S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE:: :: KOVVUR
Present: - SMT. P.ANNAPURNA,
IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kovvur.
Thursday, the 22 nd day of June, 2023
SESSIONS CASE No.55 of 2016
Name of the Accused : 1.Rajulapati Anjaneyulu @ Rayapati Anjaiah, S/o Somanna, and particulars 47 years, Gowda, Korumamidi, Nidadavole mandal. 2.Masiboyina Krishna @ Kittaiah, S/o Ganga Raju, 47 years, Yadava, Chikkala Village, Chagallu Mandal. (Case against was abated as he died)
Charges : Under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.88/2014
Plea of the accused : Pleaded found not guilty
Finding of the judge : Found not guilty
Sentence or Order : In the result, accused No.2 is found not guilty for the charge levelled against him Under Sec. 302 r/w 34 IPC and he is acquitted for the said charge U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as contemplated Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.O.1 stick shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The trial court is directed to destroy M.O.1 and also unmarked property after expiry of appeal time.
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
2
Counsel for the : Sri V.Naga Murali Krishna, prosecution Additional Public Prosecutor, West Godavari District .
Counsel for defence : Sri S.K.V.Rao, learned counsel
for the accused
This case is coming before me on 15-06-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Naga Murali Krishna,
Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri S.K.V.Rao,
Learned counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kovvur Sub
Division, Kovvur has filed a charge sheet against the Accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34
IPC.
2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kovvur Sub
Division, Kovvur, filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that A.1 is resident of Korumamidi Village and he is living by collecting toddy wine from the palmyrah trees in the fields of ryoths of Chikkala and Korumamidi Villages. The land of Masiboina Ganga Raju, who is the father of A.2 is located out on the eastern side of the cashew garden of P.W.10
Ranthu Bala Raju which is under lease of deceased. There are Palmyrah trees located in the boundary of land of A.2 and
P.W.10. A.1 is collecting toddy wine from some of the palmyrah trees located in the fields of P.W.10 and L.W.11 Ramannapudi
Kameswara Rao free of cost and it is routine rule to give some toddy wine to the owner of the trees of every morning. Since
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
3 the land of P.W.10 is under lease of deceased, at the beginning of the toddy wine season, he demanded A.1 to give toddy wine to drink as he is collecting wine in his leased land. But, A.1 refused to give toddy wine and that, dispute taken place between them. On that, P.W.10 intervened and instructed A.1 to give toddy wine to the deceased as he is not receiving the same. Since then, A.1 is supplying toddy wine to deceased on every morning. At about 4 months prior to the date of offence i.e., in the month of March, 2014 when the deceased proposed to cut the leaves of Palmyrah trees located in the boundary between his leased land and the land of A.2, then
A.2 objected him with pretext that, those trees belongs to him, in this connection, both of them disputed each other and when the matter placed before the elder i.e., P.W.8 Masiboina
Srinivasa Rao , he summoned A.2 and P.W.10, enquired about the dispute and admonished A.2 as the said Palmyrah trees proved to be located in the premises of land of L.W.10. In this connection, A.2 developed grudge on deceased and he colluded with A.1 to take revenge against deceased.
On 1.7.2014 at about 3.30 p.m while A.1 is preparing to collect toddy wine, A.2 met him near the
Tamarind tree in the fields of L.W.11 Ramannapudi Kameswara
Rao. While they are chitchatting, the deceased also came there and consumed toddy wine, and at that time they exchanged heated words and the deceased picked up a quarrel with A.2 with pretext that, he came into his leased land even though there is a dispute existed between them. During the said quarrel, A.2 tried to beat the deceased with his hand stick over his head for which the deceased protected his head with hands and the stick hit his right hand between index and middle fingers. Then A.2 beat him with the same stick
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
4 over his buttock and when the deceased callused with A.2, A.1 intervened and beat the deceased with his “ Thunkala” ( blunt stick used for sharpening the knives) over the back of his head and caused his instantaneous death due to internal injury. They witnessed by P.W.12 Koyya Pateswara Rao @
Patiyya while disputing with deceased at about 3.30 p.m at the scene of offence and also witnessed by PW.9 Putti Subba
Rao while leaving from the scene of offence at about 5 p.m.
On that night of 1.7.2014 at about 9.30 p.m P.W.1 Gangula
Ramesh and P.W.7 Veerla Satish had traced the dead body of deceased at the scene of offence and submitted written information in Chagallu P.S on 2.7.2014 at 8 a.m.
On 2.7.2014 at 8 a.m P.W.20 G.Laxman, Sub
Inspector of Police, Chagallu Police Station received the written information and registered the same as a case in
Cr.No.88/2014 Under Sec.174 Cr.P.C of Chagallu P.S and took up investigation into this case. During the course of investigation, on 2.7.2014 P.W.20 inspected the scene of offence which is located under the tamarind tree in the vacant land of L.W.11 Ramannapudi Kameswara Rao at the outskirts of Chikkala Village in the presence of two mediators L.W.15
Putti Vasudeva Rao and L.W.11 Ramannapudi Kameswara Rao and seized blunt stick called as “ Thunakala stick” from the scene of offence under cover of detailed scene observation report. On 2.7.2014 P.W.20 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars P.W.13 Dulapalli Ravi, L.W.15
Putti Vasudeva Rao and L.W.11 Ramannapudi Kameswara Rao and witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.6 and A.2 and sent the corpse for
Post Mortem Examination to know the exact cause of death.
During inquest P.W.20 examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.6 and A.2. On 3.7.2014 P.W.20 examined
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
5
P.Ws.8 to 10 and recorded their statements. Basing on their statements it was proved that there is a previous dispute existed between the accused and deceased with regard to the supply of toddy wine by A.1 to deceased and cutting of leaves from the Palmyrah trees located in between the leased land of deceased and the land of A.2. On the other hand, P.W.8 witnessed the accused disputing with deceased near the scene of offence at about 4.30 p.m and at about P.W.9 witnessed the accused while leaving from the scene of offence to their respective villages.
On 25.7.2014 P.W.20 received Preliminary PMC from the Medical Officer and got the viscera forwarded by the
SDPO, Kovvur to RFSL Vijayawada for Chemical analysis. On 11.12.2014 P.W.20 received Chemical analysis report from
RFSL, Vijayawada and submitted the same to the medical officer, Government Hospital, Nidadavole for seeing final opinion with regard to the exact cause of death. On 14.2.2015 at 5.40 p.m P.W.17 has received final opinion from P.W.15 with the contents that, the deceased would appear to have died due to “Shock due to head injury with associated fracture of skull and intra cranial bleeding might be homicidal and caused due to blunt object”.
On receipt of the final opinion, P.W.17 has altered the section of law from Sec.174 Cr.P.C to Sec.302 r/w 34 I.P.C on 14.2.2015. On 14.2.2015 P.W.18 took up investigation into this case, visited the scene of offence, verified the same by comparing with the rough sketch and scene observation report prepared by P.W.20. On 14.2.2015 P.W.18 examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 to 6 and on 15.2.2015 he examined and recorded the statements of P.W.7 to P.W.10,
L.W.11 Ramannapudi Kameswara Rao and P.W.11.
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
6
On 13.4.2015 P.W.12 produced the accused who surrendered before him by confessing the offence committed by them along with a report before P.W.18. On that P.W.18 arrested the accused on 13.4.2015 and sent him for judicial remand. The statements of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.11 were recorded by Smt.Y.Sri Laxmi, Hon’ble II Addl.
Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. The blood stained clothes collected form the dead body of the deceased and the stick seized from the scene of offence were sent fro chemical analysis through SDPO, Kovvur. The analysis report was received vide FSL file NO.VJA/SER/173/2015 dt.21.8.2015 with the contents that, human blood detected on the towel seized from the dead body of the deceased. P.W.18 examined and recorded the statements of P.W.12 and P.W.13. Therefore, the accused liable for punishment under section 302 I.P.C for killing the deceased by beating him with sticks. Hence, the charge.
3.The learned Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole had taken cognizance of the offence U/Sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.
4. The Accused present, the copies of documents were furnished to the Accused as contemplated U/sec.207Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, as contemplated
U/sec.209 (a) of Cr.P.C.
5. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Eluru pleased to made over the case to this Court for conducting trial and to proceed according to Law.
6.On appearance of the Accused before this Court and on hearing of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the defence counsel and on perusal of record, the prima-facie case is made out to frame a charge against the Accused.
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
7
7.The charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against accused was framed against accused and they were examined
Under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. During the pendency of the case the case against accused No.1 was abated as he died.
8.At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined
PW.1 to 18 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.16 and M.O.1. On behalf of defence, none were examined and Ex.D.1 was marked.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of L.W.15 Putti Vasudeva Rao.
10.Heard both sides. Citations filed by both sides counsel.
11. The point that arose for determination in this case is as follows:
Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused committed an offence punishable U/sec.302 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
12. POINT:
The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contends that
A.1, A.2 and the deceased Subba Rao are close friends and on 01-07-2014 morning the father of P.W.1 i.e., the deceased went to their leasehold lands and every day he used to return to the house in the evening, but on that day he did not come, as such P.W.1 and his friend Satish (P.W.7) went to the fields and found the dead body of the father of the P.W.1 with bleeding injuries on his head and also on his body and on seeing the same P.W.1 asked his friend Satish to inform the incident at his house and later his mother and other relatives came there and found the dead body and also found one stick by the side of the dead body and on the next day P.W.1 presented the report and argued that there used tobe disputes
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
8 between Subba Rao and A.1 and A.2 with regard to cutting of palmyrah leaves and A1 used to give toddy to deceased with free of cost and argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 ( wife of deceased) is establishing that A.1 and A.2 both murdered the deceased Subba Rao as they have disputes with regard to boundary and also toddy trees with the deceased. P.W.3 is (son of deceased),P.W.4,P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the brothers of deceased Subba Rao and their evidence is corroborating with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7 is the
Satish who is the friend of P.W.1 and who informed about the incident by going to the house of P.W.1 and who has seen the dead body of the deceased first along with P.W.1 and his evidence is also corroborating with the evidence of P.W.1, and argued that the evidence of P.W.8 is establishing that there were quarrels between Subba Rao, A.1 and A.2 that on 1.7.2014 P.W.8 found these three persons quarrelling with each other at about 4 p.m to 4.30 p.m on that P.W.8 admonished them and he went to Tadepalligudem and his evidence is establishing the motive of the accused for cause of the death of the deceased and argued that the evidence of
P.W.8 is establishing that A.1 and A.2 alone caused the death of the deceased and in first instance A.2 beat the deceased with stick on his head and when deceased kept hand to protect he received injuries on right hand between index and middle finger and then A.2 beat with some stick over his buttock due to boundary disputes and when the deceased callused with A.2, A.1, who is the close associate of A.2 intervened and beat the deceased with “Thunakala” ( blunt stick used for sharpening the knives) which is marked as
M.O.1 over the back of his head and caused his instantaneous death due to internal injury and they both committed murder
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
9 of deceased and argued that P.W.11 also stated deceased,
A.1 and A.2 are close friends and they used to spend in the fields most of time, P.W.12 P.Sri Phani Babu is the VRO of
