SC 12 of 2020
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD
Tuesday, June 2, 2020
PRESENT: SMT.P.SREE SUDHA,
SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD
SC NO.12 OF 2020
[On committal by the Court of the JMFC, Armoor in PRC No.16 of 2019 in crime No.352 of 2018 of PS Armoor]
1)Name of complainant: The State represented by the Inspector of Police, PS Armoor
2)Name of accused :Manglaram Ramesh S/o Pedda Gangaram @ Devidas, 31 years, SC (Madiga), Coolie, R/o Ankapoor village, Armoor Mandal
3)Charge/s:Under Section 302 IPC
4) Plea of accused: Accused pleaded not guilty.
5)Finding of Judge:Accused is found guilty.
6)Prosecution :Sri D.Madhusudhan Rao, Public conducted byProsecutor, Nizamabad
7)Accused defended by:Sri R.Ganga Prasad, Nizamabad (Legal Aid Counsel)
8) Sentence/Order : The accused is found guilty and is convicted under Section 235(2) CrPC for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for one month, for the offence under section 302 1 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
IPC. MOs 1 to 8 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
This case coming on 27.05.2020 for final hearing before me; upon hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.The case of the prosecution is that Manglaram Yellavva wife of Pedda Gangaram, aged 51 years resident of Ankapoor village, Armoor Mandal gave complaint on 20.12.2018 stating that she is having two sons and two daughters, her husband
Manglaram Pedda Gangaram, aged 60 years met with an accident and could not walk properly and he was walking with the support of stand and staying in the house. The elder son of Manglaram Ramesh, aged 31 years went to Dubai for livelihood and returned back, after his return he is not working anywhere and her younger son Manglaram Rajpaul performed marriage and went to Dubai for livelihood. As her elder son
Manglaram Ramesh was not working and earning and addicted to drinking, no one came forward to marry him. Everyday he was picking up quarrel regarding his marriage and also demanding amount from his father. On 19.12.2018 at about 2 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
9.00 pm approximately while she along with her husband and her daughter-in-law Sathyavani were staying in the house, her elder son Ramesh came home and demanded her husband to give amount for drinking, when her husband stated that he has no amount and also as he has not performed his marriage and picked up quarrel and stated that he will kill him and he caused injuries to her husband with the knife brought by him on the left knee, left temple, chest. When she and her daughter-in- law tried to resist him, he has thrown them away and fled away from that place with the knife with which he caused injuries. Immediately they took the assistance of neighbours and shifted her husband in an auto to MJ Hospital, Armoor and from there for better treatment to Nizamabad but while shifting him to Nizamabad at about 11.30 pm he died and thus they kept the body in mortuary of Armoor Government
Hospital and went to the police station and gave complaint.
She stated that her son came with an intention to kill her husband and stabbed him with a knife and thus requested the police to take action against him. The complaint was given on 20.12.2018 at about 0030 hours and registered as crime
No.352 of 2018 under Section 302 and 201 IPC. She affixed 3 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
her thumb impression and gave two cell numbers on the complaint as follows 9912261810 and 8466822321.
2.Basing on the said complaint, the scene of offence panchanama was conducted at 0200 hours on 20.12.2018 in the presence of panch witnesses. The rough sketch of the scene of offence was also prepared. On 20.12.2018 at about 10.00 hours the inquest was conducted and PME was conducted at 2.25 pm on the same day and after completion of PME examination, the clothes of the deceased were recovered at 1630 hours under a recovery panchanama. The police apprehended the elder son of the deceased Ramesh on 21.12.2018 at 0900 hours and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of the mediators, seized the knife from his possession and cell phone with which he called his brother at Dubai, immediately after the offence and informed that he killed his father. The said cell phone having two SIM numbers. All the material objects were sent to the FSL after receiving the chemical analysis report and final opinion, the
Inspector of police also collected the call data of mobile numbers 9912261810 and 8466822321, filed a certificate under Ex.P14 and after completion of entire investigation, he 4 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
filed charge-sheet against the accused for an offence under
Section 302 and 201 IPC.
3.Immediately after the offence he fled away from that place, later he came to know about the death of his father, inquest and PME was conducted in the presence of P.W.1 and others and he has no occasion to see the dead body as such the charge against him for the offence under Section 201 IPC does not apply. The charge-sheet filed against him for an offence under Section 201 IPC in routine manner.
