1
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE :: ANANTAPURAMU AT GOOTY
Present: SMT. P. KAMALA DEVI. B. Com. B.L., VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty MONDAY THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
SESSIONS CASE No.245/2017
(On committal by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri in P.R.C.No.2/2017)
Name of the complainant:Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural Circle
Cr.No.& Name of the P.S. : Cr.No.206/2016 of Tadipatri Rural P.S.
Name and description of the :Bille Pullaiah, aged 70 years, S/o. B. Gurrappa, accused Chukkaluru Road, Tadipatri Village & Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.
Offence: Charge u/s 302 IPC was framed against accused.
Plea of the accused :Accused pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Judge :Accused is found not guilty.
Sentence or order:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 302 IPC and he is acquitted of said charge u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months. M.Os.1 to 6 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
The case is coming on 12.10.2018 day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.V. Mahesh Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the state and Sri Z,
Satheesh, State Brief for accused and upon hearing both sides, this court delivered the following:
//JUDGMENT//
1.The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Inspector of Police filed charge sheet in the
Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri against accused u/s 302 IPC in
Cr.No.206/2016 of Tadipatri Rural P.S. alleging as,
The marriage of accused with Bille Naga Munemma @ Munemma (hereinafter referred to as deceased) was performed about 34 years back before filing of the charge sheet. They adopted one Sirisha as their adopted daughter as they have no children. They were living by running petty shop and tea stall in a room. They incur several debts and the accused used to clear the debts by handing over the amounts to his deceased wife. The accused inquired with the deceased about the debts to be paid by her. But the deceased replied arrogantly stating has to why he is worrying about debts and that she is saved the amount for celebrating the death ceremony for which the accused presumed that the deceased might have saved the amount to do some harm to him, so decided to murder the 2 deceased. According to his plan on 05.07.2016 he got one sharp edged granite piece from
Basha Hotel and kept it near Thulasi plant underneath the Zinc Sheets and were slept infront of the house on the cot. In the night all the factories are closed and on 05/06.07.2016 after midnight he has removed the granite piece and beat on the head of the deceased indiscriminately while she was in sleep. After some time the deceased went to the door and tried to cries. Then the accused pushed her down and beat on her chest with the same stone. After that the deceased became unconscious. With an intention to avoid suspicion the accused hatched a plan and hit his head with the said granite stone. The accused also breakdown the lock of the shop with the same stone and thrown the stone in nearby thorny bushes situated by the side of his house. Then the accused created a story and propaganda that one unknown person came to their shop for committing theft and beat them to rob away. The accused also informed the same to L.W.5-Korre Nagendera over phone and also to neighbors. Then L.W.5 and L.W.6-Korre Padmavathi reached the scene of offence and shifted them to the GGH, Tadipatri for treatment. Later the deceased was shifted to GGH, Ananthapuramu and then to GGH, Kurnool. The deceased was died on 09.07.2016 in GGH, Kurnool while undergoing treatment. During inquest the accused raised suspicion against Narasimha Reddy to avoid suspicion over him. The said Narasimha
Reddy was no way concerned to this case and Police got suspicion against the accused. The accused came to know about the same and surrendered before L.W.12-Y. Peddanna and admitted guilt.
On 06.07.2016 at 2.10 am L.W.24-D.V. Narayana Reddy, Sub-Inspector of
Police, Tadipatri Rural Police Station has received Medical Admit Intimation from the GGH,
Tadipatri. Immediately L.W.24 has rushed to the Hospital and found the injured Bille
Naagemunemma in unconscious state and then he secured the presence of Bille Pullaiah (accused) who is her husband and recorded his statement. Later L.W.24 has returned to the Police Station and registered the case as Cr.No.206/2015 u/s 307, 394 IPC and submitted FIR copies to all concerned officers and took up investigation into the case.
