/2018 under Secs.302 and 201 of I.P.C. Later, the investigation was taken up by P.W.19 the Inspector of
Police, Tuni Rural Circle. During the course of investigation, P.W.19 visited the scene of offence, got drafted scene observation report, got drafted photographs of the scene of offence, got prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Later, got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.15 Tahsildar and P.W.16 and another mediator. Thereafter sent the dead body of the deceased to Government Area Hospital, Tuni, for post mortem examination.
(v) During the course of invetigation, the accused voluntarily surrendered
before P.W.17 on 20.8.2018 at about 10.00 a.m., at Panchayat Office,
Gopalapatnam vilalge and admitted his guilt and his confessional statement was recorded by P.W.17 and later P.W.17 handed over the accused to P.W.19 the
Inspector of Police, Tuni rural Circle along with a report and to that effect mediators report was got drafted. After receipt of post mortem report, RFSL report and on completion of charge sheet, P.W.19 filed charge sheet against the accused.
2.The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered
P.R.C.No.3/2019. The learned I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni, on compliance of 207 Cr.P.C., committed the P.R.C.3/2019 to the Sessions Division at
Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and the same was numbered as
S.C.262/2019 and the same is transferred to this Court for disposal according to
Law.
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,6SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022
3.On making appearance of the accused who is represented by the counsel was examined under section 228 Cr.P.C., and the accused denied the charges framed for the offence under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., against the accused and to prove it's case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P.1 to
P.27 and M.Os.1 to 6.
4.On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined u/sec.313
Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating material appears in prosecution evidence.
On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.
5.Arguments heard on either side.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution argued that the deceased is the wife of the accused and while both were living as tenants in the house of L.W.4 Atti Booramma, the murder of the deceased was taken place and according to the case of the prosecution, the deceased was murdered by the accused and the dead body was thrown into the well situates near their house and further covered in view of the well by throwing mattress into the well. There is extra judicial confession of the accused made before P.W.17 and then the accused confessed before the police in the presence of mediators and M.Os.5 and 6 were recovered in pursuance of his confession. Except that there is no other evidence in the present case and leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court for appreciation of evidence.
7.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. As per prosecution case, the motive for commission of offence is that the accused was suspecting that the deceased might have developed illicit contacts with others. But there is no evidence to that effect including from the blood relations of the deceased. The
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,7SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022 learned counsel further argued that the prosecution failed to prove confirmingly that the deceased had met with homicidal death and as per the evidence of post mortem doctor and experts opinion, no opinion as to the cause of death was given. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the time of death. According to the case of the prosecution, it was on 08.05.2018 during the night at about 11.00 p.m. But as admitted by the father of the deceased, who is examined as P.W.1, he contacted the deceased over phone in the second week of June which rules out the case of the prosecution. Further, the post mortem doctor admits that the variation of one or two months on either way may be there for the time of death opined by him. The learned counsel further argued that the evidence given by
P.W.17 who was V.R.O., is not reliable and prosecution choosed him as a witness and he failed to withstand the cross-examination and on reading his entire evidence, his evidence is liable to be rejected and in the absence of any support from the medical evidence, the alleged recovery of M.Os.1 to 6 is of no use to prove the case of the prosecution or to connect the accused to the crime and the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.
In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the accused relies on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sahadevan and another vs.
State of Tamil Nadu”, reported in 2012 SAR (Criminal) 486 (SC).
8.The point that would germane for consideration is - Whether the
prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences
u/s.302 and 201 I.P.C?
9.DISCUSSION ON POINT:
The gist of the prosecution case is that on 8.5.2018 at about 11.00 p.m., the accused committed murder of the deceased at her house by causing suffocation
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,8SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022 with a pillow and also strangulated the neck of the deceased with a banian on the cot and thereafter thrown the dead body of the deceased into the well situated near to their rented house in order to conceal the evidence of murder committed by him.
10.Entire denial of the offence is the defence taken by the accused.