4.The Cognizance of the offence against the accused was taken by the Court of JMFC, Armoor in PRC No.16 of 2019.
After following the required procedure, the case was committed to the Court of Session, Nizamabad on 16.12.2019.
5.After hearing the prosecution and accused and considering the case record and the documents submitted therewith, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to him.
He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P15 and Mos.1 to 8. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC. He denied the 5 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
incriminating material put to him. He reported no evidence in his defence.
7.Heard both sides.
8.The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC?
9.P.W.1-Manglaram Yellavva reiterated the contents of complaint before the court. She stated that accused was addicted to drinking and he was not working and earning and thus they could not perform his marriage but he was insisting her husband for the amount and also to perform his marriage and picking up quarrel with him and was also threatening to kill him. On 19.12.2018 at about 9.00 pm when she along with her husband and daughter-in-law were in the house, accused demanded money, picked up quarrel and took out knife from his waist and stabbed her husband with knife on the chest, left side of the temple and on the left hand shoulder and caused bleeding injuries. When she along with her daughter-in- law tried to obstruct him, he has thrown them away and caused injuries and fled away from that place. Immediately she raised cries, on hearing the same one Bhumesh, Ramesh, 6 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
Prem Kumar and Jemis who were residing in the same locality rushed there and they shifted her husband to MJ Hospital,
Armoor and on their advise when they are trying to shift to
Nizamabad and crossed Ankapur at about 11.30 pm he died and thus they brought him back to Government Hospital,
Armoor, at about 12.30 am she went to police station and gave written complaint to the police. On her instructions some one drafted her complaint. Police examined and recorded her statement. Ex.P1 is the complaint.
10.P.W.2 Manglaram Sathyavani is wife of LW6/PW5-
Manglarama Rajpal. She stated that they performed love marriage. Her father-in-law was working in Dubai and met with an accident an thus he was walking with the support of stick and accused was demanding money and insisted her in-laws to perform his marriage and he was addicted to drinking and he was not working and earning. She also stated that on 19.12.2018 at about 9.00 pm when she along with her father- in-law and mother-in-law were in the house, accused came there, demanded money and picked up quarrel, took out the knife from his shirt, stabbed her father-in-law, when she and her mother-in-law tried to obstruct, he has thrown them away and fled away from that place, immediately they raised cries, 7 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
neighbours came there and tried to shift her father-in-law to
MJ Hospital and while proceeding to Nizamabad, he died at 11.30 pm and then they went to police station and her mother- in-law gave complaint. The accused killer her father-in-law. In the cross-examination, she stated that her marriage with
Rajpal was performed about one month back. He was working as car driver and went to Dubai one week after the marriage.
She completed her B.A. and working as Teacher at Armoor prior to the marriage. Accused was grazing cattle in Lalana
Vruddha Asharamam and coming to home twice or thrice in a week. It was suggested that when her husband left to Dubai, she also went to her parents house and when she was informed about the death of her father-in-law, she came to home, but stated to the police at the instance of mother-in-law and Yesudas falsely to knock away the entire property by sending the accused to the jail, but she denied the same.
11.P.W.3 is one Mulugu Prem Kumar. He stated that they were residing in the same locality. On 19.12.2018 at about 9.00pm they heard cries from the house of the accused, rushed there by the time one Jemis, Bhumesh were present.
He found Manglaram Pedda Gangaram with bleeding injuries in pool of blood. He sustained injuries on chest, left temple and 8 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
shoulder. Wife of the deceased stated that her son demanded amount from her husband and stabbed him with a knife and immediately shifted him to MJ Hospital, Armoor when they were trying to shift to Nizamabad and crossed Ankapur village, he died and they brought him back to Government Hospital.
In the cross-examination, he stated that his father’s name is
Mulugu Venkati @ Yesudas and he is pastor in Church at
Ankapoor village. It was suggested to him that his father was going to the house of Yellavva to perform prayers for recovery of her husband and he stated that he does not know the same.
He also stated that he does not know whether accused was working in Lalana vrudda Asharamam. His brother P.W.5 was not in the country at the time of the incident.
