Page 1 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE: SURYAPET
(DATED THIS 9th DAY OF JANUARY, 2025)
PRESENT: SRI S.GOVERDHAN REDDY,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: SURYAPET
SESSIONS CASE No. 188 of 2019
IN
P.R.C.No. 2 of 2018
(ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODAD)
IN CRIME No.400/2017 (P.S. Kodad Town )
Name of the Station : The Circle Inspector of Police, House Officer Kodad Name of the Committal : Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Court Kodad. Name of the accused:
1. Gandu Vamshi Krishna S/o Narsaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ:Private Teacher N/o Huzurnagar, Presently at Shiridi Sai colony, Khammam Road Kodad Town.
2. Gandu Durga Bhavani W/o Vamshi Krishna, Age:23 years, Occ: House wife, N/o Huzurnagar, Presently at Shiridi Sai colony, Khammam Road Kodad Town
Offences charged : Under Section 302, 379 r/w 34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Judge : Found guilty for the offence u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC
Found not guilty for the offence u/s 379 r/w 34 IPC.
Sentence or order In the result, the A1 and A2 found guilty for the offence under
Page 2 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet
Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
Further the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 379 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C.
The A1 and A2 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed against them for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC. They requested to take lenient view.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no possibility of taking any lenient view as the punishment prescribed for the offence of murder u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC is death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Accordingly, the accused
No.1 and 2 are convicted u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C for the offence u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and they are
Page 3 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.500/- each. In default to undergo S.I for (6) months. The remand period if any undergone by the accused shall be given set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.
The accused are informed that an appeal lies to the Hon’ble
High Court for the State of
Telangana against the judgment and conviction passed by this court. It is also informed to the accused that if they have no means to prefer an appeal to the
Hon’ble High Court, a legal aid
counsel will be appointed on their behalf to prefer an appeal and accordingly cover sheet of contact address and phone number of the
Legal Service Authority is appended to this judgment.
The Mos 1 to 8 & 11 shall be returned to PW3 mother of the deceased and M.O.19 shall be returned to A1 and all other MOs and Unmarked non valuable property shall be destroyed after
Page 4 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet expiry of appeal time.
Whether the Accused : Yes. defended during trial? By Sri.A.Satish Kumar, Counsel for whom? Accused
N.B: Sri Kompally Lingaiah, Public Prosecutor has conducted the prosecution case.
J U D G M E N T
1. The Inspector of Police, Kodad Town has laid charge sheet against the accused for killing the deceased Madhavi on 20.11.2017 in
Kodad town of Suryapet District for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 379 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 20.11.2017 one K.Sathish filed complaint report in Police Station Kodad town stating that his marriage with Madhavi (deceased) performed on 11.10.2017 and on 20.11.2017 in the afternoon his wife and brother Naresh both went to
Kodad to fix stone in a ring. On the way in Ananthagiri village near
Anurag College his wife has taken scooty vehicle from Goutham who is known to his wife. Then his brother and his wife both went to Kodad on separate bikes and his wife went to the house of Aruna and his brother parked his bike near the house of Aruna and at 1.30 pm his wife dropped his brother in Nayanagar Kodad stating that she is going to her friend’s house Mounika and asked him to call him over the phone after one hour.
Page 5 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet
His wife has taken cell phone from his brother with No.8886572236. But thereafter his wife has not called him. In turn his brother also tried to call his wife but she did not give any response. Since there was no response in the evening at 6.00 pm he went to Kodad town Police Station. There he came to know that one woman died near HR School. Immediately his bother along with police went there and he identified the dead body as that of his sister-in-law. Immediately his brother informed him and he along with family members went to Shiridi Sai Colony, in Kodad to the house of Devarapally Surender Reddy and there they saw the dead body of his wife lying on cot with chunni around her neck. He came to know that, in the said portion Vamshi Krishna (A1) and his wife Durga Bhavani (A2) are staying. Hence, his wife was killed by both the accused by calling her to their house with pre plan. Hence he requested to take action against the accused.
3. Basing on the above complaint Circle-Inspector of Police,
Kodad town registered a case in Cr.No.400/2019 u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and issued express FIR to all concern and took up the case for further investigation. Then she recorded the statements of LW1 & 2 and visited the scene of offence and preserved the scene by posting the guard. On 21.11.2017 she again visited the scene of offence and conducted its panchanama in the presence of mediators and prepared rough sketch of the scene and seized white colour chunni, Nokia cell phone, white colour
Page 6 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet chappal, one hand bag grey and white colour containing one handkerchief, one comb, one white colour ear phone set, one hair clip, one sticker packet, lip balm and two 10 rupees coins belonging to the deceased.
4. Thereafter she recorded the statement of LW3 to 7 and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and send the dead body to government hospital, Kodad for Post Mortem Examination. Since doctors were not available the dead body was shifted to government hospital Huzurnagar and the doctors preserved the hyoid bone and viscera contents of the deceased for the purpose of analysis. Then she recorded the statement of LW8. Then she went to the government hospital, Huzurngar and after conducting Post Mortem Examination she seized pink colour top, pink colour pant, underwear in the presence of mediators.
5. On 23.11.2017 at 10.00 hours LW9 brought A1 and A2 to the police stating that they confessed their offence to him along with gold
Mangalasuthram, silver anklet chains, gold ring, ATM Card, PAN card, ID card and net cash of the deceased. On that she took the A1 and A2 into custody and secured the presence of mediators and conducted confession panchanama and seized black colour purse of the deceased containing one gold pusthelathadu with gold pusthe, one gold ring, two silver anklets, ID card, PAN card, ATM card and net cash of Rs.930/-
Page 7 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet belong to the deceased and Samsung cell phone. She also seized LYF company cell phone from A2. After completion of confession and seizure panchanama the accused were remanded to judicial custody.
6. On 24.11.2017 she recorded the statement of LW10 and seized Karbon mobile phone then she recorded statement of LW11 and collected gold ring and one green stone from him. All the seized material objects were forwarded to FSL through JFCM Kodad for analysis.
7. Subsequently LW22 took up the case for further investigation and after completion of investigation and obtaining material documents and objects, he filed the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Kodad.
8. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad took cognizance for the offences under Section 302 and 379 r/w 34 against the
Accused.
9. On appearance of Accused learned Magistrate furnished copies of case documents to them as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. After following due procedure, the case is committed to the then Principal
Sessions Court, Nalgonda vide PRC No. 2 of 2018 since the alleged
offences under Section 302 is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions and in turn the Principal Sessions Court, Nalgonda made over the case to this Court (the then II Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Suryapet) for disposal according to law.
Page 8 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet
10. On appearance of accused and upon hearing both sides charges for the offences u/s 379 and 302 r/w 34 IPC framed against
Accused under Section 228 (1) Cr.P.C, read over and explained to the accused, and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
11. To prove the prosecution case, prosecution examined PW1 to 15 and marked Ex.P1 to P12 and Mos 1 to 19 on behalf of the prosecution.
12. After closure of prosecution evidence incriminating material brought on record has been confronted to accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C, when questioned the accused denied it as false and on behalf of the accused no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.D1 was marked in the statement of
PW3.
13. Heard arguments of both the counsel and also perused the written arguments filed by the learned Public Prosecutor and defence counsel.
14. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that to prove the charges leveled against the accused the prosecution has examined PW1 to 15 and prosecution has established that the deceased was killed in the house of the accused and there is no chance to enter into the house of the accused without the consent of the accused. He submitted that the
Page 9 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet deceased and A1 are having relationship even prior to their marriages and even after their marriage they continued the same and as such deceased went to the house of the accused on the date of incident and there she was killed by both the accused. Hence the accused are liable to be convicted.
15. Per contra the learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against them beyond reasonable doubt of the court. The prosecution has relied on mainly on the evidence ofPW4 to PW6. PW6 deposed that A1 and A2 came to him and confessed their offence. But PW6 is not known to A1 and A2. Therefore the extra judicial confession cannot be taken into consideration. The evidence of PW4 & 5 cannot be believed and there is no eye witness in this case thus the prosecution failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt of the court and both the accused are liable to be acquitted.
16. Now the points that arise for determination are:
1) “Whether the prosecution is able bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt?”
2) To what relief?
17. POINT: To prove the death of the deceased as homicidal the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW12 the doctor who conducted Post Mortem Examination over the dead body of the
Page 10 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet deceased. PW12 deposed that on 21.11.2017 he received requisition from Police Station Kodad to conduct Post Mortem Examination over the dead body of P.Madhavi. Accordingly he along with LW17 have conducted Post Mortem Examination on the same day from 2.35 pm to 4.00 pm and found the following injuries.
1. Transverse ligature mark of 24x1.5 cm present at middle part of neck
2. