1
APVS070004792018 Presented on : 24-09-2018 Registered on : 10-04-2019 Decided on : 07-04-2025 Duration : 6 years, 6 months, 13 days
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
ANAKAPALLI.
Present: Smt. N. Srividya, X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Anakapalli.
Monday, this the 07th day of April, 2025
SESSIONS CASE No. 11/2019
(P.R.C.No. 3/2018 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Anakapalli, in Cr. No. 75/2018 of Kasimkota PS.) Between:-
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Rural Circle, Visakhapatnam District. … Complainant. And: Saravan Kumar, S/o. Ganapathi, aged 52 years, D. No. 8/26, Muvendar Steet, New Vilangudi Village, Mandhurai Taluk and District, Kudalputtu PS., Limits, Tamilnadu State. Driver of Container lorry bearing No. KA 51 C 6257. … Accused.
This case came up before me for final hearing on 28.03.2025 in the presence of Ld. Grandi Srinivas Rao, I/c. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. V. Raja Sekhar, Ld. Advocate for accused and upon hearing their arguments, and having considered the matter till this day, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.Accused arraigned for the offence punishable U/Sec.302 of IPC.
2.This is the case where one person by name Kannan Muni Raj,
S/o. Chinnappai, aged about 45 years, who is resident of Veluru District,
Tamilnadu, was killed.
2
3.The basic case of the defacto complainant by name M. Gopi, who is a person working as filling boy at Kali Prasad Petrol bunk, lodged a report with police on 08.06.2018 at about 11.00 PM.
4. As per the contention of the defacto complainant, he is working as a filling boy in Kali Prasad petrol bunk, since 10 long years by then, which is situated at
Ugginapalam and that on 08.06.2018 at about 08.30 AM., while he was on duty in the bunk, on 07.06.2018 night, some lorries bearing No. KA 01 AC 9938, KA 51 C 6257 and some other lorries were stationed and that on 08.06.2018 in the morning hours stil the lorries were staationed and that , the said two lorry drivers were moving closely since morning and that they also cooked their food separately in the afternoon and had their lunch and that at about 2’0 clock, container bearing No. KA 51 C 6257 driver by name Saravan Kumar, while he was climbing and trying to get into his cabin, the driver of lorry bearing No. KA 01
AC 9938, by name Muni Raj started giving ticklings to Saravan Kumar, due to which Saravan Kumar fell down and immediately, Saravan Kumar, sustained some small injuries here and there on his body and when Saravan Kumar questioned Muni Raj as to why he was giving ticklings to him, Muni Raj, pushed him back by placing his hand on the neck and the throat area and on that both of them started small galata, wherein the in and around the drivers of several other lorries came and got them separated and later on while the defacto complainant was still working in his petrol bank, Muni Raj slept on the parapet wall in the afternoon and keeping in view the incident occurred in the afternoon, Saravan
Kumar, came towards Muni Raj and in order to kill him intentionally, took a very big concrete stone in his hands and hit on the head of the Muni Raj, and that it was about 06.00 PM., and Muni Raj suffered bleeding injury from his ears severely and also from his head and immediately, the other lorry drivers and the defacto complainant filling boy Naga Apparao, were very much present at the said situation and the other drivers stopped Saravan Kumar while he was hardly 3 hitting the head of the Muni Raj in an angry mode and later on by calling 108 services, Muni Raj was shifted to NTR Hospital and from there he was shifted to
KGH hospital. The defacto complainant sought for appropriate action in the said issue.
5.It is further the case of the defacto complainant that when he came to now that the said Muni Raj succumbed to the head injury, another report was given by him stating that, at about 08.30 PM the said Muni Raj died at KGH Hospital and sought for appropriate action. Basing on the initial report dated 08.06.2018, a case in Cr. No. 75/2018 was registered U/Sec. 307 of IPC, but later on since the deceased died, the section of law was altered from Sec. 307 of IPC to Sec. 302 of IPC.
6. Basing on the charge sheet cognizance of offence was taken U/Sec. 302 of IPC in PRC.3/2018 by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Anakapalli. As the said offence U/Sec. 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, after complying with the prescribed procedure under law, the learned Magistrate committed the case in P.R.C.3/2018 to the Court of Sessions division, Visakhapatnam for trial. The said case was numbered as S.C.11/2019 and made over to this court for disposal according to law.
7.On appearance of the accused before the Magistrate concerned, the accused was informed about the committal proceedings and accordingly, the record was committed to the Sessions Court i.e., learned II Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli, and later on after furnishing documents to him U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., the accused was examined as required U/Sec.228 of
Cr.P.C., by this court in English and having understood the same he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8.The prosecution examined PWs1 to PW10 out of 18 listed witnesses and also exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and M.Os 1 to M.O.4.
4
9.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined
U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by this court by explaining the incriminating material in the prosecution evidence in English, and having understood the same, the accused denied and reported no defence evidence, as such the defence evidence was also closed and the matter was posted for arguments.
10. Heard both sides.
11.Perused the entire evidence of the prosecution placed both oral as well as documentary evidence and also material objects.
12.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution is proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.302 of IPC., beyond reasonable doubt or not?
13.The learned APP argued that, with the evidence of PWs1 to PW10 coupled with Exs-P1 to P11 and MOs.1 to 4, there is a solid case for them that they established their case against the accused for the charges levelled against him and that the accused committed an offence punishable U/Se. 302 of IPC and
PME/ExP4 clearly discloses as to how the head injury was caused and due to which the deceased died and it is further urged that, there is no scope for entertaining any doubt that whether the accused committed offence in this case or not and prayed this court to punish the accused as per law.