12.P.W.4 is Manglaram Jemis. He stated that his junior paternal uncle son and accused is his elder son. About one year back after taking dinner they were standing outside, they heard cries from the house of his brother, went there and found him with bleeding injuries, one Bhumesh, Prem Kumar were also present there, they shifted him to Hospital. P.W.1 informed him that accused picked up quarrel with his father for amount and stabbed him with knife and fled away from that place. In the cross-examination, he stated that police 9 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
recorded his statement two days after the incident and residing in different streets. He knows Yesudas working as pastor in their village. He was also going to the Church on every Sunday as P.W.1 was going to the Church she was acquainted with
Yesudas. P.W.2 is working as Teacher, his brother worked at
Dubai and returned to India about two or three years back.
Accused/Ramesh also went to Dubai and he is working as cattle grazer in Lalana vruddha Ashramam and he was staying in the Ashramam and coming to the home occasionally. It was suggested to him that P.W.1 and Yesudas and second son of deceased conspired together and killed him and thrown blame on the accused to knock away the property but he denied the same.
13.P.W.5 is Manglaram Rajpal, second son of the deceased.
He stated that accused was addicted to drinking and not working and earning and demanding amount from his father and picked up quarrel with him. He married P.W.2 and it is a love marriage. One month after the marriage, he went to
Dubai. Even on phone his mother informed that accused was demanding amount from his father and picking up quarrel with him. On 19.12.2018 at about 9.30 pm his brother called him on phone and informed that his father is not giving amount 10 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
and not performed marriage, as such he killed their father in the night and fled away from that place, immediately he called his wife and she informed that accused killed his father, on the next day he returned home from Dubai. In the cross- examination, he stated that he and his brother were working in different companies at Dubai, after returning of his father to
India Ramesh came to Dubai. His father was having Ac.1.00 land and two houses. He knows P.W.3 and he is his friend and his father was working as pastor in the Church. His parents converted to Christianity but he and his brother were following
Hinduism. Yesudas is coming to their house for performing prayers. His brother is having phone No.7287022851. He came to Ankapur village on 21.12.2018 at 9.00 or 10.00 am. Police examined and recorded his statement on 25.12.2018. He stated the phone number of his mother as 9912216810. He stated that when he called to the cell phone of his mother, after receiving phone it was lifted by his wife and she informed about the killing of his father. It was suggested to him that his brother is not having mobile phone, P.W.1, Yesudas and himself conspired together and killed his father and thrown blame on the accused to knock away the property but he denied the same.
11 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
14.P.W.6 is Rodda Ramesh and he shifted to the deceased to MJ Hospital in his auto and he stated that P.W.1 informed him that her son stabbed his father in drunken condition.
P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and Bhumesh/LW3 came in his auto. In the cross- examination, he stated that the deceased was called as
Siranna but he does not know the real name. He dropped them in the hospital and returned back.
15.P.W.7-S.Kranthi Kiran is panch witness for scene of offence panchanama. He stated that on 20.12.2018 at about 2.00 pm scene of offence was conducted in their presence and police seized MO1-slippers, MO2-pillow, MO3-controlled and blood stained cement floor and panchanamw was drafted under Ex.P2 and rough sketch was prepared under ex.P3. It was suggested to him in the cross-examination that the blood stains were not mentioned as fresh and thus they never went to the house of P.W.1 and were not present at the time of preparing panchanama and signed the same in the police station after two or three days at the instance of Yesudas, but he denied the same.
16.P.W.8-Nimmal Suman is panch witness for inquest panchanama. He stated that on 20.12.2018 at about 10.00 am he along with Barrolla Shanker went to Government 12 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
Hospital, Armoor and inquest panchanama was conducted in their presence under Ex.P4. After completion of PME, MOs4 to 6 were also seized in their presence under Ex.P5 recovery of clothes panchanama. In the cross-examination, he stated that relatives of deceased P.Ws.1, 2, Prem, Jemis were present along with the police, when they went to the hospital. He further stated the name of scribe was not mentioned in Exs.P4 and P5. It was suggested that they signed on the side of the paper though there is place underneath the page. At the instance of Yesudas, they went to the hospital but he denied the same.