Kumaradevam Village and he stated that on 13.4.2015 while he was present at his office A.1 an A.2 came to him and police suspected them in murder case and intended to surrender, on that he recorded the statements of A.1 and A.2 and gave the written report marked as Ex.P.5 and took A.1 and A.2 to the police station and handed over them and Ex.P.6 is the statement of A.1 and Ex.P.7 is the statement of A.2, and argued that A.1 and A.2 gave extra judicial confession
before P.W.12 and extra judicial confession is valid and
argued that P.W.13 is VRO-II of Prakkilanka village and he stated that he went to the scene of offence in the fields of
Kameswara Rao under the tree and they found the dead body of Subba Rao and they also found injuries on the back side of head of said Subba Rao and they also found injuries on the body of Subba Rao and they found one stick. Police seized the stick which is marked as M.O.1, Ex.P.8 scene observation report and after that they held inquest over the dead body and Kameswara Rao and other relatives of deceased present at that time and singed on inquest report, and argued that
P.W.14 is V.R.O, he stated that he received phone call from
S.I of Police of Chagallu on 13.4.2015, as such he along with
VRA Shaik Madina Saheb went to Chagallu Police Station and police produced A.1 and A.2 and they confessed the offence,
Ex.P.10 is the mediators report excluding the confession of A.1 and A.2. P.W.15 Medical Officer issued Ex.P.11 Post Mortem
Certificate and Ex.P.12 is the Final Opinion and argued that the injuries on the head and right hand between index and middle finger were found by the medical officer also and it
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
10 proves that A.1 and A.2 caused the death of the deceased and argued that P.W.16 is the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the F.I.R marked as Ex.P.13 and examined the witnesses and P.W.17 is the Circle Inspector of Police who altered the section of law from Sec.174 Cr.P.C to Sec.302
I.P.C, after receipt of Ex.P.16 RFSL report P.W.18 is the investigating officer, he stated on 13.4.2015 arrested the A.1 and A.2 in the presence of P.W.14 and L.W.17 Sk.Madeena
Saheb and secured the presence of P.W.12 and recorded the statement and sent the accused to the Court for remand that on 30.4.2015 he send M.O.1 and other material objects to
FSL, that on 8.10.2015 he received Ex.P.16 RFSL report and on the same day he recorded the statement of P.W.15, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet and argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to 18 is established the case of the prosecution and argued that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. The learned counsel for the accused contended that
A.1 and A.2 did not commit any offence and P.W.1 did not state the name of A.2 in the report or before the Court and
P.W.1 stated in his report they are suspecting A.1 in the case of the death of his father in F.I.R and so also in P.W.1 evidence and basing on the evidence of P.W.8 the case was registered against A.2 and P.W.8 was convicted in criminal case previously and he made Dharna for the arrest of the accused and in this case originally F.I.R was registered Under Sec.174
Cr.P.C and subsequently after long time it was altered to
Section 302 I.P.C only due to the political pressure and implicated A.1 and A.2 in this case and the quarrels alleged by them which lead to cause of death of the deceased in the hands of A.1 and A.2 as stated by prosecution is a story
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
11 created by the prosecution and they are all close friends, even as per the prosecution witnesses and argued that the extra judicial confession relied on by the prosecution is not valid under law and A.2 has no necessity to make such confession and argued that the evidence of the medical officer P.W.15 itself shows injury No.4 to 6 might be happened due to drag the deceased, but the prosecution story is they beat the accused with stick which falsifies the case of the prosecution and argued that the evidence of P.W.16 another V.R.O also can not be taken into consideration and the record is prepared in the police station and P.W.18 stated in his cross examination that P.W.8 stated before him as in Ex.D.1 and the said contradiction is marked because P.W.8 stated before the Court that he admonished them while he was going to
Tadepalligudem when he reached fields of Kameswara Rao and at that time deceased, A.1 and A.2 quarrelling and then he admonished them and left the place, but contrary to the same he stated before the police that he did not stop at the fields of Kameswara Rao and argued that due to the grudge against the accused P.W.8 got foisted this case and there is no tank in the fields Kameswara Rao and there is no bore in the fields as stated by P.W.8 and the same is admitted by
P.W.18 in his cross examination and argued that a false case is foisted against accused.
14.The case of the prosecution is A.1 and A.2 committed the murder of the deceased Subba Rao. Even according to prosecution the deceased Subba Rao, A.1 and A.2 are close friends prior to his death. It is admitted fact that
P.W.1 is the son and P.W.2 is the wife of deceased Subba Rao and (P.W.3 is another son of Subba Rao) who found the dead body of the deceased after the death. In this case there
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
12 are no eye witness to the incident. Further this case was initially registered Under Sec.174 Cr.P.C and later the section of law has been altered from Sec.174 Cr.P.C to Sec.302 I.P.C and issued altered F.I.R in Cr.No.88/2014, Ex.P.15 is the altered F.I.R. Initially the F.I.R is registered and marked as
Ex.P.13 in Cr.No.88/2014 Under Sec.174 Cr.P.C by P.W.16 Sub
Inspector of Police, Chagallu P.S on 2.7.2014 and he stated
P.W.1 came to Police Station at 8 a.m and presented a written report. So, admittedly there are no eye witnesses in this case.
15.The prosecution case is basing on the circumstantial evidence and on the extra judicial confession and last scene theory. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1 he stated that his father used to return from the fields to the house at 6 p.m, but on that day he did not come, as such himself and his friend Satish went to the fields and found the dead body of his father with bleeding injuries on the head and also on the body and on seeing the same his friend Satish informed the incident and on that his mother and other relatives came there and found the dead body of his father. In his cross examination he stated A.2 is not the boundary owner of their lease lands. It is true his father used to grazing the cattle. He found the dead body of his father under the tamarind tree which is in between lands of Kameswara Rao and Balaraju and there are two tamarind trees in the lands.
Since P.W.1 stated that A.2 is not the boundary owner of their lease land, the boundary disputes between A.2 and deceased as alleged by the prosecution is not correct.