14.Further, it is argued that, the accused is the only person who had galata with the deceased and the eye witnesses who are working at filling station, much particularly, PW1 to PW3 they categorically deposed about the commission of the offence by the accused and finally, the learned APP prayed this court to punish the accused as per law.
15.The learned defence counsel argued that, the evidence of owner of the petrol bunk is not at all useful for the prosecution and that it is for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the owner of the bunk did not even choose to give report to the police being owner of the alleged scene of offence and that point is 5 to be taken into consideration in order to suspect the very case of the prosecution. It is further argued that the evidence of PW7 who being a lorry driver is totally influenced by the police and when the CCTV footage was not at all filed
before this court, when it is the case where there is every possibility of getting a
CCTV footage, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, they did not choose to file the same and that the investigation was not done properly in this case in the aforesaid manner in order to correctly fix the culprit who committed the offence, but the investigating authorities did not choose to do so and prayed this court not to believe the version of the prosecution that accused committed to the offence.
16.Further, it is argued that, if at all it is evidence of investigating authorities that they have seen the CCTV footage and that it did not cover the alleged offence, alleged to have been committed and the so-called scenes are not covered under CCTV footage, then they would have filed the same in order to mention that some incident occurred but the same was not at all covered under the CCTV footage and since it is not at all filed by the investigating authorities, it shall not be treated as the investigation was done in proper manner.
17.Further, the learned defense counsel also argued that, ExP5 is the wound certificate of the alleged accused and that in order to establish that accused was in and around moving in the said locality by that time, the present ExP5 was a planted document by the prosecution and that if at all it is the case of the prosecution that, accused committed the offence, if at all it is believed, accused would have fled away from the scene but, how is that the accused was remaining there in the said city, when he has alleged to have been committed the murder of the deceased.
18.Further, the learned defence counsel argued that, ExP5 is a planted document and when one document can easily be considered as a planted document, the entire case of the prosecution shall not be believed and prayed 6 this court to acquit the accused. It is further argued that, the intention of the accused in killing the deceased was not at all established by the prosecution and motive is also not proved and for these reasons, the accused shall be acquitted and prayed this court to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.
POINT:
19.Perused the record. The charges U/Sec. 302 of IPC., and the case of the prosecution is that, accused hit the deceased with a concrete cement stone on his head while he was sleeping on parapet wall of a petrol bunk and that it was the further case of the prosecution that, since there was some galata prior to the said incident, at the petrol bunk between accused and the deceased and that deceased was giving ticklings to the accused while he was climbing the lorry and that he fell down and when accused questioned the deceased, the deceased caught hold the throat of the accused and that accused and the deceased quarreled and accordingly the in and around drivers and workers of petrol bunk separated them and later on keeping in view of the said incident, the accused in the evening hours of 08.06.2018 came and hit the deceased, on his head with a cement concrete brick while deceased was sleeping and that immediately the workers in the petrol bunk and the other drivers rushed to the spot and immediately made a phone call to 108 emergency services and thereby, shifted the severely head injured deceased to NTR Hospital and from there immediately deceased was shifted to KGH hospital, Visakhapatnam.
20.As per the case of the prosecution, there are eye-witness to the incident and the prosecution examined PWs1 to 10 out of 18 listed witnesses and exhibited Exs-P1 to P11 and MOs 1 to 4.
21.Out of the said PWs1 to 10, PWs1, 2 and 7 are the alleged eye witnesses to the commission of the offence. ExsP1 and P2 reports given by PW1.
As far as PWs9 and 10 are concerned, they are the investigating officers in this case; and 7 As far as the PW8 is concerned, he is the owner of the said petrol bunk where the scene of offence is situated; PW3 is one person working at the said petrol bunk i.e., Kali Prasad petrol bunk as a cashier and he is a translator for the statement given by the accused to the police; PW4 is the VRO who was the person in whose presence scene observation report was prepared ExP3 and MO1/cement concrete stone, was seized; PW5 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, ExP4/PME certificate marked through him.
PW6 is the doctor who got issued wound certificate/ExP5 of the accused.
22.On careful perusal of the entire evidence let in by the prosecution and the defence put up by the accused, this court observed that, the basic defence put up by the learned defence counsel are that the PWs1, 2 and 7 are not at all the persons who were very much present at the time of scene of offence and that
PWs1 and 2 are not the employees working at Kali Prasad Petrol bunk. The other defence put up by the learned defence counsel is that, the investgating authorities failed to place the CCTV footages which are very much available at the so called filling station.
23.The other crucial defence placed by the accused is that the deceased fell down from the parapet wall and sustained head injury and that no offence took place.
24.The another defence put up by the accused is to the effect that, no situation at all occurred at scene of offence and that in order to help the owner of the said petrol bunk i.e., PW8, the police planted PW1 and thereby foisted a false case, so that they can protect the owner of the petrol bunk. The last and final defence put up by the accused was that the ExP5 was a created and planted document with the help of PW6.
8
25.The prosecution in order to prove its case examined the eye-witnesses.
PW1/Mallepu Gopi, is a filling boy in petrol punk at Kali Prasad agency,
Ugginapalem and that, as per his evidence, he has been working in the said filling station since long time and that on 07.06.2018 when he was returning from his job from the petrol bunk, he has seen some vehicles which were parked in the parking area of the said petrol bunk and on the very next day also i.e., 08.06.2018, when he went to attend his job at 10.00 AM., the said vehicles were still parked in the petrol bunk parking area. As far as the evidence of PW1 with regard to his attending the job is concerned, defence was put up in such a manner that, there is no document which is there before this court to believe that
PW1 was working at PW8’s filling station. PW8 being the owner of Kali Prasad
Petrol bunk categorically deposed that, PW1, PW2, PW3 and one person by name Naga Apparao/LW2 are working under him. The defence is that, there is no document which is filed before this court to believe that, PW1, PW2 are working with PW8 in his petrol bunk and that, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 shall not be believed. But, PW8 being the owner of the Kali Prasad petrol bunk situated at
Ugginapalem categorically deposed that, since past 30 years, he has been running petrol filling station in the name and style of Kali Prasad Agency and that
PWs1, 2, 3 and one person by name Naga Apparao/LW2 are working under him.