During the course of investigation L.W.24 visited the GGH, Tadipatri and secured the presence of accused and examined him and recorded his statement. Later L.W.24 has visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of mediators. Then L.W.24 has observed the scene of offence and seized the bed sheet, saree stained with blood and bangles pieces, blood stained earth and its control under cover of Mahazarnama in the presence of mediators. Later L.W.24 has drawn the rough sketch. Later L.W.24 has secured the presence of some witnesses and examined them and recorded their statements.
3 The injured Bille Nagamunemma was shifted to GGH, Kurnool for better treatment. On 09.07.2016 L.W.24 has received the death intimation of Bille Nagamunemma from the GGH,
Kurnool. Then L.W.24 has altered Section of Law into Section 307, 302, 394 IPC and submitted express FIR copies to all concerned officers and a copy to L.W.25-S. Asrar Basha,
Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural Circle for further investigation. On 10.07.2016 L.W.25 has took up investigation into the case. L.W.25 has proceeded to the GGH, Kurnool and found the dead body of the deceased Bille Naga Munemma was lying in the Mortuary Room.
Then LW..25 has secured the presence of kith and kin of the deceased. Inquest panchayatdars and commenced inquest over the dead body of the deceased at about 9.00 am.
During the course of inquest, L.W.25 has examined the dead body of the deceased. Then L.W.25 has examined L.W.1-Bille Pullaiah, L.W.2-Koderu Jayamma, L.W.3-
Koderu Yelllappa and L.W.4-Gandikota Nagaraju and recorded their statements. L.W.25 has concluded inquest by 11.30 am and forwarded the dead body of the deceased for autopsy.
Later L.W.25 has visited the scene of offence and tallied the scene observation
Mahazarnama and rough sketch prepared by L.W.24. Then L.W.25 has secured the presence of L.W.5, L.W.6, L.W.7-Sunkugari Purushotham Reddy, L.W.8-Sunkugari
Nagarathnamma, L.W.9-Malisetty Nagaraju, L.W.10-Mallisetty Obulesu and L.W.11-Shaik
Chand Basha and examined them and recorded their statements. On 11.07.2016 the supsect accused Narahari Narasimha Reddy voluntarily appeared before L.W.25 and then
LW..25 has secured the presence of two mediators and interrogated him. The said Narahari
Narasimha Reddy further stated that he is no way concerned to this case and he do not know how the incident was happened.
On 25.07.2016 at about 10.00 am while L.W.12 was present near Revenue
Bhavan near Tahsildar's Office the accused voluntarily surrendered before him and admitted guilt. Then L.W.12 has recorded his statement and produced before L.W.25 at about 11.00 am. Then L.W.25 has secured two mediators and interrogated the accused before them.
The accused voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence and narrated the modus operandi of the commission of offence in detail. The accused further stated that police are suspecting him in the death of the deceased and so on that day he surrendered before
L.W.12 and admitted guilt. Then L.W.24 has confirmed him as accused in this case and arrested him at about 11.30 am under cover of mahazarnama. The accused lead LW..25 and mediators to his house situated opp. to the electrical sub station, Chukkalur road and there the accused went into thorny bushes by the side of his house and brought one 4 puttaparthy red granite stone having sharp edges and produced before L.W.25 stating that he used the same to murder his wife. Then L.W.25 has seized the same under cover of
Mahazarnama. Then L.W.25 has brought the accused to the Police Station along with the seized property. L.W.25 has deleted Section 307 and 394 IPC and filed memo accordingly and sent the accused and Court for remand. L.W.25 has sent the seized material objects to
RFSL, Tirupathi for examination. L.W.22-Dr. V. Rajasekhar, Asst. Professor, Dept. of
Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College who has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PM Report. Then L.W.25 has submitted a questioner to LW..22 whether the head injury could have been caused by a rough surfaced stone for which
LW..22 has endorsed as “possibility is there”. L.W.23-Smt. K. Jaya Nagaraju, Scientific
Asst., RFSL, Tirupathi who has examined the sent material objects and issued report. After receipt of P.M. Report, RFSL Report and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.