16.Coming to P.W.2 the learned counsel for the accused contended that after some time L.W.7 Satish came to her and stated that somebody killed her husband at the fields,
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
13 then she went there and found the bleeding injuries on the head and on hands and chest of the deceased. She further stated in her chief examination 20 days prior to the incident
A.2 threatened her husband. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that 20 days prior to the incident A.2 threatened her husband. Because P.W.1 who is the son of deceased did not speak about the same and Ex.P.1 report given by P.W.1 does not show the same and she stated in her cross examination A.2 threatened her husband and there are disputes between themselves and A.2 for toddy leaves.
She stated in her chief examination there is a land in between their lease hold lands and the land of A.2. As already stated A.2 is not the boundary owner of lease of land in between the lease land and land of A.2. As per P.W.2 they used to cut the toddy leaves from several years but A.2 objected them. There is no evidence on record to show to whom the said land belongs. There is no evidence to show that as to deceased family cutting toddy leaves in the said land and there is no evidence as to the existence of toddy trees in the said land and there is no evidence as to when A.2 objected them. Therefore, the said version is not proved by the prosecution. Further P.W.2 stated they are having Ac.0-80 cents of land in which they used to graze cattle and by the side of the said land there is Ac.2-00 cents of land belongs to
Ballayya and her husband took the said land for lease. P.W.1 stated Kameswara Rao land was taken lease by them. P.W.2 stated that Ballaiah land was taken lease. However both
Kameswara Rao was not examined in this case. But Ballaiah was examined but no documents were filed from whom lease was taken by the deceased.
17.Further in this case, according to P.W.2 in the lease
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
14 land of Ballaiah there are Toddy trees and A.1 used to collect toddy and for that A.1 used to give toddy and according to her there were disputes as A.1 used to give toddy to deceased on free of cost and in that process disputes arose between her husband and A.1. So, according to her she further stated A.2 requested to give half property in the land of Kameswara Rao for grazing cattle. The learned counsel
for the accused contended that as per the case of the
prosecution there were disputes between deceased and A.1 and
A.2 , but the evidence of P.W.2 discloses that there are no disputes. The perusal of the cross examination of P.W.2 shows that after the death of her husband, A.2 grazed her cattle for 10 days. Therefore, if really A.2 and deceased are having quarrels A.2 would not be allowed to graze the cattle after the death of her husband.
18. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.1, he stated that L.W.7 came to their house and informed that his father dead body was found in the fields with bleeding injuries. Immediately himself, P.W.2 and others went there and found the dead body of his father with bleeding injury on this head and on hands. Side by the dead body he found one stick.
19. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the brothers of the deceased they both stated at about 8 p.m one Satish friend of P.W.1 came to them and informed them that his brother was fell down under the tamarind tree in the fields of Kameswara Rao.
Immediately they rushed to that place and found the dead body of his brother Subba Rao with bleeding injuries on his back side of the head and body and also inside injuries on his chest. In P.W.4 cross examination he denied that Palmarah trees are in the fields of Balaraju as such there are no disputes in between his brother and A.2. P.W.5 also stated on
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
15 the same lines, and P.W.5 also denied that the palamyrah trees are in the fields of Balaraju, as such there are no disputes between his brother and A.2.
20.So, according to the prosecution as seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 the disputes between the deceased and A.2 are with regard to palmarah trees. P.W.6 is also one of the brother of the deceased he stated that they went to that place and found the dead body of his brother Subba Rao under Tamarind tree of Kameswara Rao. They found the bleeding injuries on the back side of the head and all over the body of his deceased. He suspected A.1 and A.2 murdered his brother Subba Rao. He denied that there are no disputes between his brother and A.2. Therefore, P.Ws.1 to 6 are not the eye witnesses.
21. P.W.7 Veerla Satish is an important witness.
According to prosecution P.W.1 and Satish found the dead body of the father of P.W.1 under Tamarind tree and P.W.7 informed about the death of Subba Rao as per the direction of
P.W.1. So, P.W.7 is admittedly not a direct witness and except that he did not state anything, so his evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution as to who caused the death of the deceased. There is nothing in the evidence of
P.W.7. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and they all in one voice stated there are disputes between the deceased and
A.2.
22. P.Ws.9 to 11 were treated as hostile by prosecution.
P.W.10 – Ranthu Bala Raju , he stated that he has given the land to deceased Subba Rao on lease and he used to graze his cattle. He does not know the reasons for the death of
Subba Rao. So, no document is filed by the prosecution.
According to P.W.10 he has given his land for grazing the
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
16 cattle, he did not state the existence of palmyrah trees or with regard to the toddy collected by A.1 in the lease land as spoken by P.W.2. Thus, there is no corroboration to those facts with the evidence of P.W.2. Because the owner himself did not speak about the existence of palmyrah trees and he stated that the deceased used to graze his cattle. As already discussed P.W.2 stated A.2 grazed the cattle for 10 days after the death of the deceased.
23. P.W.9- P.Subba Rao, he stated that about 5 or 6 years back, when he was returning to his house from his fields, at enroute A.2 joined him and both of them came to their house. If really A.2 caused the death or committed the murder he will not come as usual from the fields along with
P.w.9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contended that
P.W.9 turned hostile,so that can not be taken into consideration.
But in Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement also he stated like that.
Though, this witness is treated as hostile by the prosecution nothing is elicited in the cross examination of P.W.9 for not supporting the prosecution version.
24. P.W.11- Koyya Pateswara Rao @ Patiah, who stated that on one day at noon time, there was a rain, as such he went to the house from his fields with his cattle. The deceased
Subba Rao, A.1 and A.2 are the close friends and they used to spend in the field most of time. On the next day morning he came to know that Subba Rao died. He does not know who the caused the death of Subba Rao. This witness did not state that his land was taken by the deceased Subba Rao as stated by P.W.1 in his cross examination that Kameswara Rao land was taken by them on lease and P.W.1 stated A.2 is not the boundary owner of the land. Therefore, the boundary dispute as alleged by the prosecution is not proved.
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
17
25.The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.8, who stated that on 1-7-2014 while he was proceeding to
Tadepalligudem , when he reached fields of Kameswara Rao, he found Subba Rao , A.1 and A.2 are quarrelling with each other at about 4 to 4.30 p.m. Deceased Subba Rao took the lands of Kamesawra Rao for grazing cattle and no document is filed. This witness stated that he admonished them and he has to go to Tadepalligduem and left that place. Three days after he returned to his village (Chikkala) he came to now that
P.W.1 filed a case that A.1 and A.2 murdered his father Subba
Rao. After six months the police examined, so this witness is not a direct witness.
26. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of P.W.8 can not be taken into consideration, because he is a convicted person and that too he stated
before police that he did not stop at the fields of Kameswara
Rao. It is true Ex.D.1 is marked in the cross examination of
P.W.8 and investigating officer P.W.18 also admitted the same that P.W.8 stated before him that he did not stop at the fields of Kameswara Rao. Not only that P.W.8 also stated the same thing in his Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement. P.W.8 further admitted that he is a convicted person. And according to him there is no tank in the land of Kameswara Rao and there is no bore.
The learned counsel for the accused contended that when it is suggested to P.W.18 he admitted that there is no tank and there is no bore and not also shows in the scene observation report. P.W.8 stated he made Dharna before Nidadavole Police
Station for taking action against the accused in this case. The evidence of P.W.18 shows that when it is suggested in his cross
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
18 examination P.W.18 in his cross examination he stated that nobody made dharna infront of circle office more particularly
P.W.8 for adding some more accused in this case.
27. The learned counsel for the accused contended that
P.W.8 belongs to C.P.M party and P.W.8 has grudge against
A.2 and P.W.8 is brother of A.2 and also P.W.8 is residing in the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and for that reason he got foisted this case and at the influence of P.W.8 this case is registered against accused and his evidence can not be taken into consideration. Though, prosecution relied on the evidence of P.w.8. In view of the contradiction marked as Ex.D.1, the prosecution has to place some corroboration to the fact of quarrels between Subba Rao, A.1 and A.2 on that day particularly. As already stated none of the witneses stated there were quarrels between them. On the other hand, all the independent witnesses stated that deceased A.1 and A.2 are close friends.
28. P.W.12 – P.Sri Phani Babu, V.R.O-I stated that on 13.4.2015 whlie he was present in his office at about 4 p.m,
A.1 and A.2 came to him and stated to him that the police suspected them in murder case and they intended to surrender. On that he enquired and recorded statements of
A.1 and A.2 and thereafter h took A.1 and A.2 to the police station and handed over them to the police station. He also presented a written report and the same is marked as Ex.P.5.
Ex.P.6 is the statement of A.1 and Ex.P.7 is the statement of
A.2. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of P.W.12 cannot be taken into consideration, as the confession made by the accused to P.W.12 is not valid. The learned counsel for the accused further contended that P.W.12 is not V.R.O of Chikkala Village he is V.R.O of some other
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
19 neighbouring village and thus, they have no acquaintance with him and they have no need to give to give a confession to
V.R.O at the same time and on the same day and it is only created by the prosecution. P.W.12 did not state that accused are known to him or they have got acquaintance with him or whether any hope is there for accused if they confessed
before V.R.O. Further, even according to P.W.12 police
suspected them in murder case and they intend to surrender.
Therefore, in such a case it can not be said that they surrendered before the V.R.O. When it is only a suspicion against them, that too, according to him when he was present in the office they surrendered. But in the confession report there is no seal or stamp of the office, and that in the office so many persons were present, but none were examined to say whether the accused came to the office or not on the day to give confession. So, the evidence of P.W.12 with regard to extra judicial confession made to him it is not proved by the prosecution to the satisfaction of the court and his evidence is not believed by the Court.
29. P.W.13- D.Ravi is another V.R.O-II, he stated that he prepared scene observation report and police seized M.O.1 stick, Ex.P.18 is the scene observation report and he also stated he prepared inquest report marked as Ex.P.9. He stated in his cross examination they have not found blood stains at scene of offence. He denied by the date of offence the land of Kameswara Rao is a coconut garden. So, he is not a direct witness and his evidence can not be taken into consideration unless there is corroboration.
30. PW.14-K.Vasavi Murali Krishna is also V.R.O, who stated on 13.4.2015 he received phone call , as such he along with L.W.17 V.R.A Shaik Madina Saheb went to Chagallu Police
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
20
Station and produced A.1 and A.2 before police and they confessed about the offence and he recorded the said confession of A.1 and A.2 as mediators report. Ex.P.10 is the mediator’s report excluding the confession of A.1 and A.2.
31. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the confession made by the police in the police station is hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and the confession statement itself is not believable. According to prosecution the accused beat the deceased on head, but P.W.15 Medical
Officer stated in his cross examination that the injuries NO.4 to 6 might be happened due to drag the deceased. The perusal of the Ex.P.11 shows that a split laceration on head extending from right occipital region of head to right parietal region of head and bleeding from left ear and laceration wound between the right index finger and middle finger on palmar surface, an abrasion on lateral surface of right hit , a small abrasion on middle side of right knee and multiple abrasions on dorsal surface of L.3 of right fore arm and
Ex.P.12 is the final opinion.
32. The perusal of evidence of P.W.15 shows he can not say whether injuries 4 to 6 are antimortem or post mortem.
Police have not shown any weapon to him prior to issue of his final opinion. The injuries mentioned in Ex.P.11 might have been caused by one person. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution foisted this case stating that firstly A.2 beat him with stick and thereafter A.1 intervening and beat him with stout stick. Thereafter, when the deceased right to avert A.1 also intervened and beat him with sstick and stick was seized. But, according to P.W.15 the theories mentioned in Ex.P.11 might have been caused by one person, there is no explanation by the prosecution. Therefore,
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
21 the evidence of P.W.15 Medical Officer alone cannot be taken into consideration. Further, according to P.W.15 the injuries 4 to 6 are caused due to drag. But, according to prosecution they beat the deceased under Tamarind Tree it is not their case that after causing the death the accused dragged the deceased and in this way also the medical evidence is also not supporting the prosecution version.