11.On perusal of the evidence adduced, the parents and brother of the deceased are examined as P.Ws.1 to 3. The daughter of the house owner at
Gopalapatnam village is examined as P.W.4. The neighbours to the scene of offence, who are residents of Gopalapatnam and nearby villages are examined as
P.Ws.5 to 14. The Tahsildar, who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased is examined as P.W.15. The Deputy Civil Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tuni, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased is examined as P.W.16.
The Village Revenue Officer, who acted as mediator for scene observation, inquest and before whom the accused made extra judicial confession and who further acted as medaitor for confession and recovery is examined as P.W.17. The
Sub Inspector of Police, Thondangi Police Station is examined as P.W.18 and the
Inspector of Police, Tuni Circle, is examined as P.W.19.
12.Coming to the exhibits, the report given by P.W.1 on 13.8.2018 is marked as
Ex.P.1 through P.W.1. The 161 Cr.P.C., statements of P.Ws.2 to 14 are marked as
Exs.P.2 to P.14. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P.15 through P.W.15. The post mortem examination report and FSL report are marked as Exs.P.16 and P.17 through P.W.16. The scene observation report dt:13.08.2018 is marked as Ex.P.18, extra judicial confession of the accused dt:28.08.2018 is marked as Ex.P.19 and the separate report given by P.W.17 to the police is marked as Ex.P.20. The mediators report for recovery is marked as Ex.P.21. Original F.I.R., issued by
P.W.18 is marked as Ex.P.22. Four positive photos and C.D., showing the scene of
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,9SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022 offence and skeletol body are marked as Ex.P.23. The admissible portion in the confessional statement of the accused is marked as Ex.P.24. The rough sketches of the scene of offence dt:20.8.2018 and dt:13.08.2018 are marked as Exs.P.25 and P.26 respectively. Letter addressed to FSL for DNA test is marked as Ex.P.27.
13.Coming to the material objects, the clothes belonging to the deceased are marked as M.Os.1, 2 and 4, two wheeler cover is marked as M.O.3, pillow is marked as M.O.5 and white banian is marked as M.O.6.
14.Entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. As per the settled law, in case of circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused.
15.In the present case, the prosecution has projected the following circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused:
1) Motive for commission of offence;
2) That the deceased had met with homicidal death;
3) That the accused was living with the deceased till the offence took place and later, he has absconded;
4) That the accused made extra judicial confession before V.R.O., who is examined as P.W.17;
5) That the accused made confession before Investigating Officer in the presence of mediators and M.Os.5 and 6 which are used as means to commit the offence are recovered in pursuance of the confession of the accused under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act.
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,10SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022
16.As seen from the case of the prosecution, the deceased who separated from her earlier husband shifted her residence to Gopalapatnam and used to eak out her livelihood by attending tailoring works and in the meanwhile, the deceased came into acquaintance with the accused and both of them underwent marriage in the year 2016 before Annavaram Temple. Later, the accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased and decided to kill the deceased and accordingly, he committed the murder of the deceased in their rented house and thrown the dead body into well. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays pivotal role and prosecution must establish motive for commission of offence as one of the links in chian of the events. Apart from the neighbours to the scene of offence, the prosecution is mainly relying on the testimony of
P.Ws.1 to 3 on this aspect.
17.As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, they stated consistently that the accused married the deceased in the year 2016 at Annavaram temple and they lived together at Gopalapatnam. Though P.W.1 stated in chief evidence that the deceased complained whenever he visits Gopalapatnam that the accused was abusing and beating her, he failed to withstood the same during cross- examination. Moreover, P.W.1 even in his chief evidence did not say the reason for such abusing and beating. During cross-examination, P.W.1 candidly admits that to his knowledge, there were no disputes between the deceased and the accused and the deceased never complained against the accused. P.W.2 deposed that the deceased and accused lived amicably and both P.Ws.2 and 3 did not say on any such ill-treatment in the hands of the accused. They even did not whisper on any disputes between the deceased and the accused. As mentioned supra,
P.Ws.2 to 14 did not support the case of the prosecution and their earlier statements recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., are marked as exhibits as noted supra.