2.Considering the material on record, the Learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Tadipatri took the case on file u/s 302 IPC against accused as PRC No.2/2017
and furnished copies of documents on which prosecution proposed to rely, soon after the accused made his appearance and committed the case to the Sessions Division by his order
dated 09.06.2017 by adopting procedure contemplated u/s 209 Cr.P.C. as the offence u/s
302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions.
The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu took the case on file against accused u/s 302 IPC and made it over to this Court for disposal according to law.
3.On appearance of accused before this Court an opportunity was given to the prosecution and also defence to submit its version at the stage of framing charges.
Considering the material on record after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for state and defence counsel charges u/s 302 IPC against accused was framed read over and explained said charge to him in Telugu for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.To substantiate the case of prosecution totally 16 witnesses are examined as
P.Ws.1 to 16 apart from exhibiting 20 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.20 and 6 material objects as M.Os.1 to 6. As the learned Additional Public Prosecutor gave up rest of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet prosecution side evidence was closed.
5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/s 313
Cr.P.C. putting incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no evidence on behalf of the accused.
6.Now the point for determination is, 5 “Whether the prosecution proved that the accused committed offence punishable u/s 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
7.Heard both sides and perused the record
8.POINT:-During the course of trial prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 besides marking Exs.P.1 to P.20 and M.Os.1 to 6.
9.The case of prosecution as per the confessional statement of accused recorded by VRO dated 25.07.2016 is as follows, the accused confessed before VRO stating as follows, on 05/06.07.2016 mid night the accused and his wife were sleeping infront of their house the accused beat his wife and killed her and that Police people are searching for him as such he prays to rescue him from the hands of Police. VRO further asked what was happened on which the accused further stated that his name is Bille Pullaiah, S/o. Gurrappa resident of Sunkalammapalyam, Tadipatri Mandal. He married Nagamunemma about 45 years back and they were issueless, since 16 years they were running a petty shop and tea hotel infront a granite factory at Chukkaluru Road. They brought up one Sirisha and performed her marriage about 6 years back he purchased one house at Porata Colony in the name of his wife. One year before giving this statement, all the provisions in the shop were exhausted, money was not coming on which there were disputes between him and his wife, but his wife did not disclose the actual due to which there were disputes between him and his wife on several times, but his wife did not change her attitude. Thus he left the house and went to Kasinayana Reddy Ashramama near Brahmamgari Matam and stayed there fore one week, thereafter he was brought to his house by his wife's sister and sons and admonished his wife. After some time in the presence of her daughter he discharged some debts and used to give some amount to his wife for discharging debts. On 02.07.2016 his daughter Sirisha came and stated that all the debts were discharged except the debt due to
Shanthi Madam thus asked him to live without any tension. After some days he questioned his wife about debts payable by him on which she did not give proper answer on which the accused suspected that his wife was suppressing something by keeping some amounts with her on which he questioned his wife why she was keeping the amount; on which she had given a reply that to perform the death ceremony of him she was keeping the amounts. So the accused suspected that his wife may cause harm to him as such he intends to kill her.
On 05.07.2016 evening he brought one sharp edged granite stone which was found near
Basha Hotel and kept it under the old zinc sheets near Tulasi plant and was sleeping on a cot infront of his house along with his wife. After mid night he woke up and brought the 6 granite which was kept under the old zinc sheets and came to his wife and she was sleeping and he beat her on his head indiscriminately due to which she fell down, after some time she woke up and was going to the door; again the accused beat her on her chest with the same granite stone due to which she fell down and became unconscious. To avoid suspicion the accused himself beat with the same stone on his head and broken the locks to his house and made propaganda that his wife was beaten by some unknown person who came for committing theft thereafter his brother-in-law called 108 ambulance and they were shifted to Government Hospital, Tadipatri. Thereafter to Government General Hospital,
Ananthapuramu and thereafter to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and while getting treatment she died on 09.07.2016 at about 1.15 pm.