33. P.W.16- G.Lakshman, Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case i Cr.No.88/2014 Under Sec.174 Cr.P.C and issued Ex.P.13 F.I.R and went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of deceased Subba Rao and recorded the statements of the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.8. He also stated that he was present at the scene of offence and at the time of inquest and in his cross examination he stated that scene of offence is located in the fields of Srinivasa Rao. But the case of the prosecution is the scene of offence is under the
Tamarind Tree in the lands of Kameswara Rao. He further stated there is no bore well and also water tank. But in rough sketch he mentioned the bore well, there is a tank from the distance of scene of offence. A.2 is having own land nearby the scene of offence. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that A.2 is having boundary disputes between deceased is not established by the prosecution, in view of the admission made by P.W.16 in his cross examination.
34.P.W.17- Ch.Satish Kumar, Circle Inspector, who altered the section of law after receipt of Ex.P.12 final opinion from medical officer basing on that he altered section of law from Under Sec.174 Cr.P.C to Sec.302 I.P.C.
35. P.W.18- M.Bala Krishna, is the investigating officer and as already stated that he received Ex.P.16 RFSL report and he field charge sheet and he arrested A.1 and A.2 and
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
22 examined P.W.14 and L.W.17 Sk.Madeena Saheb. He denied that on the influence of P.W.8 he filed the case against A.2.
The scene of offence is located in the fields of Ramannapudi
Kameswara Rao. Now he can not say whether transformer and bore well were in existence nearby the scene of offence.
It is true that in Ex.P.1 the complainant expressed a doubt against A.1. The A.1 absconded. Nobody made dharna infront of circle office. P.W.1 to 6 stated accused having previous disputes with deceased.
36. As already stated with regard to disputes the prosecution also did not adduce any evidence and except the family members none of the witnesses supported their case and even according to P.W.2 those disputes were compromised and the brother of the deceased also stated that the disputes were settled, in view of that it can not be said that there were disputes between deceased and A.1 and
A.2 by the date of incident as alleged by the prosecution.
P.W.4 stated side by the lease hold lands of his brother, A.2 is having land and there are disputes with regard to cutting of palmyrah leaves and the said disputes were settled and his brother and A.1 and A.2 were moving closely. In this case
A.1 died during the pendency of the case. Ex.P.1 report shows it is given by P.W.1 that he is suspecting A.1, there is no recital against A.2. P.W.1 stated before the Court also that he suspected A.1 that he may cause death of his father. Further,
P.W.13 stated that he prepared Ex.P.9 inquest report and after inquest they came to conclusion that due to disputes in between deceased and A.1, A.1 may murder or due to other reasons somebody murdered the deceased, in that inquest also there is no mention that A.2 caused the death. Further
A.2 is also one of inquestdar in Ex.P.9. The learned counsel
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
23
for the accused contended that the witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2
and the brothers of the deceased, P.W.4, P.W.11 stated before the Court under Sec.164 Cr.P.C on the influence of police.
The doctor stated in his cross examination that the injuries were caused by one person. In this case, the evidence on record is not establishing that A.2 committed the murder of the deceased. The prosecution failed to establish the extra judicial confession made by A.2 and also the last scene theory and also circumstantial evidence.
37.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on a decision reported in Sahoo Vs. State of U.P on 16
February, 1965
In that case the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant
of murder took into account an extra Judicial confession
alleged to have been made by him when shortly after
the murder he was muttering to himself that he had
finished the deceased. It is contended that A man can
not confess to himself, he can only confess to another.
Sessions Judge convicted the accused under section
302 I.P.C. The same was confirmed by the Hon’ble High
Court, the matter went to Hon’ble Supreme Court,
wherein it is held that the statement whether
communicated or not admitting guilt is a confession of
guilt, but there is a clear distinction between the
admissibility of an evidence and the weight tobe
attached to it. A confessional soliloquy is a direct piece
of evidence. The facts of the said case are different to the facts of the present case, hence not applicable.
38. The learned counsel for the accused relied on a decision reported in Nandu Singh Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh, on 25 February, 2022
He relied on Para 10 It is observed In a case based on substantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
24 case of prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused.
In para 11 it is observed that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. But in the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.
The learned counsel for the accused contended that in this case there is no motive to A.2 to kill the deceased. The perusal of the record shows the prosecution failed to prove the motive.
39.The learned counsel for the accused relied on another decision in Kansa Behera Vs. State of Orissa on 12 April, 1987
That case is based on circumstantial evidence, the conviction based on when valid circumstances of accused being with deceased on the evening of occurrence whether sufficient when other accused from whom instrument of offence recovered is decided and accused is acquitted.
In this case there is no eye witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution and complainant of P.W.1 shows he suspects A.1. As already stated A.1 died during the pendency of the case. It is not established whether the accused No.2 being with the deceased to draw the inference because one of the prosecution witness stated in this case i.e., P.W.9 enroute, A.2 and himself returned in the evening time on that day. He also stated the same fact Under Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement.
40. The learned counsel for the accused relied on
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
25 another decision in Ravi Vs. State Represented by
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kondapalayam Police
Station on 18 November, 2008
He relied on Para 5 where in it is contended that Village
Administrative Officer, used to affix the seal in all the statements recorded by him. But in the instance case there was no seal available at all. He has also further stated in his evidence that after the statement had been prepared in the office, he affixed the seal, but not done so. Hence, it would be clear that the document has been prepared only at the police station and also at the instance of the police and hence it can not be attached with any evidentiary value at all and under the circumstances it has got to be rejected.