During the course of cross examination of this PW8, this PW8 categorically deposed that, they maintain register of their staff and their duties and that neither he handed over any register to the police nor the police took any such registers from their office. A suggestion was put to this witness that, since the deceased died in his petrol bunk premises, this PW8 felt that he may be held responsible and as such, he got foisted ExP1 through PW1 and that no offence was committed in the petrol bunk of PW8 and that it is the reason why he did not choose to report to the police and insisted PW1 to lodge ExP1/report. On careful understanding of the suggestion put by the accused to this PW8, it can safely be 9 concluded that, the PW8 is the owner of the said petrol bunk and PW1 is admittedly working under PW8. Because, the said suggestion shows that PW1 was insisted by PW8. On what capacity, PW8 can insist PW1, is to be taken into a serious note of. It is the contention of the defence that, PW1, PW2 never worked with PW8 but by way of putting this suggestion to PW8, it is nothing but contradictory defences taken by the accused. On one hand, accused takes a defence that PWs1, 2 never worked with PW8 and on the other hand, accused starting putting another defence by way of suggestion to PW8 saying that, in order to escape PW1 was insisted by PW8. Even it is the evidence of PW2 that during the course of cross examination that, since 20 years he has been working in the said petrol bunk and his job is within the four walls and that, he is working as cashier in the said Kali Prasad Petrol Bunk. Under these circumstances, this court is of the view that though the accused tried his level best in putting his defence that PW1 was not at all working with PW8 in the said petrol bunk, this court is not at all satisfied and prosecution established that, PWs1 and 2 were working with PW8. This PW1 also in his cross examination, categorically deposed that he had been working with the said Kali Prasad Agency filling station since 10 years by the date of the alleged offence and still he has been working in the said filling station. Mere putting a suggestion to witness saying that “you are not working in a particular place and with a particular person”, will not help the defence in any manner. Non-production of any document to show that, PW1 was not at all working with PW8, is not fatal to this case. Because recordedly there is no dispute of any kind with the accused to this PWs1, 2 and another rest of the witnesses, much particularly PW8 as well and for that reason, this court is of the view that the contention raised by the accused that PWs1 and 2 never worked with PW8, stands with no legs. Hence, this court believes strongly that PWs1 and 2 are working still with the PW8 and they worked even at the said alleged situation as per the case of the prosecution.
10
26.Now the evidence of PW1 with regard to witnessing the alleged incident is concerned, as per ExP1, he is the eye-witness to the incident and that he immediately rushed to the spot and with the help of PW7, they have shifted the injured deceased to NTR hospital, Anakapalli from there to KGH Hospital,
Visakhapatnam. As far as the evidence before this court is concerned, PW1 categorically deposed that on 07.06.2018, while he was returning back from his job, he has seen some vehicles being parked in the parking area and the very next day on 08.06.2018, when he went to attend his job at about 10.00 AM., at that time also he has seen several said vehicles are still in the petrol bunk in the parking area. It is also the evidence of PW1 that, the vehicles bearing No. KA 51
C 6257 and KA 01 AC 9938, are among the said vehicles. As per the evidence of
PW1, accused was the driver of the container bearing No. KA 51 C 6257 and the deceased is the driver of another container bearing No. KA 01 AC 9938. This
PW1 categorically deposed that, at about 02.00 PM., he overheard some sounds of galata and when he went and saw, accused was subjected to ticklings by the deceased and the said situation occurred while the accused was trying to climb and board his container and due to the said ticklings accused fell down and sustained some injuries and due to the said issues, there was some galata between the accused and Muni Raj and this PW1 separated them. It is also the evidence of PW1 that accused went into his container, whereas Muni Raj went and slept on the one feet height parapet wall and at about 05.00 PM, while he was still in the petrol bunk attending his duties, accused got down from his container and proceeded towards Muni Raj i.e., deceased and took a cement concrete stone and hit on the head of the said Muni Raj resulting into severe bleeding injury from his ears. It is also his evidence that this PW1 along with
PW7/Kamalanadhan, shifted the deceased/Muni Raj to NTR Government
Hospital and at about 07.00 PM, he lodged report with the police on 08.06.2018, informing the situation and that when said Muni Raj was shifted to KGH, 11
Visakhapatnam, and when he was about to return from his duty on 09.06.2018, after completion of night duty as well, he was informed by the hospital authorities that said Muni Raj died in the hospital, while undergoing treatment, as such he immediately went to KGH hospital.
27.It is also the evidence of PW2 that, this accused and deceased consumed liquor in the petrol bunk premises and deceased consumed heavy liquor and fell unconscious and at that time while consuming liquor, both the accused and deceased had some verbal altercation and when the deceased fell unconscious, accused beat the deceased on his head with a concrete brick lying near construction material and they informed the police about the same and police examined him.
