//1//
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
PRESENT:-N.Tukaramji,
Principal Sessions Judge
Friday, the 7th day of July, 2017
SESSIONS CASE No.71/2016
COMPLAINANTNAME & DESCRIPTION OF ACCUSED
The State throughMasa Srinu, S/o.Maridayya, 30 Inspector of Police, years, SC Mala, 3rd Street, SC Peta, Station House Officer, Dulla Village, Kadiyam Mandal. Kadiyam Police station.
(The Prosecution is The accused is defended by conducted by Public Sri.M.R.Chandra, Sri.M.Srinivasa Prosecutor, East Godavari Rao, Advocates, Rajamahendravaram. District, Rajamahendravaram.)
Nature of ChargeUnder Section 302 of IPC.
Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty.
Finding of the JudgeAccused is found not guilty.
Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.302 IPC and he is acquitted under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 and M.Os.4 to M.O.8 and unmarked property if any shall be destroyed and M.O.3 is ordered to be returned to P.W.1 after expiry of appeal time. The accused shall be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other case.
This case coming on 29.6.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri.M.R.Chandra,Sri.M.SrinivasaRao,Advocates, Rajamahendravaram and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police, Kadiyam Police station filed charge sheet in Crime No.348/2014 against Masa Srinu,
S/o.Maridayya alleging the commission of offence of much //2// punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short,
IPC)
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is,
In the night of 21/22-6-2014 Yalla Peda Suramma/P.W.1 visited Kadiyam police station and lodged written report/Ex.P1 stating that….
“she is resident of Dulla village, married and having three sons. Elder son/Yalla Vijaya Kumar (deceased) aged 21 years, 2 nd son/Seshayya aged 19 years, 3 rd son/Chittibabu aged 18 years. Her elder son Vijaya Kumar is working as farm servant in the fields of one Samba Murthy of Dulla village. He is Bachelor. About three months ago, Masa
Srinu S/o.Maridiyya (accused) came to her house and stated that he came to know that her son Vijaya Kumar is frequently visiting his house and closely moving with his (Masa Srinu’s) wife and if her son continues to behave, he will not keep quiet and threatened that he will kill him by and abusing left the place. Thereafter, due to disputes between Masa Srinu and his wife, his wife Aruna left to her maternal home. While so, today on the night i.e.
21.6.2014 at about 9-00 p.m. after having dinner, her son
Vijaya Kumar saying that he is going to Ambedkar statue, left the house at about 11-00 p.m. in the night, her junior paternal aunt Gunturu Surya Kantham came to her and informed that someone hacked Vijaya Kumar. Thereupon, herself and her junior paternal aunt, Surya Kantham went to Ambedkar statue center and saw their son Vijaya Kumar in a pool of blood with cut injury over throat on the road, in the street and she is believing that Masa Srinu might have hacked and killed her son with a knife and prayed for necessary action”.
//3// 2.1.Basingonwrittenreport,N.B.M.Murali
Krishna/P.W.14/the then Inspector of Police, Kadiyam Police
Station registered the case in Crime No.348/2014 under Sec.302
IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P9 and took up investigation.
2.2.Thereafter,InvestigatingOfficer/I.O/P.W.14 immediately proceeded to the place of occurrence i.e. at
Ambedkar Statue in SC Peta, Dulla village along with staff, from there he informed the clues team and got dog squad. By 6-00 a.m i.e. on 22.6.2014 Investigating Officer/I.O. secured the presence of Ullaparthi jayasri and Teki Adiyya, mediators and examined U.Jayasri/P.W.11/V.R.O and got prepared scene observation report/Ex.P2 and seized pair of Chappals, Micromax
Cell phone, M.O.3 Blood stained earth and controlled earth and also prepared rough sketch/Ex.P10 and also got photograph in
Ex.P11. Further by about 8-00 a.m. `I.O./P.W.14 conducted inquest in the presence of mediators, U.Jayasri/P.W.11, kDevarapalli Vara Prasad and Paduri Pandu. During the course of inquest they found cut injury on throat and examined the witnesses and got prepared inquest report/Ex.P3 After the inquest, dead body was forwarded to Government hospital for Post
Mortem Examination.