In this case also V.R.O stated that A.1 and A.2 surrendered and A.1 and A.2 argued before him when he was present at the office, he took the advise of senior officer and he prepared a written report and presented to the police and he recorded the statement of A.1 as Ex.P.6 and recorded the statement of
A.2 as Ex.P.7, but there is no office seal on Ex.P.6 and
Ex.P.7. If really Ex,P.6 and Ex.P.7 have been prepared in the office certainly he would have affixed the office seal, so it creates a doubt, that too on the same day A.1 and A.2 came at the same time as per his evidence also creates a doubt on the alleged confession before V.R.O.
41.The learned counsel for the accused relied on another decision in Dudekula Rasool Vs. The State of
Andhra Pradesh, on 14 February, 2018
Wherein it is held that the time at which accused approached
P.W.1 and Ex.P.12 was prepared was not mentioned. In this case also the time when A.1 and A.2 approached the VRO was not mentioned and the time at which he took the accused
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
26 to the police station for surrendering is also not mentioned. In this case also it is not the case whether the accused or prosecution witness has past acquaintance with the accused, so it creates a doubt to the credibility of the confessional statement. It is further held in the said decision the law is well settled that an extra judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution where it is surrendered by suspicious circumstances its credibility becomes doubtful and it is leased its lands. In this case also the prosecution failed to establish that extra judicial confession made by accused is valid as it failed to prove whether accused has prior acquaintance with the VRO. Therefore, I feel that the credibility of confessional statement becomes doubtful.
42. The learned counsel for the accused relied on another decision in Sahadevan and Another Vs. State of
Tamilnadu on 8 May, 2012
In that case the accused No.1 Chandran is the brother of
Kamalal , accused No.2 Sahadevan and A.3 Arul Murugan were the friends of A.1, P.W.2 was being ill treated by
Loganathan, her husband. Being her brother, A.1 thought that if he murdered Loganathan, life of his sister would be peaceful. Thus, A.1 and his friends entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit muder of Loganathan. According to
P.W.5, Karuppuswamy, when he was talking to one
Chinnaswamy at a three star hotel near the Neruparichal bus stand at about 10 p.m on 9th July, 2022, he swa Sahadevan driving on a TVS moped in Povmmanayakkam pallayam road, while two other persons were sitting as pillion riders. The vehicle was proceeding towards west. After a while, one of them came back and again went in the same direction on the
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
27 same vehicle. P.W.4, then saw the deceased, Yoganandan and A.1 going in the same direction on the TVS moped at about 2 p.m. Again after some time, A.2 alone came back on the moped. On 10th July, 2002, at around 8.30 a.m, P.W.3,
Rajendran saw a dead body in the Pommanayakkanpallam
Road, whereupn he went to P.W.1, the administrative officer and informed him of that fact. P.W.1, upon receiving his information, went to the spot and saw the dead body. He then went to the Perumanallur Police Station and made a complaint, and the case was registered under sec.302 I.P.C and all the accused were tried. The trial court convicted the three accused under sec.302 IPC. Aggrieved from the
Judgment they preferred appeal before the high court which was dismissed resulting in filing the present appeal. A.2 and
A.3 have preferred the appeal, A.1 not fled any appeal.
In that case also there is no eye witness. In para 12 it is held there is no doubt in the present case there is no eye witness it is a case based upon the circumstantial evidence. When it is based on circumstances, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused.
Furthermore, in case of circumstantial evidence, where the prosecution relies upon an extra judicial confession, the court has to examine the same with a greater degree with care and caution. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.
In para No.42 it is held that it was a case of circumstantial evidence where not only the prosecution failed to prove all the facts and events to complete the chain of events pointing only towards the guilt of the accused but there are also definite discrepancies in the case of the prosecution,
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
28 contradictions between the statements of the material witnesses and the most important piece of prosecution evidence, the extra judicial confession, Ex.P.4 is found entirely unreliable, not worthy of credence of evidence as well as the facts recorded in Ex.P.4 stand disproved by another prosecution witness.
In this case also it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness and the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and not worthy of evidence and not reliable for the reasons mentioned above and prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances and in this case also contradiction Ex.D.1 was marked through a material witness (P.W.8).
43.The learned counsel for the accused relied on another decision reported in 2022 SAR (Cri) 932 between
Ravi Sharma Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
Another In that case 4 principles were noted that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests;
1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
2. Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
3. The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
29
As already stated in this case also the prosecution failed to establish the chain of events or substance.
44. The learned counsel for the accused relied on another decision in Jagta Vs. State of Haryana, on 23
April, 1974
Wherein it is held that circumstantial evidence in order to
warrant conviction, should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and when there is
reasonable doubt the accused is entitled to its benefit.
In Para (b) it is observed that there is absolutely no
reason why the accused, instead of surrendering
himself to the police, should go to the house of a
prosecution witness, blurt out a confession before him,
and ask him to take him to the police. Since the
evidence as to whether the accused at all made a
confession is unreliable and lacking in probability the
question as to what value would have been attached to
the confession if the evidence had been found to be
reliable and trustworthy, need not be considered”. In this case also it is not prosecution case that accused got acquaintance, on the other hand he is VRO of another village not Chikkala Village where incident occurred or where accused No.2 reside.
45.The learned counsel for the accused relied on another decision in Raju @ Rajendra Prasad Vs. Stateof
Rajasthan, on 19 September, 2022
Where in it was held in deciding the sufficiency of the
circumstantial evidence for the purpose of conviction,
the court has to consider the total cumulative effect of
all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the
conclusion of guilt and if the combined effect of all
these facts taken together is conclusive in establishing
the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be
justified even though it may be that one or more of
these facts by itself or themselves are not decisive.