28.PW7, who is another lorry driver/Kamalanathan, deposed that on 08.06.2018, he parked his lorry at Sri Kali Prasad petrol bunk in the afternoon and this witness along with four said persons i.e., PW1 and the deceased/Muni
Raj and others prepared lunch and after the said process, they had lunch and then the deceased out of a joke gave ticklings to the accused while he was boarding his lorry and it was at about 05.30 PM., and about 08.00 PM., accused with a heavy brick caused injury to the deceased by hitting him on his head. This witness identified M.O1 to be the said cement concrete brick used by the accused. This witness also deposed that he saw the said incident. This witness further deposed that the deceased was immediately shifted to Anakapalli NTR
Hospital, but they did not take up the case, as such immediately the deceased was shifted to Visakhapatnam and on the very next day the deceased died in the evening about 05.00 PM.
29.It is the evidence of PW8, who is the owner of the vehicle, categorically deposed that on 08.06.2018 at about 05.00 PM., while he was in his office in the petrol bunk, he heard some galata and instructed the PWs1, 2, 3 and LW2 /Naga
Apparao, to go and find out as to what happened and that the said persons 12 informed PW8 that accused attacked Muni Raj with a brick and immediately this
PW8 informed that Muni Raj demanded for the return of amounts of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) due by the accused to him and on that accused attacked Muni Raj. This PW8 was further deposed that when he went and saw, Muni Raj was lying on the ground with head injury and immediately PW2 called 108 emergency services and they all shifted the said injured/Muni Raj to NTR Hospital and the deceased and the accused are his regular customers and they are lorry drivers and used to fill their lorry tanks with petrol in his bunk, as such he know them.
30.PW3 is cashier and he is working at Kali Prasad Petrol bunk and this witness deposed that, he has been working at said Petrol Bunk since 30 years and in the year 2018 police took his services in translating the information given by the accused in Tamil Language into Telugu Language, in order to prepare the mediators report. This witness categorically deposed that, at that time accused informed him that, while he was climbing the lorry the deceased give ticklings to the accused, due to which the accused fell down and after sometime, they fought with each other and the deceased was due an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees
One Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the accused and when the deceased slept, the accused beat him on his head with concrete brick. This PW3 also deposed that, on the date of alleged incident he was on leave. As far as cross examination of this witness is concerned, the PW3 categorically deposed that, at the petrol bunk the process of translating the statement of accused from Tamil Language to
Telugu language took place. This witness also deposed that, it was not on the date of incident but some days later and that he do not remember the actual date. This witness further deposed that, he has attendance register and it is properly maintained and also deposed that he learned Tamil Language from the drivers from Tamil Naidu, so to some extent he can translate the language but he is not well versed with Tamil Language. He also deposed that, he can understand 13
Tamil Language, and admitted that he cannot translate Telugu Language into
Tamil language and cannot communicate the same in verboten. A suggestion was put to this witness that, no such translation took place and the said suggestion as denied by this witness.
31.As far as the cross examination of eye-witness i.e., is PW1 is concerned, this PW1 categorically deposed that, since 10 long years he has been working in the petrol bunk of PW8 and that to his knowledge there are about 13 to 15 workers in the petrol bunk working and he has identity card to show that he is working in the said petrol bunk. As far as the further cross examination with regard to filing of the said identity card photostat copy is concerned, he categorically deposed that he did not submit any copy of the same to the police along with the either Exs-P1 or P2. Further, this court observed that, this PW1 categorically deposed that there are three petrol holding machinery with two pipes each for filling the petrol on either side and they are situated 10 feet away to each other and further deposed that their petrol bunk is situated in Ac. 2.00
Cents of land and that the parking area is at the threshold of the bunk soon after entering the bunk and that the restrooms are behind the said petrol bunk, petrol holding machinery and vehicles will be parked in the other vacant place, as well by leaving area for the other vehicles to enter and get the petrol filled and move out. During the course of cross examination of this PW1, the entire topography of
ExP7/rough sketch, is elicited from the mouth of this PW1. This PW1 further deposed about the situation in the cross examination that, on 07.06.2018 there were about four to five containers which were parked and further added that, some containers belong to Balamurgan Transport Company and some belong to
Bharat Transport Company and further answered that the container bearing No.
KA 01 AC 9938 belongs to Balamurgan Transport Company, where the deceased was the driver and that the container bearing No. KA 051 C 6257 belongs to
Bharat Transport Company and another container is also of the said transport 14 company and further deposed that he do not know how many people will be in the vehicle. This witness further deposed that, the deceased and the accused and other containers vehicles, there are only one driver for each container without any other persons and also deposed that he do not know the destiny of said vehicles because, said vehicles came from Usur and are loaded with TVS
Company vehicles and further deposed that the said two containers mentioned above were parked in front of the bunk underneath the available tree situated in front of the bunk entrance and the distance between the filling units and parking area is about 25 feet and denied the suggestion that there is no possibility of over-hearing voices of anyone from the said area. Further this witness deposed in the cross examination that he has seen the deceased two to three times prior to the incident and he do not remember as to when the deceased came to their filling station prior to the incident and cannot give the dates. Further, this witness deposed that Kamalanadhan/PW7 and another driver informed him that the deceased is indebted to the accused and further deposed that he do not know the name of the said another driver and that Kamalanadhan informed him about the issue of ticklings. During the course of further cross examination crucial points were elicited, by the learned defence counsel, wherein this PW1 categorically deposed that when the accused fell down when he went to the spot and galata took place and that the place of parapet wall was with concrete stones assembled in order to lay pipeline and it is common for the drivers who parked the vehicles at petrol bunks, cook, eat and take rest, but he has no knowledge whether they consume liquor or not and further deposed that, the parapet wall is in the entire boundary line of the petrol bunk and the place where the deceased was sleeping on a parapet wall was situated underneath a tree. This evidence of
PW1 with regard to the topography of ExP7 /rough sketch, is quite tallying. A suggestion was given to this witness that, no such situation occurred and that one person by name Veer Raju is the owner i.e., PW8 wanted to escape from 15 the liability of the death of the deceased, this PW1 was planted and created a story thereby foisted a false case against accused. The said suggestion was denied by this witness and further it is deposed during the course of cross examination of PW1 and PW1 deposed that the suggestion put to him that he never witnessed anything and nothing was seized much particularly MOs1 to 4, is totally false and all these suggestions were categorically denied by this witness.