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,11SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022
Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive for commission of offence in the present case.
18.In order to prove that the deceased had met with homicidal death, it is incumbent on the prosecution to rule out the possibility of suicidal death. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the death of the deceased is not in dispute.
Further, the prosecution proved that the dead body found in the well which was in the skeletal form is found as that of the deceased in the present case. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he identified the dead body with the help of M.O.1 leggin and as seen from the evidence of P.W.16 coupled with Exs.P.16 and P.17 post mortem examination report and FSL report, the femur bone of the deceased was sent for
DNA examination along with the blood sample of P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased and it is found that the bone is biologically related to P.W.2. Otherwise also it is not much in dispute that the body found at the scene of offence is that of the deceased, who is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 and sister of P.W.3.
19.In order to prove the cause of death, the prosecution is relying on the inquest proceedings and post mortem findings. As per the evidence of P.W.15, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Area Hospital, Tuni, in the presence of P.W.17 and L.W.19 Palivela Srinu, V.R.A., Gopalapatnam. The inquest panchayatdars opined that the deceased might have been killed by the accused, who is her husband and the said opinion is incorporated in the inquest report and
Ex.P.15 is the inquest report dt:14.08.2018. P.W.17 lends support to the evidence given by P.W.15 and Ex.P.15 inquest report is testified by him. As per the settled law, the purpose of inquest proceedings is to know prima facie whether the death is homicidal, suicidal or accidental and the opinion given by the mediators and witnesses during the inquest as to the alleged culprit cannot be relied upon. Thus, the prima facie cause of death of the deceased is proved as homicidal death from
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,12SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022 inquest proceedings. In the present case, the opinion expressed during inquest gets no support from medical evidence. In the absence of corroboration from the medical evidence, the opinion expressed during inquest cannot be taken as conclusive proof. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased is examined as P.W.16 and he only gave findings which are stated to be post mortem in nature and he specifically stated that he issued Ex.P.16 post mortem report and further, baisng on post mortem findings, FSL report,
Pathological report, he issued final opinion stating that no opinion can be given as to the cause of death. According to P.W.16, there is no basis to form opinion as to the cause of death in the present case. P.W.16 admitted that the water from well was not collected for the purpose of diatoms test which is the surest test to confirm the death due to drowning. With regard to the time of death, P.W.16 stated that it is atleast 3 months before the commencement of autopsy and he gave opinion as to the time of death basing on adiposeal formation. During cross- examination, P.W.16 admits that it is only approximate time which may be at variance with one or two months this way or that way. In this context, it is relevant to note the admission made by P.W.1 during cross-examination who stated that he contacted the deceased over phone during the second week of
June, 2018 and she informed that the accused was in Hyderabad and she came to
Gopalapatnam on her personal work. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused committed murder of the deceased on 8.5.2018 is totally ruled out from ocular and medical evidence adduced. The prosecution further failed to prove clinchingly that the deceased had met with homicidal death. The prosecution miserably failed to rule out the possibility of homicidal death in the present case.
Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased had met with homicidal death on 8.5.2018 at the rented house of the accused and deceased at
Gopalapatnam.
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,13SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022
20.There is no legal evidence in prosecution case that to show that the accused and deceased lived together before the death takes place and later, the accused had absconded. As discussed supra, the prosecution was unable to prove when the deceased died. In its absence, the circumstance of last seen fells into insignificance.
21.Upon proper analysis of the Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, in Sahadevan and another’s case cited supra for the accused, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court laid down certain principles which would make an extra judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused and these precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused. The following are the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court:
1) The extra judicial confession is a weak evidence by itslef. It has to be examined by the Court with greater care and caution.
2) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
3) It should inspire confidence.
4) An extra judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corrborated by other prosecution evidence.
5) for an extra judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent imporbabilities.
6) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,14SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022
22.Coming to the evidence of P.W.17, on 20.8.2018 at about 3.00 p.m., while he was in office, the accused came to him and expressed his intention to surrender before the police. The witness again says that the accused came to him at 12.00 Noon. The accused further stated before him that on 18.5.2018 he killed his wife by name Vennela Veera Lakshmi by smothering with pillow and then thrown the dead body into the well situates in front of the house. He further stated that he made propaganda that his wife went to Hyderabad and he informed the same to house onwer, neighbours and parents of the deceased and after 4 days, he went to his native place. He recorded Ex.P.19 statement of the accused and he further prepared Ex.P.20 report at his office and then took the accused to Thondangi Police Station and handed over him to the police. On careful perusal of his entire evidence, initially, he stated that the dead body of the deceased was not lifted up on 13.8.2018, but it was removed from the well on 14.8.2018 at 10.00 a.m. However, during cross-examination, he stated that they proceeded to the scene of offence on 13.8.2018 at 10.00 a.m. Along with him,
L.W.19, P.W.15, C.I. of Police and S.I. of Police also came and at about 10.30 a.m., the mattress and M.O.s1 to 4 were removed from well on the instructions of C.I.
of Police. It is exactly the defence version that on receiving the phone call from
P.W.3, the accused came to Gopalapatnam and he was at the scene of offence along P.Ws.1 to 3, by the time, the police came there by 10.00 a.m., and then he was taken into custody by the police and was kept in illegal custody and then prepared Exs.P.19 to P.21. According to the case of the prosecution, the murder of the deceased was taken place on 8.5.2018, but according to the evidence given by P.W.17, the accused stated before him that it was on 18.5.2018. P.W.17 admits that the accused is not having any house or other immovable properties or any ration card in A.Kothapalli village and also in Gopalapatnam village and he had no prior acquaintance with the accused and he had never seen him before. Further, he was not in the habit of protecting any accused in a criminal case by influencing
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,15SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022 the police to see that he may not be beaten. He cannot say the reason for choosing him by the accused to have confided.
23.Coming to the identification of the accused, he stated initially that nobody was present at the time of making confessional statement. But coming to the aspect of identification, he changed his version and stated that L.W.19 Palivela
Srinu who was V.R.A., of concerned village was present along with him and he identified him through him. He further stated that he obtained signature of
L.W.19 also on Exs.P.19 and P.20 and L.W.19 signed in English. But, on verifiation of Exs.P.19 and P.20, he stated that his signature is not found in Exs.P.19 and P.20 and he further stated that he cannot say in whose custody the statement and the report that contains the signatures of L.W.19 were with. Thus, according to
P.W.17, he recorded the statement of the accused and prepared a report and they contain the signature of L.W.19 in English, but those statement and report are not placed before the Court. It is important to note the admissions made by P.W.17 during further cross-examination that the accused took one to one and half hour time to make such statement and after that he took one and half hour time to draft Ex.P.19 statement. Thus, for preparation of Ex.P.19, he took 3 hours time as per which according to him upto 3.00 p.m. Then only, he took the accused to
Thondangi Police Station and handed over him to the police. But as seen from the evidence of P.W.19, he received phone call from A.S.I. of Police, Thondangi P.S., on 20.8.2018 at about 12.30 p.m., that the accused in the present case was brought by P.W.17 and handed over him at police station along with the confessional statement and written report. Then he rushed to Thondangi Police Station by 1.00 p.m., and verified those statement and report and then, he recorded Ex.P.24 admissible portion in confessional statement of the accused and then recovered
M.Os.5 and 6 in pursuance of the said confession under the cover of Ex.P.21
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,16SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022 mediators report. Thus, the evidence given by P.W.17 and the evidence given by
P.W.19 is at striking variance which supports the defence version.
24.Thus, the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused in the present case is not inspiring any confidence and there are several material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities and the prosecution failed to prove such statement in accordance with law. Where there is material discrepancy as to when the accused was handed over to Thondangi Police, the purusant confession made at police station and recovery of M.Os.5 and 6 made at the rented house of the accused have no significance and no undue weight will be given to it.