17.P.W.9 Kurakula Laxman is the VRO of Ankapoor. He along with LW13/Thoudu Srinivas, VRA went to Lalana vruddha
Ashramam on 21.12.2018 at 8.00 am, they found one person, on enquiry he stated his name as Ramesh and also confessed the guilt, he took out the knife from his possession and it is having blood stains. He further stated that after stabbing his father, he informed his brother that he killed his father and also handed over Samsung phone with two SIMs Jio and Idea.
Ex.P6 is admissible portion for recovery of the knife, Ex.P7 is admissible portion for recovery of cell phone, MO7 is knife,
MO8 is Samsung cell phone. In the cross-examination, he 13 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
stated that accused is working as cattle grazer at Lalana
Vruddha Ashramam and staying in the Ashramam. He further stated when accused picked out the knife from his waist his clothes were also sustained blood stains but his clothes were not seized and blood stains were found on the knife. It was suggested that MOs7 and 8 were planted by the police, he denied the same.
18.P.W.10 is Civil Assistant Surgeon working in Government
Community Health Center, Armoor. He received requisition from SHO, PS Armoor on 20.12.2018 at 2.00 pm and conducted autopsy at 2.25 pm and noted down the following anti mortem injuries: (1) stab injury over right side of chest 3x1cm cavity deep spindle shaped over inner aspect of right collar bone 9 cm above and right to manubrium sterni (2) stab injury over right side of chest 6x1.5 cm cavity deep 2 cm above and left to right nipple 10 cm away from mid line injuring (or) fracture of 3rd, 4th, 5th ribs piercing 2nd and 3rd intercostal space, injuring right pleura and right upper and middle lobe of lung with 200 ml of blood and blood clots in chest cavity, (3) stab injury over left side of chest 6x3cm cavity deep involving fracture of 9th and 10th ribs injuring left pleura and left lower lobe laceration with 200 ml of blood in 14 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
pleural cavity, (4) stab injury left elbow 6x3cm bone deep (5) stab injury over left zygomatic region 3x1cm bone deep (6) stab injury over left groin region 5x1.5x bone deep. He further stated that time of death is about 12 to 14 hours prior to postmortem examination. He preserved viscera for chemical analysis, after receiving chemical analysis report, he issued final report. The cause of death as per his best of knowledge was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple stab injuries. Ex.P8 is PME, Ex.P9 is FSL report dated 23.9.2019,
Ex.P10 is FSL report dated 5.3.2019, Ex.P11 is final opinion.
The injuries can be caused with MO7. But in the cross- examination, he stated that he can say that the injuries are caused with a sharp weapon but he cannot specifically say whether it is with knife or not.
19.P.W.11 is investigating officer who conducted entire investigation and filed charge-sheet.
20.When the accused is examined under Section 313 CrPC, he denied the offence and stated that he was working as cattle grazer in Lalana Vruddha Ashramam. His mother and Pastor
Yesudas were having illegal intimacy and they filed a false case against him to avoid his share in the property.
15 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
21.It is the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in a grave case of murder.
The prosecution examined the mother of the accused and also daughter-in-law of the deceased/P.W.2 as eyewitnesses to the incident apart from that they examined the auto driver/P.W.6 and P.Ws.3 and 4 who accompanied them to the hospital and the husband of P.W.2/P.W.5 as circumstantial evidence. The offence occurred on 19.12.2018 at 9.00 pm and immediately he was shifted to MJ Hospital, Armoor on their advice when they were trying to shift him to Nizamabad he died while crossing Ankapur village at about 11.30 pm on the same day and thus complaint was given at 12.30 hours. The scene of offence panchanama was also conducted at 2.00 pm on the same day and police examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses on the next day and conducted inquest and
PME report and seized the clothes of the deceased. They recorded the statement of P.W.5 on 25.12.2018. The confessional statement of the accused was also recorded on 21.12.2018 and forwarded all the material objects to the FSL and after receiving the final opinion, filed the charge-sheet.
22.The defence of the accused is that one Yesudasu is working as Pastor in the village and he was frequently coming 16 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
to the house of P.W.1 for performing the prayers for the recovery of the deceased, as such P.W.1 developed illegal intimacy with Yesudasu and he has done away with the life of the deceased through someone else, but both of them implicated the accused to knock away the entire property and it was supported by P.W.5 and P.W.2.
23.The counsel of the accused argued that there is no motive for the accused to kill her father, no elder person of the village was examined to prove the quarrel between the accused and his father. He further argued it is quite but common that when the accused was attacking the deceased,
P.Ws.1 and 2 should raise the cries but they never raised cries at the time of attack. The previous criminal history of the deceased was not proved. The witnesses from the surrounding houses were not examined as circumstantial witnesses. He mainly contended that P.W.2 completed her B.A. and working as Teacher, when her husband went to Dubai she also left to her parents house and she was not in the house of P.W.1 at the time of the incident. She came to the hospital but stated to the police at the instance of P.W.1 and her husband as above.
24.The counsel of the accused further argued as P.W.1 developed illegal intimacy with Pastor, some persons at his 17 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
instance killed her husband but she gave complaint against her son falsely as such it cannot be relied upon and the presence of P.W.2 is not established. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and the benefit is to be extended to him. He further contended though photographs under
Ex.P13 are filed and they are not supported by CD or negatives and the Photographer is also not examined, as such they cannot be relied upon and so also the call data particulars were not proved by examining the Nodal Officer. The cell phone seized from the accused does not pertain to him. Moreover, the knife and the mobile phone are commonly available in the market and thus they were not seized at the instance of the accused but planted by the police. He further contended that it is most improbable that accused who committed an offence on 19.12.2018 at about 9.30 pm was keeping knife in his waist till it was recovered by the police on 21.12.2018.
25.In the light of the above argument of the defence counsel, now it is for the court to analyze the evidence. The complainant is no other than the mother of the accused and is an eyewitness to the incident. She clearly stated that her elder son/accused stabber her husband with a knife brought by him and fled away with the knife. He was picking up quarrel with 18 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
her husband by demanding amount and also for not performing his marriage. He was addicted to drinking and not working and earning and thus no one came forward to marry him. Recently about one month back her second son married
P.W.2 and thus accused was insisting them to perform his marriage also. On the day of the incident he came to the house with a knife with an intention to kill her husband, picked up quarrel, stabbed him and caused multiple injuries and fled away and due to the injuries caused by the accused he died on the same day at about 11.30 pm. She and daughter-in-law who were present in the house tried to resist him when he was attacking her husband but he has thrown them and caused injuries and fled away immediately she raised cries and neighbours came and she informed to all of them that the injuries were caused by her son and she also mentioned the same in her complaint on the same day given at 12.30 hours, she deposed the same in the court on 11.2.2020.
26.The counsel of the accused mainly contended that either
P.W.1 or P.W.2 have not raised cries at the time of attacking, but both of them stated that they tried to resist him and he has thrown them away, therefore, the argument of the defence 19 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
counsel that they have not raised cries is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
27.The counsel of the accused stated that there was no motive for him to kill his father but P.W.1 clearly stated that he was demanding amount and also insisting them to perform the marriage as he was addicted to drinking and was not working and earning and no one came forward to marry him. Recently her second son also performed the marriage and thus out of frustration he brought a knife with him and killed her husband.
It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused came to the house, picked up quarrel and took out the knife from the house and stabbed his father in a fit of anger or in a grave and sudden provocation, he brought knife along with him with an intention to kill his father and it clearly shows that there is preparation and intention on his part and he also attempted to kill his father by causing multiple injuries and due to the injuries caused by him at 9.30 pm his father died on the same day at 11.30 pm and thus it cannot be ruled out that it is a premeditated murder.
28.The counsel of the accused stated that the elder persons of the village were not examined to prove the quarrel between the accused and his father. One Bhumesh was cited as 20 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
eyewitness. Even the accused stated that he was pacifying them whenever he picked up quarrel with his father but as he was in abroad for livelihood he was not examined before the court.
29.Regarding the illegal intimacy of P.W.1 with Yesudasu,
P.W.1 and her son P.W.5 denied the same and it was also suggested to the investigating officer. He also denied the same. It was admitted by the parties that one Yesudas was
Pastor in the village, P.W.1 and her husband were converted into Christianity and Yesudasu was coming to the house of
P.W.1 for performing the prayers. None of the witnesses stated regarding their illegal intimacy, the burden shifts on the accused, who came forward with his defence of illegal intimacy but he has not examined any witnesses nor adduced any evidence and he could not elicit the same from the witnesses of prosecution but simply stated in his 313 CrPC statement and further contended that he was falsely implicated to knock away their property.