32.As could be seen with the content of cross examination of PW 1 is concerned, no-where the defence could make this court entertain a doubt with regard to the evidence of PW1 is whether the eye witness or not.
33.As far as the evidence of PW2 is concerned, PW2 gave a different version with regard to the starting of dispute is concerned and he deposed that, accused and the deceased consumed liquor and deceased consumed heavy liquor and fell unconscious and at the time of consuming liquor, there was some verbal altercation and when the deceased fell unconscious, the accused beat him with a cement concrete brick lying near construction work and immediately, they all informed the police about the same. But, during the course of cross examination of this witness, he deposed by way of admitting that, “It is true when I over-heard the galata I came out of the room”. This suggestion establishes the case of the prosecution as far as the job of the PW2 is concerned in the petrol bunk of PW8 and moreover, this suggestion can be termed as suicidal suggestion with regard to over-hearing of galata is concerned. It is the evidence of PW2 that, his job is within the four walls in a room at petrol bunk and immediately, this aforesaid suggestion, goes to show that, PW2 is in the petrol bunk in his room and attending his work and immediately, after over hearing some galata he rushed out of his room. He categorically deposed that, by the said time, police did not come and admitted that, he did not state to the police about consuming of liquor by the deceased and accused are concerned and further deposed that, he came 16 to know about the said issues between accused and the deceased from the available lorry drivers in the petrol bunk. This PW2 was also put to a suggestion that, nothing happened and that the deceased fell down from parapet wall, while he was sleeping on it and the deceased got hit to a lime cement brick on the ground and thereby sustained head injury and died accordingly. All these suggestions were denied by this witness. Further, another suggestion was put to this witness that in order to escape from the liability, or any other interrogation by the police, these people i.e., PWs1 to 3 and others created story that accused attacked the deceased. All these suggestions were denied by this PW2.
34.As well as the evidence of PW7 is concerned, he clearly deposed that on 08.06.2018, he parked his lorry at Kali Prasad Petrol Bunk. During course of cross examination, this witness deposed that he know the accused since three years by the date of alleged incident and he along with the accused and deceased worked under same company initially but later deceased shifted to
Bala Murugan Company. This witness categorically explained about his acquaintance with the deceased and the accused as well being drivers and he even disclosed by giving the information before this court that, initially they all used to work under the same company but later on the deceased shifted to Bala
Murugan Company. This evidence goes to show that, PW7 is having good acquaintance with the accused as well as the deceased. This witness further deposed that, there are no police cases or any disputes between accused and the deceased, as per his knowledge and that there is no Cleaner for the deceased lorry and accused is the sole driver and there is no Cleaner for him as well and further deposed that there are about 15 lorries parked in the bunk on the date of incident. When this was the evidence given by PW7 with regard to the acquaintance with the accused as well as the deceased and about parking of the vehicles and working of all of them under the same company but later on the shifting of company by the deceased, goes to show that this witness is having 17 good acquaintance with the accused as well as the deceased and the topography and the number of vehicles and the situational particulars are also understood as clearly placed by PW7 before this court. This witness also deposed that the distance between parking area and the place of petrol filling machine is about 40 feet and his lorry was coming from Chambalpur after unloading the material at that place and that it came to the said petrol bunk in the night hours of 07.06.2018. By eliciting this content from the mouth of PW7, once again it appears that accused through his cross examination through his counsel established about the presence of the PW7 as well and about the material which was appearing to have been unloaded and from which place the lorry of PW7 was proceeding and what was its destiny.
35.This court further observed that this PW7 also deposed that he reached the petrol bunk in the night hours on 07.06.2018. This further confirms the presence of the PW7 at the scene of offence. He also deposed that he was near his lorry and that the deceased was sleeping and accused attacked him with the
MO1 and that this witness, witnessed it. PW7 categorically deposed that, he was near his lorry and that deceased was sleeping and accused attacked the deceased with MO1. He further strongly deposed that he witnessed the same. As such, this court is of the view that the evidence of PW7 is also not tilting in favour of the accused. Further PW7 deposed that, he gave his Aadhar card and other lorry documents to the police after returning from Visakhapatnam Hospital and since he know a little bit of Telugu language, he could able to explain the situation to the police by way of signs and gestures accordingly, the police recorded by way of understanding his statement. This witness further admitted that, there are several similar stones resembling MO1 and he cannot perfectly identify that the MO1 was the stone used by the accused. It is the case of prosecution that, the MO1 was used in order to attack the deceased by the accused and this PW7 who is the alleged eye-witness categorically deposed by 18 way of admitting that, there are several similar stones resembling MO1. This court is also of the same view that, there is no wrong if, a similar kind of stone is available in the market. It is not the case of the accused that MO1 was not at all used and surprisingly this witness deposed that he cannot perfectly identify MO1 that it is the stone which was used by the accused. On careful perusal of MO1 which was placed during the trial and the marking of said MO1, and when the same was confronted to this witness, this witness identified MO1 to be the one which was used, while he was giving evidence in chief but, during the course of cross examination, he after admitting that there are several similar stones resembling MO1, deposed that he cannot perfectly identify MO1. This witness further deposed that, he know the management of said bunk for about five years by then and that the management provides credit facility to get the petrol. The regular suggestions that, accused never committed any offence and that the deceased fell down from the parapet wall, while sleeping and thereby sustained injuries and died and that the accused never attacked the deceased, were all denied by this witness.