Moreover, P.W.17 failed to depose that M.Os.5 and 6 are recovered under Sec.27 of Evidence Act. Therefore, no credence can be given to it.
25.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the complete chain of events and there are several missing links from the chain of evidence and the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.
26.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be inforce for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the same shall stand cancelled. M.Os.1 to 6 i.e., Leggin, Chunni, two wheeler cover, top of the dress, pillow and white banian and the unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.
Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, on this 8th day of April, 2022.
Sd/- N.Solomonraju,
XII ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
PITHAPURAM.
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,17SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 :P.Rama Krishna (father of the deceased)
P.W.2 : P.Durga (mother of the deceased)
P.W.3 :P.Venkata Krishna (brother of the deceased)
P.W.4 : D.Nagalakshmi (daugther of house owner of deceased)
P.W.5 : Muralasetti Ramakrishna (neighbour of the deceased)
P.W.6 : T.Santhosh Kumar (neighbour of the deceased)
P.W.7 : R.Srihari (neighbour of the deceased)
P.W.8 :Vanaparthi Satyanarayana (neighbour of the deceased)
P.W.9 :S.Satyavathi (neighbour of the deceased)
P.W.10:B.Satyavathi (neighbour of the deceased)
P.W.11:G.Kondamma (neighbour of the deceased)
P.W.12:G.Venkata Satyanarayana (neighbour of the deceased)
P.W.13:Masha Pavan Kumar (neighbour of the deceased)
P.W.14:Bobbili Venkanna Babu (neighbour of the deceased)
P.W.15:Sanapathi Apparao (Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal)
P.W.16:Dr. K.Maheswara Rao (doctor who conducted autopsy)
P.W.17:Kaparapu Dasu (Village Revenue Officer)
P.W.18:B.Jaganmohana Rao (Sub Inspector of Police, Thondangi P.S.)
P.W.19:G.Chennakesava Rao (Investigating Officer)
FOR DEFENCE:NIL
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P-1 /13.08.2018: Report given by P.W.1 to P.W.18 S.I. of Police,
Thondangi8 P.S.
Ex.P-2 /13.08.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2.
Ex.P-3 /13.08.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3.
Ex.P-4 /13.08.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4.
Ex.P-5 /13.08.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5.
Ex.P-6 /13.08.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6.
Ex.P-7 /13.08.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.7.
Ex.P-8 /13.08.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.8.
Ex.P-9 /13.08.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.9.
XII ADDL. DISTRICT COURT,18SC 262/2019 PITHAPURAM, E.G.DISTRICT DATED 08.04.2022
Ex.P-10/13.08.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.10.
Ex.P-11/13.08.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.11.
Ex.P-12/15.09.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.12.
Ex.P-13/15.09.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.13.
Ex.P-14/15.09.2018: Entire 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.14.
Ex.P-15/14.08.2018: Inquest report of the deceased Vennela Veera Lakshmi.
Ex.P-16/06.02.2019: Post mortem report of the deceased issued by P.W.16.
Ex.P-17/24.12.2018:RFSL report.
Ex.P-18/13.08.2018: Scene observation report.
Ex.P-19/20.08.2018:Statement of the accused.
Ex.P.20/20.08.2018:Report of P.W.17 along with statement of accused.
Ex.P.21/20.08.2018:Mediators report.
Ex.P.22/13.08.2018:F.I.R., in Cr.No.113/2018 of Thondangi Police Station for the offence under Secs.302 and 201 I.P.C.
Ex.P-23/ ---:Four photographs along with C.D.
Ex.P.24/20.08.2018:Portion marked in mediators report.
Ex.P.25/20.08.2018:Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
Ex.P.26/13.08.2018:Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
Ex.P.27/11.09.2018:Letter of advice.
FOR DEFENCE:NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O.1 :Leggin
M.O.2 :Chunni
M.O.3 :Two wheeler cover
M.O.4 :Top of the deceased
M.O.5 :Pillow
M.O.6 : White banian
Sd/- N.Solomonraju,
XII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
PITHAPURAM.