30.The counsel of the accused disputed the presence of
P.W.2 at the time of the incident and contended that as her husband left to Dubai, she went to her parents house, she came to the hospital only after knowing the incident but 21 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
deposed falsely at the instance of P.W.1 and Yesudasu. P.Ws.1 and 2 consistently stated that they were present at the time of the incident. Even P.W.6 who shifted them in an auto also stated that P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and L.W.3 Bhumesh came in his auto.
P.W.8 also stated that relatives of the deceased P.Ws.1 and 2 -
Prem Kumar, Jemis were present when they went to the hospital to act as panchayatdars. P.W.11 also stated that
P.Ws.1 to 4 came to the police station to give complaint. It clearly shows that P.W.2 was present in the house of P.W.1 at the time of the incident went along with them to the hospital and then to the police station and thus her presence cannot be disputed. She has no motive to implicate the accused falsely.
31.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 eyewitnesses is supported by the evidence of P.W.3 Prem Kumar who rushed to their house immediately on hearing cries and shifted the deceased to the hospital. It was contended that he is the son of
Yesudasu but he worked in Hyderabad for four months returned to Ankapur village. P.W.4 Manglaram Jemis, brother of the deceased. He is a proper person to speak something about the illegal intimacy of P.W.1 and Yesudas but nothing was suggested to him regarding illegal intimacy. It was only suggested that P.W.1 and Yesudasu and P.W.5 conspired 22 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
together, killed deceased and thrown blame on the accused to knock away the property and he is a part of it but he denied the same.
32.In the confessional statement of the accused, he stated that immediately after stabbing his father he called his brother at Dubai and informed the same and P.W.5 in turn called to the cell phone of his mother, it was lifted by his wife and confirmed and on the same day at about 11.30 pm his father died and he came to Ankapur village on the next day. P.W.5 denied the suggestion of the accused that he along with Yesudasu and
P.W.1 conspired together, killed his father, thrown blame on the accused to knock away the property.
33.It was contended by the counsel of the accused that
P.Ws.1 and 2 have not stated regarding phone call of P.W.5 in their statements. Though the call data was collected, the concerned Nodal Officer is not examined. Admittedly, the SIM was in the name of Sunkari Vinod resident of Ankapur village,
Police have not examined him to know whether he handed over the SIM to the accused. It was argued by the counsel of the accused that P.W.5 improved his version and P.W.14 was not established properly.
23 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
34.The weapon of offence was seized from the accused on 21.12.2018. He took out from his waist and handed over the same but the accused contended that it was planted by the police and it was improbable for the accused to keep it with him for two days. The prosecution examined P.W.9. He stated regarding the recovery of MO7 under Ex.P6 and recovery of
MO8 under Ex.P7. It was suggested to him that he has acted as panch in several cases at the request of the police deposing falsely and the counsel of the accused argued that his evidence cannot be relied upon. He is working as VRO and there is no reason for him to depose against the accused. The confessional statement of the accused was recorded in his presence and the weapon of offence was seized at the instance of the accused.
35.The investigating officer sent all the material objects including knife to the FSL. P.W.10 stated about the injuries and also stated that injuries were caused with MO7 in his chief- examination but in the cross-examination he stated that he cannot say specifically whether the injuries were caused with the knife but they were caused with sharp weapon. The weapon of offence was also forwarded to him, it is for the
P.W.10 to say whether the said injuries were caused with the 24 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
said weapon or not, but he simply stated that they are caused with the sharp weapon and the medical evidence is in corroboration with the oral evidence of the eyewitnesses that
P.W.1 stabbed his father with a knife. In the light of evidence of P.W.10 before the court though P.W.11 has not filed the letter of advice, it can be taken up as minor lapse on the part of the investigation.
36.The counsel of the accused suggested to P.W.11 that the distance between the highway and scene of offence is 1 or 1 1/2 KM, none of the witnesses stated that they have seen the accused immediately after the offence. Admittedly the offence was committed at 9.30 pm. It was dark in the night as the accused immediately fled away from that place, no one came forward to say that they have seen him immediately after the offence.