10.The case of accused is total denial and that he was falsely implicated by Police people in consultation with one S. Purushotham Reddy (P.W.6).
11.In order to prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 besides markings Exs.P.1 to P.20 and M.Os.1 to 6.
12.P.W.1 who is no other than the brother of deceased Munemma deposed that the neighbours of accused telephoned him and informed him that his sister Munemma and the accused were beaten by some unknown persons during late night. Immediately he went to the Govt. Hospital, Tadipatri. By the time his sister Munemma was not in conscious. He found injuries on the left back of the head. He also found the accused was in the Hospital. He found one injury on the fore head of the accused. The accused did not disclose how they sustained injuries. Later his sister was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Kurnool and later she died after three days at Govt. Hospital, Kurnool. Police conducted inquest over the dead body of his deceased sister and he was present at that time. He was also examined by the Police. At this stage this witness is declared as hostile as he completely resiled from his earlier version before Police.
13.Coming to the evidence of P.W.2 who is no other than the son-in-law of the deceased, his version is that there were no disputes between the accused and the deceased.
On one night about two years back he received phone call from neighbor of the accused that the accused and his wife sustained injuries and they were admitted in Govt. Hospital,
Tadipatri. On receipt of said information himself and his elder brother rushed to the Govt.
Hospital, Tadipatri. He found the wife of accused sustained injuries on the back of her head and was unconscious and not able to speak. He also found the accused received injuries on his fore head and was in conscious and able to talk, on inquire from the accused, he came to know that the accused and his wife were sleeping in a cot in front of their hotel and that 7 they heard noise and that the wife of the deceased Naga Munemma woke up and went to see their house door, there she was beaten by unknown person with a rod and then the accused tried to rescue her, he was also beaten by the said unknown person thus they sustained injuries. Thereafter they shifted to Govt. Hospital, Ananthapuramu and from there to Govt. Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment. While undergoing treatment at GGH,
Kurnool Naga Munemma died after 3 or 4 days. Police examined him.
14.P.W.3 who is said to be the younger brother of P.W.2 deposed in the same lines of the evidence of P.W.2.
15.P.W.4 who is said to be watchman in Slab Polishing Unit at Tadipatri his version is that the accused and his wife residing near a Hotel at Chukkaluru Road near Sub
Station, Tadipatri about two years back at about one midnight the neighbors of the accused came to his house and informed that the accused and his wife sustained injuries. Then himself and his wife rushed to the house of the accused. By the time deceased Munemma was in a bath room of her house and the accused was found outside of his house. He did not inquire how they sustained injuries. They shifted the accused and his wife to Govt.
Hospital, Tadipatri and thereafter Naga Munemma succumbed to her injuries after one week.
16.P.W.5 is no other than the wife of P.W.4 she deposed the same version as stated by P.W.4.
17.At this stage these witnesses were declared as hostile by learned Additional
Public Prosecutor as they completely resiled from their earlier version which was stated
before the Police and they were cross examined by Additional Public Prosecutor with the
permission of the Court and 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 is marked as Ex.P.1 and 161
Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 is marked as Ex.P.2.
18.P.W.6 is the person who is doing granite business near the scene of offence deposed as follows, on 05.07.2016 at about 11.00 pm while he was sleeping in his house situate in the premises of factory, the workers of their factory came to him and woke up him saying that the accused sustained injuries as he was beaten by others and then himself and his wife came out of the house and went to the house/hotel of the accused. By the time Munemma was in the bath room. He found the injuries on her head and he was unconscious. On inquiry from the accused he stated that one unknown person while break open the lock of his home, Munemma noticed it on which the said unknown person beat her on her head, on hearing the same he went to rescue her and that the said person beat him and ran away, thus Munemma sustained injuries and he came to him and informed the 8 same. The accused and his wife were sleeping in front of the Hotel-cum-house. He called the 108 ambulance through phone. Then the accused and his wife were shifted to Tadipatri
Govt. Hospital in 108 Ambulance. Then she was shifted to Govt. General Hospital where she succumbed the injuries. As there were financial disputes between accused and his wife, and that the accused narrated different version, he got suspicion against the accused.
19.P.W.7 who is no other than the wife of P.W.6 deposed in the same version of
P.W.6 except suspecting the accused.
20.P.W.8 who is said to be Watchman in Granite Factory deposed that he does not know the cause of death of Naga Munemma and he did not go to the house of Naga
Munemma when she sustained injuries and that he did not inquire with the accused and that he was examined by the Police.
21.P.W.9 who is said to be father of P.W.8 deposed in the same lines of evidence of P.W.8.
22.P.W.10 who is said to be present at the time of seizure of material objects by
Police deposed that he was not present at the time of seizure of material objects by the
Police and scene observation by the Police and that he does not know the accused in the case and no persons arrested before him by the Police.
23.P.W.11 who is VRO of Sajjaladinne Village deposed that on 25.07.2016 he was called by Tadipatri Rural Police Constable to come to the Police Station accordingly he went to the Police Station where he signed on written papers. The signatures shown to him on confessional mahazar and requisition are of him and those signatures were marked as
Exs.P.5 and P.6. He never saw the accused in this case. At no point of time the accused in this case came to him and confessed the guilt before him.
24.P.W.12 who is running a granite factory at Tadipatri deposed that he know that Nagamunemma died, but do not know the cause of death and that he was not present at the time of inquest held by the CI of Police over the dead body of the deceased. He signed in the inquest report about two years back at Police Station. He do not know the contents of inquest report. The signature shown to him on inquest report is of him and it is marked as Ex.P.7.
25.P.W.13 Assistant Professor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased deposed that he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 10.07.2016 on receipt of requisition from Station House Officer, Tadipatri Rural Police
Station and issued Ex.P.8 P.M. Certificate and opined that Naga Munemma died due to inter 9 cranial bleeding associated with skull fracture resulting from head injury. P.M. Certificate is marked as Ex.P.8.
26.P.W.14 deposed that no person was arrested by Police in his presence and no material object was seized by the Police in his presence and that about two years back he went to the Police Station on his personal work and at the request of the Police he signed on some written papers and that he does not know its contents and that the signature shown to him in the arrest mahazar dated 25.07.2016 is Ex.P.9 is of him and that he signed in the seizure mahazar at his house and he does not know its contents and the same is marked as
Ex.P.10.
27.P.W.15 the then SI of Police, Tadipatri Rural P.S. deposed that that on 06.07.2016 in midnight he received medical intimation from Govt. Hospital, Tadipatri then he rushed to the Govt. Hospital, Tadipatri and recorded Ex.P.11 statement of Bille Pullaiah (accused) and he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.206/2015 u/s 307, 394 IPC of
Tadipatri Rural P.S. and issued Ex.P.12 printed FIR and that he submitted the printed FIR to the Court and the copies to all the concern and that on the same day at about 9.00 am he went to the scene of offence situate opposite to the Electrical Sub Station, Chukkaluru Road,
Tadipatri there he recorded the statements of P.Ws.4 to 8 and one Siresha and he also observed the scene and prepared Ex.P.13 scene observation-cum-seizure mahazar in the presence of mediators i.e., L.W.20-Obulesu and L.W.14-Nagaraju and he seized M.O.1 one bed sheet, M.O.2 two sarees, M.O.3 bangle pieces, M.O.4 blood stained earth and M.O.5 its control earth and he also prepared Ex.P.14 rough sketch and that as the wife of the accused was taken treatment in Govt. Hospital, Ananthapuramu and she was unconscious and he did not try to examine her and record her statement and thereafter he came to know that she was shifted to Kurnool Hospital for better treatment and that on the same day they received information that she succumbed the injuries while getting treatment, then they altered the section of Law from Sections 307, 394 to 307, 302 and 394 IPC and then he issued Ex.P.15 altered FIR and he handed over the CD file to his inspector for further investigation as it is a grave crime.