The facts established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should
exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be
proved. But this does not mean that before the
prosecution can succeed in a case resting upon
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
30
circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each
and every hypothesis suggested by the accused,
howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it might be. As already stated in this case also the prosecution failed to establish the chain of events or substance.
46.The learned counsel for the accused relied on another decision in 2022 SAR (Crl) 1155 between
S.Maleeeswaran Vs. State by the Inspector of Police,
Pollachi Town East Police Station, Coimbatore District,
Tamil Nadu
Wherein it was held that Murder of driver surfaced on
account of “ Extra Judicial Confession” “ Last seen” with
driver together not proved due to delay of 6 months,
neither motive proved nor TIP conducted”.
In this case also the motive of the accused to kill the deceased is not established by the prosecution and no Test
Identification Parade was conducted and initially the case was registered Under Sec.174 Cr.P.C and later altered to Sec.302
I.P.C after a long time and P.W.1 mentioned in the report that he is suspecting A.1 and there is no reference of the A.2 either in the complaint given by P.W.1 or in the deposition of
P.W.1. Thereby, without hesitation , I hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused committed an offence punishable Under Sec.302 r/w 34 I.P.C.
47.After careful consideration of evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.18 coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 and M.O.1 and basing on my above discussion without hesitation I hold that the evidence of P.W.9 to 11 are no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused since they did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.12 to 14 , who are the V.R.Os is also no way helpful to the
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
31 prosecution. The evidence of P.W.15 Medical Officer and
P.W.16 to P.W.18 are investigating officers is no way helpful to the prosecution since they are not eye witnesses and there is no corroboration by any independent witnesses. to prove the guilt of the accuse beyond all reasonable doubt, and without hesitation I hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused and the accused No.2 is entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly point is answered.
48. In the result, accused No.2 is found not guilty for the charge levelled against him Under Sec. 302 r/w 34 IPC and he is acquitted for the said charge U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as contemplated Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.
The case property i.e., M.O.1 stick shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The trial court is directed to destroy M.O.1 and also unmarked property after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the stenographer G-I, transcribed by
her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 22nd day of June, 2023.
Sd/- Smt.P.Annapurna,
IX ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
W.G., KOVVUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FORPROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
PW-1: G.Ramesh. -- None-- PW-2: G.Varalakshmi. PW-3: G.Madhu. PW-4: G.Venkata Rao. PW-5: G.Govindu. PW-6: G.Yesuratnam @ Yesu. PW-7: V.Satish.
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
32 PW-8: M.Srinivasa Rao. PW-9: P.Subba Rao. PW-10:R.Bala Raju. PW.11:K.Pateswara Rao. PW.12:P.Sri Phani Babu. PW.13:D.Ravi. PW.14:K.Vasavi Murali Krishna. PW.15:A.V.R.S.Tata Rao. PW.16:G.Lakshman. PW.17:Ch.Satish Kumar. PW.18:M.Bala Krishna.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
Ex. P-1: Report of P.W.1 Ex. P-2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9. Ex. P-3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.10. Ex. P-4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.11
Ex. P-5: Written report presented by P.W.12 along with
Statements of A.1 and A.2. Ex. P-6: Statement of A.1 Ex. P-7: Statement of A.2 Ex. P-8: Scene Observation Report Ex. P-9: Inquest Report
Ex. P-10: Mediator report excluding the confession of
A.1 and A.2 Ex. P-11: Post Mortem Certificate. Ex.P-12: Final Opinion. Ex.P-13 : F.I.R. Ex.P-14 : Rough Sketch. Ex.P-15 : Altered F.I.R Ex.P-16 : F.S.L report. FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D.1 : Relevant Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8.
Material Objects
MO.1 : Stick Id/- Smt.P.A
IX A.D& SJ.,
W.G., KOVVUR.
Copy Submitted to:
1. The Hon’ble Prl.District& Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.
2. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru.
3. The Judl. Magistrate of I Class Court, Nidadavole.
4. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, IX Addl. Dist. & Sessions Court, Kovvur. // True Copy //
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN
S.C.No.55/2016 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI,
KOVVUR UNDER RULE 354 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES
OF PRACTICE.
1. Sessions Case No. : S.C.No.55/2016 and P.R.C. and P.R.C.No. with No.9/2015 on the file of name of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, committal Court Nidadavole.
2. Name of the Police : State represented by the Sub Station and Crime Divisional Police Officer, No. Kovvur Sub Division, Kovvur, West Godavari District.
3. Description of the : 1.Rajulapati Anjaneyulu @ Accused: Rayapati Anjaiah, S/o Somanna, 47 years, Gowda, Korumamidi, Nidadavole mandal. 2.Masiboyina Krishna @ Kittaiah, S/o Ganga Raju, 47 years, Yadava, Chikkala Village, Chagallu Mandal. (Case against was abated as he died)
4. Date of Offence : 01-07-2014 Complaint : 14-02-2015 Apprehension : 13-04-2015 Release on bail : 14-05-2015
Committal : 29-02-2016 Commencement of : 08-01-2019 trial Close of Trial : 15-06-2023 Sentence or Order : 22-06-2023
In the result, accused No.2 is found not guilty for the charge levelled against him Under Sec. 302 r/w 34 IPC and he is acquitted for the said charge U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as contemplated Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.O.1 stick shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The trial court is directed to destroy M.O.1 and also unmarked property after expiry of appeal time.
S.C.No.55/2016 IX A D&SC, Kovvur
Dt:22-06-2023
// 2 //
5. Explanation for the delay. : No avoidable delay
Sd/- Smt.P.Annapurna,
IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
WEST GODAVARI, KOVVUR.
IX Addl District Court, W.G. Kovvur,
Dt:22-06-2023
// True Copy //
IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
WEST GODAVARI, KOVVUR.