37.The counsel of the accused argued that at the instance of
Yesudasu, P.W.1 deposed falsely. The son of the accused stabbed his father at 9.30 pm immediately he was shifted to the hospital at Armoor and again on their advise while they were trying to shift him to Nizamabad, he died at 11.30 pm while crossing Ankapur and they returned to Armoor and kept body at Government Hospital, Armoor, directly went to the 25 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
police station and gave complaint. At the time of giving complaint, the daughter-in-law of P.W.1, Mulugu Prem Kumar, son of Yesudas and Manglaram Jemis, brother of the deceased were present along with P.W.1 In the police station and the presence of Yesudas was not established as the complaint was given by her immediately after the death of her husband, It cannot be said that there were negotiations between P.W.1 and Yesudas and they conspired with her second son and
Yesudas to implicate the accused. The accused is no other than the elder son of the deceased. There is no reason for her to implicate him falsely. If at all she has given a false complaint immediately after the incident she might not have come forward to depose the same before the court two years after the incident. Thus there is no reason for the court to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are eyewitnesses to the incident. The prosecution is able to establish the intention on the part of the accused and also that the deceased died due to injuries caused by the accused as the accused brought knife along with him it is a premeditated murder. The evidence of the eyewitnesses was amply corroborated with the medical evidence and the evidence of other witnesses. The weapon of offence was also seized at the instance of accused, 26 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
therefore, the vague argument of the defence counsel that someone sent by Yesudas killed the deceased and to implicate the accused, P.W.1 falsely deposed cannot be accepted.
38.Considering the consistent version of P.Ws.1 and 2 with the corroborated evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and 6 who accompanied her immediately after the offence this court feels that the offence was committed by the accused in a pre- planned manner, the accused was addicted to drinking and occasionally working as cattle grazer in the Ashram and not earning and insisting his father to give amount for his drinking and also insisting his parents to perform his marriage when no one came forward to marry him he went to an extent of killing his father and also made an allegation of illegal intimacy against his mother, therefore, the court finds that he committed the offence under Section 302 IPC.
39.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty and is convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of June 2020.
SESSIONS JUDGE
27 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
40.The accused is produced from District Jail, Nizamabad.
When the accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence, he requested the court to reduce the sentence and further stated that he has not done the offence but was punished.
41.Considering the gravity of the offence and the manner of committing the offence, as it is not a rarest of rare case, court feels punishment of life imprisonment is appropriate for an offence under Setion 302 IPC and imposed a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, hence the accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer SI for one month. MOs 1 to 8 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of
June 2020.
Sessions Judge
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution: For Defence:
None PW1 : Smt.Manglaram Yellavva
PW2 : Smt.Manglaram Sathyavani PW3 : Sri Mulugu Prem Kumar 28 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
PW4 : Sri Manglaram Jemis PW5 : Sri Manglaram Rajpal PW6 : Sri Rodda Ramesh PW7 : Sri S.Kranthi Kiran PW8 : Sri Nimmala Suman PW9 : Sri Kurakula Laxman PW10:Dr.Sandeep Kumar, CAS PW11:Sri P.Raghavender, Inspector
Exhibits marked for Prosecution
Ex.P1Complaint by P.W.1 dated 20.12.2018
Ex.P2Scene of offence panchanama dated 20.12.2018
Ex.P3Rough sketch
Ex.P4Inquest panchanama dated 20.12.2018
Ex.P5Recovery panchanama dated 20.12.2018
Ex.P6Admissible portion in recovery of knife panchanama
Ex.P7Admissible portion in recovery of cell phone panchanama
Ex.P8PME dated 20.12.2018
Ex.P9FSL report dated 29.3.2019
Ex.P10FSL report dated 5.3.2019
Ex.P11Final opinion dated 12.8.2019
Ex.P12FIR dated 20.12.2018
Ex.P13Photographs (9)
Ex.P14Certificate under Section 65B of IT Act
Ex.P15Call detail Records dated 13.8.2019
Exhibits marked for Defence
NIL 29 / 30
SC 12 of 2020
MOs marked
MO1 Slippers
MO2 Pillow
MO3 controller and blood stained cement floor
MO4 Shirt
MO5 Banian
MO6 Lungi
MO7 Knife
MO8 Samsung cell phone
JUDGE
30 / 30