2.3.On the same day on information about the finding of weapon used in the offence in the bushes near the house of defacto-complainant/P.W.1, I.O./P.W.14 along with U.Jayasri and
Teki Adiyya went to the house situated in Door No.2/47 SC Peta,
Dulla village. There Sannapu Satyanarayana, Bunga Prasad/P.W.10 and the villagers shown the weapon in the bushes at the house of defacto-complainant. Then I.O./P.W.14 seized the knife/M.O.4 under cover of mediators report/Ex.P4 and also got photographed proceedings as in Ex.P12 and prepared rough sketch/Ex.P13
Subsequently, on 23.6.2014 he sent requisition to secure call details of the phone seized at the scene of occurrence.
//4// 2.4.On 1.7.2014 at about 11-00 a.m. on information investigating officer/P.W.14 himself and his staff, mediators went to the house of Derangula Nooka Ratnam at Door No.2-190/17 of Dulla Village. There in the presence of mediators, Masa
Srinu/accused was apprehended and when enquired, revealed his identity and made statement admitting his involvement in the offence and that the Nicker wore was thrown away by him near burial ground. The statement of Masa Srinu/accused was recorded under the mediators report/Ex.P5 (admissible portion marked).
Thereafter, the accused lead them to the place where his Nicker was thrown away and thereafter searching, found the biscuit colour Nicker with blood stains and handed over to the police and it was seized under mediators report/Ex.P7.
3.All seized material objects were forwarded to R.F.S.L
Vijayawada under Ex.P14/letter of advise and after receipt of
RFSL report/Ex.P15, Post mortem report/Ex.P8 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.
4.The VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Rajamahendravaram has taken the case on file under
Sec.302 IPC against the accused. In due course in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Sec.207, 208 the matter was committed to this court under P.R.C.No.18/2015 as the offence under Sec.302 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of
Sessions. This court after numbering the case as S.C.No.71/2016,
proceeded with the matter.
5.On hearing the advocate for defence and learned
Public Prosecutor, this court framed charge under Sec.302 IPC, read over, explained the charge to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
//5//
6.During trial, prosecution got examined 15 witnesses out of 21 cited and got Ex.P1 to P15 and M.O.1 to M.O.8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under
Sec.313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied the incriminating material against him, pleaded innocence, however reported no defence on his behalf.
7.Heard the Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel.
7.1The learned Public Prosecution argued that the direct witnesses categorically deposed that immediately after the incident they have seen the accused with weapon and heard statement made by him about causing death of deceased/Vijaya
Kumar and the medical evidence is corroborating with the oral evidence. Further, the facts deposed by the other witnesses are establishing the motive. Therefore, prosecution successfully proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is liable to be convicted.
7.2.The learned defence counsel vehemently argued that in the evidence of witnesses there are clear material contradictions which cannot be relied and no prosecution witness has spoken about witnessing the actual occurrence and even the facts as to motive are not established. Howsoever, the facts of motive cannot be stretched to conclude the involvement of accused and only suspicion, under pressure the accused was falsely implicated in this case. In absence of cogent evidence, the accused is entitled for acquittal atleast on benefit of doubt.
8.Now the point arises for consideration is, “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Sec.302 IPC?
//6//
9.To bring home the guilt, the prosecution shall prove that the Masa Srinu/accused with knowledge and intention hacked on the neck of the accused with knife/M.O.4 and caused the death of Yalla Vijaya Kumar/deceased.
10.The prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5, P.W.6, P.W.7 have consistently stated that they have seen the dead body of
Yalla Vijaya Kumar/deceased in a pool of blood with cut injury on throat near Ambedkar statue of Dulla village. Further, these facts are reinforced by the evidence of Ullamparthi
Jayasri/P.W.11 mediator for the scene observation report and inquest.
11.The Dr.M.V.D.Prasad/P.W.12/Doctor in his evidence and the Post Mortem report/Ex.P8 recorded the external injuries over the dead body of Yalla Vijaya Kumar/deceased as follows:
a) An incised injury of 9x3 inches x 2 inches extending from lateral end of right clavicle upto anterior border of left sternocleido mastoid muscle deep oval in shape, obliquely directed tapering towards left side cutting through skin, superficial fascia, muscles, blood vessels, nerves and bone right clavic, and entire are covered with blood clots.
and opined that the death is due to shock and hemorrhage due to injury to major vessels of blood on right side of the neck.
12.By this evidence, the homicidal death of Yalla
Vijaya Kumar near to the Ambedkar statue at Dulla Village can be concluded.
13.With regard to involvement of Masa Srinu/accused in the offence, the circumstances on record are evidence of witnesses, finding of weapon, seizure of Nicker at the instance of accused and his confessional statement.
14.About the incident proper, among the prosecution witnesses, Gunturu China Katam Raju/P.W.5 and Masabathula //7//
Suresh/P.W.13 are the first persons who said to have witnessed the scene immediately after the occurrence. The next important witnesses are Gunturi Suryakantham/P.Ws.4 i.e. the neighbor to whom Masabathula Sreenu/P.W.13 said to have given information about the incident and P.W.4 inturn to Yella Peda Suramma/P.W.1 who is mother of deceased and who initiated criminal administration by lodging first information statement/Ex.P1.
The other witnesses i.e. Chikatla Abbulu, Loda Nukaraju/P.W.6,
P.W.7 are the persons who were present near the place of occurrence at material time. Sannapu Satyanarayana, Bunga
Prasad/P.Ws.9 and 10 who found the crime weapon/M.O.4 nearer to the house of deceased/P.W.1 in the morning of the occurrence.
15.Gunturi China Katam Raju/P.W.5 deposed that himself,
Masabattula Suresh, deceased were sleeping at the statue at about 11-00 p.m on hearing loud cry, he woke up and saw Vijaya
Kumar holding his neck and moved from the statue to the road and fell down. Then himself and Suresh went to close to Vijaya
Kumar/deceased and saw him and saw Masa Srinu/accused came from behind the statue of Ambedkar and proceeded towards his house holding knife in his hand saying that ‘he killed’. When they (Katam Raju and Suresh) raised cries, neighbours woke up.
16.Masabathula Suresh/P.W.13 deposed that on 21.6.2014, himself, P.W.5/Gunturi China Katam Raju and Yalla
Vijaya Kumar/deceased slept on the pial near the statue of
Ambedkar and at about 11-00 p.m. on hearing cries/shouting he woke up and saw Yalla Vijaya Kumar/deceased falling on the road by holding his neck with hands. When he was trying to comprehend, he saw Masa Srinu/accused under illumination of street light holding a knife with long handle with curved blade moving towards his house by proclaiming that ‘he hacked’. Then himself and P.W.5 went to Yalla Vijaya Kumar/deceased but they found he was died by then. Then he started to the house of //8//
Vijaya Kumar/deceased to inform his family members about the incident but on the road, he found Gunturi Surya Kantham/P.W.1 to whom informed her about the incident and came back to
Ambedkar Statue.
17.P.W.4/Gunturi Surya Kantham/immediate neighbor of
P.W.1, stated that at relevant time, she was sleeping on cot in front of her house and at 11-00 p.m when she heard someone calling her by name, woke up and saw Masabattula Suresh/P.W.13 who informed her that Masa Srinu/accused killed Yalla Venkata
Rao/deceased. At the same time she saw Masa Srinu/accused proceeding in his street wearing Nicker saying that ‘he killed’ and was holding something in his hand but she could not identify. Then she has taken Yalla Peda Suramma/P.W.1 along with her to the statue. There she saw the deceased in a pool of blood.
18.Peda Suramma/P.W.1 deposed that on the date of incident, at about 9-00 p.m. her son/deceased went to statue to sleep at about 11-00 p.m. Suryakantham/P.W.4 informed her that her son/deceased was killed by someone. Immediately, herself and Surya Kantham rushed to the place of offence and saw her son in a pool of blood on cement road near the statue and
Cheekatla Abbulu, Lodha Naga Raju/P.Ws.6 and 7 told them that
Masa Srinu/accused had left saying he had killed Venkata Rao.
Then she submitted a written report prepared by her second son/P.W.3.
19.Yalla Yesu/P.W.2 father of deceased stated that after Surya Kantham/P.W.4 informed that his son was killed, first his wife and went there, then he followed her to the statues and his son deceased found in a pool of blood near statues. There Gunturi China Katam Raju/P.W.5, Chikatla Abbulu,
Lodha Nuka Raju/P.Ws.6 and 7 informed that Masa Srinu/accused killed his son and left by uttering that he killed his son.
//9// 13.6. Yalla Seshayya/P.W.3/brother of deceased stated that at about 11.00 p.m Surya Kantham/P.W.4 informed his mother that his brother/deceased was killed. Then his mother went there first, later father, thereafter himself and his younger brother went there. He found his brother’s dead body in a pool of blood on the cement road near the statue. Chikatla Abbulu and Lodha
Nooka Raju /P.Ws.6 and 7 informed them that Masa Srinu/accused killed his brother. He prepared complaint and his mother signed and submitted to Kadiyam Police station.
20.Chikatla Abbulu/P.W.6 deposed that at 11-00 p.m. he woke up and saw Masa Srinu/accused proceeding in their street holding a knife. Then he went to statues and saw dead body of the son of Yella Yesu on the road.
21.Lodha Nooka Raju/P.W.7 stated that while he was sleeping in front of his house, SC Peta, by hearing words hacked at about 11-00 p.m. woke up and saw Masa Srinu/ accused proceeding towards the house of Vijaya Kumar/deceased in the same street wearing shorts/Nicker with a curved knife in his hand. Thereafter, heard Masabathula Suresh telling Surya Kantham that Masa Srinu/accused hacked Yella Vijaya Kumar. He rushed to the statues and saw the dead body of Vijaya Kumar on the cement road.
22.In the cross-examination of the witnesses it is elicited that the house of deceased is situated in the second street and the accused residence is in 3rd street from the statue. The house of deceased is situated in the end of 2nd street with P.W.4 as immediate neighbor. P.Ws.1 to 3 and the houses of P.Ws.6 and 7 are also side by side at the beginning of the same street towards the statues.
23.Before proceedings to analyze the evidence on record, the scene observation report/Ex/P2, rough sketch/Ex.P10 needs //10// consideration as to finding the details of occurrence. As per the scene observation report/Ex.P2, on the pial of statues there was blood stained green colour T-Shirt, Micromax Cell phone/M.O.2 and chapels/M.O.3 are found.
24.Further in front of pial of statues there is Tar road which is between Narasipudi to Dulla. Opposite to pial, touching the Tar Road there is a cement road with 9.7ft width into the village. Inside that road at 47½ ft. the dead body of
Yalla Venkata Rao/deceased was found in supine position. It is also noted in the report/Ex.P2 that from the statue and pial in the beginning of the cement road, at about 30 ft. distance, there is an electric pole with D.P number 81. These facts are being substantiated by the rough sketch/Ex.P10.
25.By these facts, from the statue pial, electric poll
D.B.No.81 which is in the beginning of street, and from there to the dead body found lying, the recorded distance it calculated, it can be safely concluded that the dead body of Yalla Venkata
Rao/deceased is lying at a distance of 77 ½ ft. to the statue pial towards the Eastern side opposite the house of Gunturi
China Katam Raju.
26.In this backdrop, When the oral evidence is analyzed the specific statement of P.W.5 is that when he heard loud cry, he woke up, saw the Vijaya Kumar/deceased moved from the statue to the road and fell down and he saw Masa Srinu/accused coming from behind the statue of Ambedkar and proceeding towards his house. Then himself along with Masabathula Suresh/P.W.13 went to him and found dead. To note Masabathula Suresh/P.W.13 stated on hearing cry, he woke up and saw the deceased falling on the road by holding with his neck with his hands and he saw
Masa Srinu/accused in the illumination of street light holding knife proceedings towards his house.
//11//
27.These two statements are explaining the situation that P.W.5 and P.W.13 woke up simultaneously on hearing cry and as they saw deceased first moved out of the pial of statue and fell down. Thus they saw Vijaya Kumar/deceased alive in his last minutes. But as per the finding in scene observation and observations above, the dead body was at a distance of about 77½ ft. away from the pial of the statue. The deceased after getting down from statue pial and going at once to a distance of 77 ½ft. where the dead body found is beyond comprehension. If it is taken otherwise the deceased was at the place where the dead body is found, on waking up identifying the deceased from a distance of 77 ½ ft. in the night is not possible.
28.As per Masabathula Srinu/P.W.13, after knowing the death of Vijaya Kumar/deceased he proceeded to the house of deceased to inform the same but on the way he found Surya
Kantham/P.W.4 and after informing her about the occurrence went both to the place of occurrence. But, Suryakantham/P.W.4 deposed that while she was sleeping at her house, after hearing somebody loudly called her by name, woke up and saw Masabathulla
Suresh/P.W.13, who informed that Masa Srinu/accused killed the deceased.
29.Further, it is important to note that the house of deceased is just adjacent to the house of P.W.4, when P.W.13 could reach to the house of P.W.4, when he started particularly to inform the family members of Vijaya Kumar/deceased about the occurrence choosing P.W.4 to inform instead of family members of the deceased is an improbability.
30.As per Suryakantham/P.W.4 she informed P.W.1/ mother of deceased and taken her to the place of occurrence. P.W.1 neither in her first information statement/Ex.P1 or in oral evidence named Masabathula Suresh/P.W.13 informed P.W.4 or P.W.4 informed her that Masa Srinu/accused killed her son. As per //12//
P.W.1 when she went along with P.W.4 to the place of occurrence, where Lotha Nooka Raju and Chikatla Abbulu/P.W.5 and 6 informed her Masa Srinu/accused had left saying that he had killed her son/deceased but Yalla Yesu/P.W.2 and Yalla Seshayya/P.W.3 clearly stated that P.W.6 and P.W.7 informed them that Masa
Srinu/accused killed Vijaya Kumar/deceased.
31.It is pertinent to note that, P.W.2 added the name of
Gunturi China Katam Raju/P.W.5 to P.Ws.6 and 7, whose name is not referred by P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.7. The name of
Masabathula Suresh/P.W.13 is only stated by P.W.4 and P.W.5.
32.As per P.Ws.6 and 7, at relevant time they were sleeping and after hearing cries, they woke up and saw Masa
Srinu/accused proceeding in their street with knife. In addition
P.W.7 stated that he heard P.W.13 telling P.W.4 that Masa
Srinu/accused hacked Venkata Rao/deceased. To note both P.Ws.6 and 7 did not state that they have informed P.Ws.1 to 3 about
Masa Srinu/accused killed Vijaya Kumar/deceased.
33.In addition, as per P.Ws.1 to 3 after visiting the place of occurrence and coming to know about the involvement of
Masa Srinu/accused, P.W.3 prepared report and it is lodged by
P.W.1. The first information statement/Ex.P1 is silent as to
Masa Srinu/accused killing Vijaya Kumar/deceased. Moreover, it is specifically mentioned that P.W.4 informed her that somebody killed her son and expressed only suspicion over the involvement of Masa Srinu/accused as there were ill feelings as to alleged affair between his wife and Vijaya Kumar/deceased.
34.If at all the mother of deceased was informed about the involvement of Masa Srinu/accused the death of her son/deceased though named Masa Srinu/accused in her police report, only suspecting his involvement is quite unnatural.
Further, when the statements of villagers are clear that a //13// particular person caused the death and when the family members of the deceased preparing First Information Statement restraining themselves and limiting to suspecting his involvement is against the conduct of any person with ordinary prudence.
35.Further, when the statements of P.Ws.6 and 7 are concluded, in the light of evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.13’s that by the time they woke up they have seen the Masa Srinu/accused moving towards his house by saying, he hacked. Then they went to deceased and found that he died then he P.W.13 went to the house of deceased to inform. Thus by the time Masabathula
Suresh/P.W.13 woke up, the accused was moving to the house, naturally P.W.13 reaching the deceased, then moving to the house of deceased shall take some time and by that time, the deceased should be way ahead. P.W.7 saying that he heard Suresh/P.W.13 and at that time, the Masa Srinu/accused was passing through in their street is an improbability.
36.To note that Suryakantham/P.W.4 categorically stated that when P.W.13 was informing about the incident, she saw Masa
Srinu/the accused proceeding in his street (which is another street). Katam Raju/P.W.5, Masabathula Suresh also P.W.13 also stated that the accused was proceeding towards his house.
Whereas, P.W.6 and P.W.7 have stated that they have seen the accused while proceeding in their street. (in the street of
P.W.4 and the deceased’s house) This apart, P.Ws.6 and 7 did not speak that they have informed anything about the incident to
P.W.1 to 3 and in the cross-examination, they have admitted that by the time they reached the statutes there were gathering about 50 to 100 people and this fact itself explaining the time when
P.Ws.6 and 7 saw the accused and reached the place.
37.It is common knowledge that no person after committing any offence, will move leisurely. None of the //14// witnesses stated that the accused after the incident moving away by shouting again and again that he hacked. As per the star witnesses P.Ws.5, 13 and 7 they heard accused only once that ‘he hacked’ while going away. When the accused’s proclamation is audible range of P.Ws.5 and P.W.13, it cannot be expected that
P.W.7 heard only word ‘hacked’ but P.W.6 did not. Howsoever, It shall be understood that by the time of last word of accused i.e. ‘hacked’ reached the lane of P.Ws.6 and 7. By the time of hearing these words, as per P.Ws.5 and P.W.13 they have just woke up. If it is so, P.W.6 hearing the P.W.13 communicating with P.W.4 is improbable. And as per P.Ws.6 and 7 they reached spot of occurrence without any delay but there is gathering of 50 to 100 people by then. Interestingly, P.Ws.5 and 15 stated that they have hired cries but none of the witnesses heard them.
38.These discrepancies are beyond plausibility as such not inspiring confidence to believe the version of witnesses.
Furthermore, the name of P.W.5 is not referred by P.W.1, P.W.3, 4, 6 and 7. Likewise the name of P.W.13 is not mentioned to by
P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.4 to 7. The unconvincing sequence spoken by the witnesses are explaining the unlikely presence of P.Ws.5 and
P.W.13.
39.These inconsistencies and improbabilities in the versions of witnesses are found not worthy of credence and this court is of opinion that basing on this evidence concluding guilt of accused found not justified.
40.The other circumstance is seizure of material object.
P.Ws.9 and 10 deposed that after visiting the dead body when they were returning, they found a knife near the bushes to the house of Yalla Vijaya Kumar/deceased. In the cross-examination,
Sannapu Satyanarayana/P.W.9 states that his house is on the other side of the road opposite to Yalla Yesu/P.W.2.
//15//
41.With regard to this evidence, though M.O.1 was seized on the immediate morning of the incident, RFSL/ Ex.P15 reveals that there are no blood stains on the knife. Hence, there is nothing to connect the M.O.1 as weapon was used for the commission of offence. That apart, as per rough sketch/Ex.P13, opposite to the house of P.W.2 there is vacant site of
P.W.9/Sannapu Satyanarayana and he is not residing there. Thus, the statement of P.W.9 that while while returning home, he observed the knife in the bushes, is also not credible. Even otherwise, this evidence is not even useful at least to draw any inference against the accused.
41.With regard to the confessional statement and seizure of Nicker at the instance of accused, even as per the prosecution the accused when apprehended by the police and enquired in their presence made the confessional statement, as such it which cannot be proved against him as per Sec.25 of
Indian Evidence Act.,
43.Further, the seizure of Nicker at the instance of accused, though believed, RSL report/Ex.P15 is showing there are blood stains of human origin cannot be relied in absence of any other cogent and corroborating evidence on other material facts to connect the accused to the offence.
44.In the facts and circumstances, it has to be held that the evidence of prosecution is falling short to credibly establish that the accused committed the offence and in absence of well grounded evidence, any amount of reasonable doubts can be entertained. Hence, it will be highly unsafe to record the guilt therefore, benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused. In view of the discussion, the indictment against the accused under Sec.302 IPC found not sustainable and on benefit of doubt, the accused can be acquitted.
//16//
45.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.302 IPC and he is acquitted under
Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 and M.Os.4 to M.O.8 and unmarked property if any shall be destroyed and M.O.3 is ordered to be returned to P.W.1 after expiry of appeal time. The accused shall be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other case.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open court this the 7th day of July, 2017.
Sd/-N.Tukaramji
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
Appendix of Evidence
Witness examined.
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL
P.W-1Yella Peda Suramma P.W-2Yella Yesu P.W-3 Yella Seshayya P.W-4Gunturi Suryakantham P.W-5 Gunturi China Katamraju P.W-6Cheekatla Abbulu P.W-7 Loda Nookaraju P.W-8 Gurrapu Satyanarayana P.W-9 Sannapu Satyanarayana P.W-10 Bunga Prasad @ Chinna P.W-11 U.Jayasri V.R.O. P.W-12 Dr.M.V.D. Prasad P.W-13 Masabathula Suresh P.W-14 N.B.M Murali Krishna Dy.S.P P.W-15 G.Ratnaraju, Inspector of Police.
DOCUMENTS MARKED.
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P-1/22-06-14 Complaint given by P.W.1 to Kadiyam P.S. Ex.P-2/22-06-14 Scene observation report Ex.P-3/22-06-14 Inquest Report Ex.P-4/22-06-14 Mediator report for seizer of knife (M.O.4) Ex.P-5/01-07-14Mediator report excluding the statement of Accused //17//
Ex.P-6/01-07-14 Relevant part of statement of Accused in Ex.P5 Ex.P-7/01-07-14 Mediator report for seizure of Knickar (MO.8) Ex.P-8/22-06-14 Post Mortem report Ex.P-9/22-06-14 F.I.R in Cr.No.348/14 U/Sec.302 I.P.C. of Kadiyam P.S.
Ex.P-10/22-06-14 Rough Sketch Ex.P-11/--- Seven Positive photos with C.D. Ex.P-12/--- Four Positive Photos Ex.P-13/22-06-14 Second Rough Sketch Ex.P-14/20-10-14 Letter of Advise. Ex.P15/21-02-15 R.F.S.L Report.
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS
MO-1: Half Pant of deceased MO-2:Pair of Hawai Chapples of deceased MO-3: Micromax Cell phone of deceased MO-4: Knife MO-5:Blood Stained Earth MO-6:Control Earth MO-7: Blood Stained Samples MO-8: Knicker
Sd/-N.Tukaramji
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
Copies submitted to:
1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
Copy to:
2. The Director of Prosecution, Beside Sarada College,
Durgapuram P.O. Vijayawada.
3. The District Collector, E.G. District, Kakinada.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Rajamahendravaram Urban.
5. The VII Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram //18// (TABULA FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 348 OF CRIMINAL
RULES OF PRACTICE)
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
PRESENT:-N.Tukaramji,
Principal Sessions Judge
Friday, the 7th day of July, 2017
SESSIONS CASE No.71/2016
1.Sessions Case No. :SC No.71/2016 and P.R.C No.18/2015 and PRC No. with on the file of VII Addl. Judicial name of the Magistrate of First Class, committal courtRajamahendravaram.
2.Name of the Police :Cr.No.348/2014 of Kadiyam Police Station and Crime Station. No.
3.Name of the Accused :Masa Srinu, S/o.Maridayya, 30 and particularsyears, SC Mala, 3rd Street, SC Peta, Dulla Village, Kadiyam Mandal.
The accused is defended by Sri.M.R.Chandra, Sri.M.Srinivasa Rao, Advocates.
4.Date of offence:21-6-2014
5.Date of complaint:22-6-2014
6.Date of appearance:22-4-2016
7.Date of release on :28-5-2015 bail
8.Date of committal:01-03-2016
9.Date of commencement:09-02-2017 of trial
10.Date of close of :20.06.2017 trial 11Remand period:1-7-2014 to 28-5-2015
12.Sentence:07-07-2017 Order:-
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.302 IPC and he is acquitted under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 and M.Os.4 to M.O.8 and unmarked property if any shall be destroyed and M.O.3 is ordered to be returned to P.W.1 after expiry of appeal time. The accused shall be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other case.
14. Explanation for delay : No avoidable delay.
Sd/-N.Tukaramji
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.