35.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW7 is concerned, the identity of
MO1 was placed in a situation whether it is to be believed or not. For the said purpose the evidence of PW4 is crucial, who categorically deposed that he being
VRO, during his tenure at 09.06.2018 at about 09.00 AM., he along with another person by name Govind, accompanied Kasimkota Police as mediators, and proceeded towards Kali Prasad filling station and police noted down the details of crime under ExP3 and also observed brick having blood stains. This witness deposed that MO1 is blood stained towel and that he cannot correlate the brick which was seized by the police, now looking at brick produced by the police. At the time of cross examination this witness deposed by way of admitting that,
MRO did not issue written orders to act as mediators under ExP3 and that the place where the scene of offence was situated and the place of filling petrol unit 19 is separated by parking place and again the entire topography of ExP7 was elicited from the mouth of this witness and this PW4 further admitted that on the date of ExP3 there were about 3 to 4 containers which were already parked and that the scene of offence will not be visible from the place of filling petrol, if any vehicle like lorries are parked. A suggestion was put to this witness that, ExP3 do not disclose the detailed description of MO1. It was observed by this court that, the seizure of MO1 was not disputed. But it was the contention of accused that, in ExP3, it is not disclosed as far as the entire description of MO1 is concerned.
Though this PW4 deposed that, he cannot correlate the brick which was seized by the police, now with that of the brick produced by the police, this court is of the view that, ExP3 is pertaining to the year 2018 and that the offence is pertaining to the year 2018 and now that, it is 2024 when the evidence of PW4 being given in the court, it was on 21.11.2024. As such it can safely be concluded that, over lapse of period, human memory vanishes a bit or becomes dull and PW4 is not an exception to it. But he deposed about seizure of MO1 by the police.
36.On careful perusal of ExP3 which is the scene observation report, consisting of seizure of MO1 as well, at page No. 3 it is clearly mentioned that, the SI of Police observed the blood stained concrete stone and that the said stone is in equal dimensions and about 6 1/2 KGs. As such, the defence of the accused by way of suggestion put to this witness that the particulars of MO1 was not at all mentioned in ExP3 is concerned, is totally wrong and ExP3 is proof for the same that MO1 particulars are clearly mentioned in ExP3. As such, the evidence of PW4 is believed as far as MO1 is concerned and accordingly, the evidence of PW7 coupled with the evidence of PW4 goes to show with regard to usage of MO1 and it is quite corroborative in nature with that of the evidence of
PWs1, 2, 7 as well as PW4 is concerned.
37.The evidence of PWs1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 clearly goes to show that, accused hit the deceased with MO1. The evidence of all these witnesses is quite 20 corroborative in nature, as far as the hitting of the deceased by the accused on his head with MO1 is concerned, and as well as the particulars of seizure of MO1 is concerned, Now, it is to be seriously observed with regard to the injury of the deceased. ExP4 is PME certificate, which clearly shows as to the injury of the deceased on his head is concerned. ExP4 is the Forensic Medicine and
Toxicology Department report of post-mortem examination, and this PME was conducted by PW5 and he categorically deposed about the date of conducting
PME over the dead body of the deceased at about 12.30 PM on 12.06.2018 and with the help of the PC- 127 of Kasimkota PS., in Cr. No. 75/2018, the dead body of the deceased was identified by him and commenced the post-mortem examination at 12.40 PM and concluded the same at 01.30 PM on the same day.
The PW5 in his chief examination itself deposed that the actual time of death of the deceased as per his knowledge is at about 08.30 AM on 09.06.2018 as he was provided with the hospital records of KGH Hospital and that the cause of death of the deceased to the best of his knowledge is i.e., head injury and that due to rush of work, there was some typographical mistake with regard to the date of receipt of requisition regarding conducting of PME is concerned. This court observed that, a question was put to this Doctor by the accused through his counsel that, “Is it possible to cause death in such a manner, when a person falls from a height on cement bricks”. This witness being the Doctor categorically deposed that there is no possibility of death in such a manner, if a person falls down from a height on cement bricks. ExP4 also disclosed at column No. 11, the fracturing injuries of the head of the deceased are concerned. Considering the contents of ExP4, as far as the observation of the Doctor is concerned, at the time of conducting PME, this court is of the view that ExP4 is proved in accordance with the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the usage of MO1. In correlation with Exs-P4, P3 and Exs-P1 and P3, this court felt that, the evidence of all the aforesaid persons is cogent, corroborative in nature and highly 21 believable and there is no scope of entertaining, any little doubt in the case of the prosecution. This court observed that, though the reasons mentioned by the eye- witnesses, do not match, the attack by the accused on the head of the deceased with MO1 is concerned, is totally established by the prosecution through its witnesses, mentioned supra both oral and documentary.
38.As far as the defence with regard to availability of CCTV footages and non- filing of the same is concerned, it is the evidence of PW9 who is investigating officer, he categorically deposed that, he got verified the CCTV footage available at the scene of offence, but the same is not filed before this court. This witness further denied the suggestion that, since there is no material to show that accused attacked the deceased with MO1, this PW9 did not choose to produce the said CCTV footage to this court. This court is of the view that, in the light of evidence of eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e., PW's 1, 2 and 7 is concerned, coupled with the evidence of PW4 regarding usage of MO1 is concerned, this court felt that, the said corroboration is sufficient in order to come to a conclusion that accused attacked the deceased while he was sleeping on the parapet wall with MO1 on his head and thereby caused severe injury and it is evidence of PW1 that the blood was oozing out from the ears and head of the deceased and that immediately he was shifted to NTR Hospital, Anakapalli and therefrom to KGH Hospital, Visakhapatnam, clearly goes to show that the incident occurred. As such, this court felt that there is no necessity of filing this
CCTV footage much particularly when it is the evidence of the one of the investigating officers/PW9 that, he has seen the entire CCTV footage, but he did not file the same before the court and it is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution, in the light of oral testimony of all the independent witnesses who are no-where related to the accused or nowhere related to the deceased. When there is no relation of any kind which could influence the eye-witnesses to speak against the accused or in favour of the deceased, this court believes the version 22 of all the eye-witnesses being the independent eye-witnesses, they spoke truth
before this court.
39.This court also observed the evidence of PW10 who is investigation officer who filed charge sheet, categorically deposed in the cross examination that, they seized the CCTV footage existing in the petrol bunk and on verification they found that, the particular place of offence was not under the CCTV surveillance.
This evidence clearly explains the situation as to why it is not placed and this court felt that, it is not a lacuna in the investigation much particularly in the light of evidence of independent eye witness to the incident. As such, the defence put up by the accused that, no such situation occurred at all and it is the reason why,
CCTV footage is not filed, cannot stand at all against the evidence of independent eye witnesses.
40.As far as ExP7/rough sketch is concerned, it was always the defence that, the deceased died falling from the parapet wall and there is no possibility of looking into the said place of alleged scene of offence, from the place of petrol filling bunks are concerned, but, as per the evidence of all the independent eye witnesses are concerned, the accused could establish the entire ExP7 contents, during the course of cross examination, so that ExP7 can be understood in a detailed manner. The endeavor of accused in projecting the defence that, the said independent eye witnesses were never at the scene of offence and that they are never employees of PW8, vanished with the evidence of PW8. Even it is the evidence of investigating officers PWs9 and 10 by admitting that they did not seize any document about the attendance registers or the employment of the all the witnesses i.e., PWs1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 goes to show that, accused could not establish his defence properly.
41.As far as the evidence of PW6 is concerned, with regard to ExP5 wound certificate of the accused, it is the evidence of PW6 that the accused came to him on 19.06.2018 at about 12.30 PM., and deposed that accused pleaded ignorance 23 for cause of injury as well as from whom the injuries are caused and further PW6 deposed that, he examined him and found injury on right thigh which was two to three days old and also found injury on left side of his chest portion scar on first rib and none of the said injuries were bleeding afresh and that he got issued
ExP5 and all the injuries are simple in nature, whereas during the course of cross examination it was suggested to this witness that, this PW6 never examined any one and further denied the suggestion that it is the reason why most of the columns in ExP5 are kept blank.
42.In the light of evidence of all the independent witnesses about the commission of offence by the accused, mere blanks at ExP5, do not fade away the entire case of the prosecution and this court is of the view that, the evidence of PW6 is proper on its line.
43.This court observed that, when it was the defence of the accused that, he was not at all there at the petrol bunk and that trip sheets etc., are not seized by the investigating authority regarding the stationing of the vehicles are concerned, accused might have placed some material before this court that, he was else- where and that he was not the person who took the container and came to the scene of offence. In the absence of any material before this court, in support of the defence put up by the accused, and in the light of prosecution successfully establishing its case against the accused, prosecution proved its case against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 302 of IPC. All the eye witnesses clearly deposed that deceased was sleeping on the parapet wall and accused went and hit deceaed with the MO1 on the head of deceased while deceased was sleeping. It shows how cruel that the accuse is, because deceased was not attacking him and was sleeping and the act of accused hitting on head of a sleeping person so heard that several fractures to skull of deceased was caused as seen from the PME report/ExP4 is inhuman.
44.Considering all the aforesaid detailed discussion with regard to the 24 evidence of prosecution witnesses, this court is of the view that, prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec. 302 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.
45.In the result, the accused is found ‘guilty’ for the offence punishable
U/Sec.302 of IPC, and he is convicted U/Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C.
Typed my dictation, by the Stenographer and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07th day of April, 2025.
sd:// N. Srividya. X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anakapalli. Hearing on sentence:
46.Accused is heard on sentence. While pleading mercy that he should be excused, accused submitted that, he is blessed with two daughters who are studying in college and that his wife is house hold woman and that his family members are getting help from the sister of the accused, in order to eke-out their livelihood every day and accused sought for showering of lenient view.
Heard, the prosecution as well the learned defence counsel. When the prosecution insisted for issuing death sentence, whereas the learned defence counsel drawn the attention of this court to the family members of the accused saying that, since the accused is in jail since the long time and all the family members of the accused are eagerly waiting for the release of the accused, the learned defence counsel prayed this court to consider the life of two children of the accused who are perusing their studies in the college and that if the accused is sentenced to death, his family will be on roads.
At this juncture the prosecution disclosed that, the deceased was blessed with three daughters and that they belong to poor family and they are not in a position to lead their lives respectably.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the view that, the manner of committing the offence by this accused mentioned 25 supra, is heinous in nature and this court keeping in view the family members of the deceased as well as the family members of the accused, intends to not to award death sentence to the accused, for the reason that, the accused should know the pain of losing the family by living alone by staying in jail.
Sentencing the accused to undergo Imprisonment for LIFE and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) in default SI for six months, for the offence U/Sec. 302 of IPC, would meet the ends of justice and an amount of
RS.99,000/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand Only) shall be paid to the family members of the deceased, towars compensation U/Sec. 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.
In the result, accused is convicted and sentenced U/Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C. to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.302 of IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. On payment of fine amount, an amount of Rs.99,000/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand Only) shall be paid to the family members of the deceased U/Sec. 357 (3) of Cr.P.C., and the rest of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) shall be remitted to the
State.
Accused is informed about his right to prefer appeal against this judgment and as he stated that he has capacity to engage counsel at appellate stage.
The remand period already undergone by the accused from 19.06.2018 to 07.09.2018 and 19.02.2024 to till date, shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
M.O.s1 to 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time or after disposal of the appeal, which ever is earlier.
Free copy of calendar and judgment is supplied to the accused.
Quantum of sentence dictated to the Stenographer of this court, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 07th day of April, 2025. sd:/ N. Srividya, X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anakapalli.
26
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution:- P.W.1 : Mallepu Gopi P.W.2: Beta Rama Rao P.W.3: Yellapragada Venkata Ramana Murthy P.W.4: Chala Yerukunaidu P.W.5: Dr. V. Chandra Sekhar MD (FM) P.W.6: Dr. Y. Rajesh P.W.7: Kamalanadham P.W.8: Dasari Veerraju P.W.9: D. Eswara Rao P.W.10: G. Ramachandra Rao
For Defence:NONE
Documents Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : report dated 08.06.2018 Ex.P2: another report dated 09.06.2018 Ex.P3: scene observation report/PW4 Ex.P4: PME certificate Ex.P5: Wound certificate of accused Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7: rough sketch Ex.P8: Section altered FIR Ex.P9: Inquest report Ex.P10: letter of advice Ex.P11: RFSL report.
For Defence: Nil.
MATERIAL OBJECTS:
For Prosecution: For Defence: M.O.1 : Cement concrete stone NIL M.O.2 : Towel M.O.3 : half hands shirt M.O.4 : checked lungi of deceased. XADJ/AKP. // true copy//
XADJ/AKP.
27
APVS070004792018 Presented on : 24-09-2018 Registered on : 10-04-2019 Decided on : 07-04-2025 Duration : 6 years, 6 months, 13 days
CALENDAR & JUDGMENT
CALENDAR CASE TRIAL BY THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT ANAKAPALLI
SC.No.11/2019
Date of Offence:08.06.2018
Date of Report or Complaint:08.06.2018
Date of apprehension of Accused:19.06.2018
Date of accused released on bail:07.09.2018
Date of committal :26.11.2018
Date of Commencement of Trial:02.09.2024
Date of Closure of trial:28.02.2025
Date of sentence or order of Court:07.04.2025
Explanation for Delay & Remarks :
This PRC Case is made over from Hon’be II Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli and this case is received by made over for disposal according to law from Honourable Principal District Court, Visakhapatnam on 10.04.2019. Summons issued to the accused and notice to Addl. PP on 14.05.2019 and accused engaged counsel on 30.07.2019 and posted for hearing on charges and at that stage accused called absent and issued NBW against him on 21.09.2021 and police executed the NBW on 19.20.2024 and he was remanded to judicial custody and since then the accused remained in jail till today. The accused was examined U/Sec. 228 of Cr.P.C., on 04.03.2024 and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and that fixed the trial schedule to 18.03.2024 and therefrom to 28.03.2024, 11.04.2024 and 12.04.2024 on costs of Rs.500/- and on 25.04.2024, 08.05.2024, 22.05.2024, 04.06.2024, 18.06.2024 the accused was produced through video conference from Prison. Again the trial was rescheduled to 16.07.2024, 18.07.2024, 01.08.2024, 14.08.2024, 28.08.2024 at the instance of prosecution. On 02.09.2024 PW1 was examined and ExP1 and 28
ExP2 were marked on 03.0.2024 BW issued against LW3 and LW4 and it is pending and on 21.11.2024 PW4 examined and ExP3 and MO1 are marked. PW6 and 6 were examined on 13.12.2024 and ExP4 and ExP5 are marked. On 27.11.2024 PW7 examined and on 29.01.2025 PW8 examined and on 31.01.2025 PW9 examined and marked ExP6 and ExP8 and on 20.02.2025 PW10 is examined and ExP9 to P11 are marked. Prosecution evidence is closed and accused was examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., on 28.02.2025 and he reported no defence evidence and that posted for arguments and on 20.03.2025 the learned APP submitted his arguments and on 28.03.2025 the defence advocate submitted his arguments and on 07.04.2025 posted for judgment. On 07.04.2025 Judgment pronounced.
Calendar Case No.:S.C.No. 11/2019
Name & Address of complainant:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Rural Circle, Visakhapatnam District. Name and address of accused :Saravan Kumar, S/o. Ganapathi, aged 52 years, D. No. 8/26, Muvendar Steet, New Vilangudi Village, Mandhurai Taluk and District, Kudalputtu PS., Limits, Tamilnadu State. Driver of Container lorry bearing No. KA 51 C 6257. Section of law:U/Sec.302 of IPC
Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
Finding of Court:Accused found guilty
Sentence or Order of the Court: In the result, the accused is found ‘guilty’for the offence punishable U/Sec.302 of IPC, and he is convicted U/Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.302 of IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. On payment of fine amount, an amount of Rs.99,000/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand Only) shall be paid to the family members of the deceased U/Sec. 357 (3) of Cr.P.C., 29 and the rest of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) shall be remitted to the State.
Accused is informed about his right to prefer appeal against this judgment and as he stated that he has capacity to engage counsel at appellate stage.
The remand period already undergone by the accused from 19.06.2018to07.09.2018and 19.02.2024 to till date, shall be set off U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
M.O.s1 to 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time or after disposal of the appeal, which ever is earlier.
Free copy of calendar and judgment is supplied to the accused.
sd:// N. Srividya, X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli.
Note: Fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) is not paid the
accused on 07.04.2025.
Copy submitted to :
The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravathi .
Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli District.
// true copy//
XADJ/AKP.