28.P.W.16 the then CI of Police, Tadipatri deposed that on 09.07.2016 he received express FIR in Cr.No.206/2016 from P.W.15 then he took up investigation in this case and that on the next day he conducted Ex.P.16 inquest over the dead body of the deceased Naga Munemma at Govt. Hospital, Kurnool in the presence of mediators P.W.12,
L.W.16 Dhanunjaya, L.W.17 Kambagiri and in the presence of the blood relatives of accused, P.Ws.1 to 3 and that he examined accused, P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded statements 10 and that he handed over the dead body to Medical Officer to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and that he rushed to the scene of offence situated at the house of the accused and the deceased at Chukkaluru road, Tadipatri and he examined the scene of offence and verified the scene and the rough sketch prepared by P.W.15 and found correct and there he examined P.Ws.4 to 9 and L.W.11 Chand Basha and recorded their statements and that as the accused suspected that one Narasimha Reddy might have committed this offence on 11.07.2016 he secured Narasimha Reddy and he interrogated him in the presence of mediators one Naryana Reddy and one Nageswara Reddy and he found that he was not involved in this offence and that on 25.07.2016 P.W.11 and the accused came to the Police Station and P.W.11 produced accused before him along with Ex.P.17 confession statement and Ex.P.18 requisition of P.W.11, then he secured the presence of P.W.10 and
P.W.14 in the presence of P.W.10 and P.W.14 he recorded the confession statement of the accused and after recording the confession statement he arrested the accused and that on his confession they followed the accused to the scene of offence and seized a granite stone which was shown by the accused at the scene of offence under the cover of Ex.P.19 seizure mahazarnama. M.O.6 is the said granite stone and the accused produced before the JFCM,
Tadipatri along with remand report and the material objects were sent to the RFSL through
JFCM, Tadipatri and after receipt of Ex.P.20 RFSL report and PM report he filed the charge sheet.
29.As P.Ws.8 to 12 and 14 did not support the version of prosecution they were declared as hostile by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and they were cross examined by
Additional Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court and 161 Cr.P.C. statement of
P.W.8 is marked as Ex.P.3 and 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.9 is marked as Ex.P.4.
30.So it makes clear that except P.Ws.6,7,13,15 and 16 all other witnesses did not support the version of prosecution. Though P.Ws.5 and 6 deposed supporting the version of prosecution in their chief examination, coming to cross examination of P.W.6 he deposed that his wife has got knowledge about the family affairs of the accused and that he does not know that the accused has disputes with the others and that he stated before the
Police about all the version of accused how his wife sustained injuries. The learned counsel for defence put a suggestion to P.W.6 that he has no knowledge about the case facts and he is deposing falsehood to help the Police and that there were no disputes between the accused and his wife and that the accused did not state any different versions before him which leads suspicious against the accused for which he denied the said suggestion. If really the accused narrated different versions before P.W.6 and he stated the said version 11
before the Police, it is not prevented to P.W.6 to depose the said versions before the Court
on oath during his chief examination. But he did not speak any thing which creates suspicion against the accused. Moreover according to P.W.6 his wife has got more knowledge about the family affairs of the accused. But coming to the evidence of P.W.7 who is no other than the wife of P.W.6 she deposed that she has no knowledge about the disputes between the family of accused and others. According to P.W.7 it is not her evidence in chief examination, that the accused narrated different version before them thus she suspected that the accused might have killed his wife. But according to their evidence both P.Ws.6 and 7 went to the house of accused and inquired about the cause of the injuries and came to know from the accused how he sustained injuries. If it is so, if really the accused narrated different versions as stated by P.W.6 the same should be spoken by
P.W.7. But she did not speak the said versions. So it is not safe to believe the version of
P.W.7 and come to the conclusion that the accused is a suspect in this offence. So I am of view that the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 is not help to prove the case of prosecution as they did not speak as they are the eye witnesses to the incident and they witnessed while accused was committing the offence and their suspicion against the accused is not reliable.
31.According to prosecution the evidence of P.W.11 is crucial as it is their case that the accused surrendered before P.W.11 and P.W.11 recorded the confessional statement of accused. Though the confessional statement of accused is marked as Ex.P.17, but it is marked through P.W.16, but not through P.W.11. P.W.11 who is said that he recorded the same did not speak that he recorded it as per the version of accused. So it makes clear that the prosecution failed to prove Exs.P.17 and P.18. The evidence of P.W.11 itself falsifies the contents under Exs.P.17 and P.18. So it makes clear that the prosecution failed to prove the very foundation of the case. Though the prosecution examined several witnesses to prove their case, the evidence of P.W.12 proves that no inquest was held in his presence. Though P.W.1 deposed that inquest was held in his presence, but he deposed that the accused did not disclose how they sustained injuries. So it makes clear that the prosecution also failed to prove the inquest report marked as, Ex.P.16 as inquest panchayatdars and mediators who are said to be present did not support the version of prosecution. Likewise the prosecution failed to prove the seizure mahzar as the seizure panchayatdar also did not support the version of prosecution. Though P.Ws.13, 15, 16 deposed evidence about their role in this case admittedly they are not the eye witnesses and they are only official witnesses. So their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution without any corroboration with the material witnesses. All the above mentioned 12 circumstances establishes that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence I hold that the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 302 IPC. Accordingly this point is answered.
32.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 302 IPC and he is acquitted of said charge u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months. M.Os.1 to 6 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in
the open Court this the 15th day of October, 2018.
VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Gooty.
Appendix of evidence Witness examined for Prosecution Defence P.W.1 K. Jayanna -None- P.W.2 K. Yellappa P.W.3 G. Nagaraju P.W.4 K. Nagappa P.W.5 K. Padmavathi P.W.6 S. Purushotham Reddy P.W.7 S. Nagarathnamma P.W.8 M. Nagaraju P.W.9 M. Obulesu P.W.10 T. Obulesu P.W.11 Y. Peddanna P.W.12 B. Raju P.W.13 Dr. V. Rajasekhar P.W.14 D. Sreenivasulu P.W.15 D.V. Narayana Reddy P.W.16 S. Asrar Basha Exhibits marked for Prosecution Ex.P.1 : 161 Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.2 : 161 Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.3 : 161 Statement of P.W.8 Ex.P.4 : 161 Statement of P.W.9 Ex.P.5 : Signature of P.W.11 in the mahazar and requisition Ex.P.6 : Signature of P.W.16 on confessional statement Ex.P.7 : Signature of P.W.12 on inquest report Ex.P.8 : P.M. Report Ex.P.9 : Signature of P.W.14 on mahzar dated 25.02.2016 13 Ex.P.10 : Signature of P.W.14 on seizure mahazar Ex.P.11 : Statement of accused recorded by P.W.15 Ex.P.12 : Printed FIR Ex.P.13 : Scene observation-cum-seizure mahazar prepared by P.W.15 Ex.P.14 : Rough sketch Ex.P.15 : Altered FIR Ex.P.16 : Inquest report Ex.P.17 : Confessional statement Ex.P.18 : Requisition of P.W.11 Ex.P.19 : Seizure mahazarnama Ex.P.20 : RFSL Report Exhibits marked for the defence -Nil- Material Objects marked M.O.1 : Bed sheet M.O.2 : Saree polyester M.O.3 : Bangle pieces M.O.4 : Blood stained earth M.O.5 : Control earth M.O.6 : Granite stone VI Addl. S.J.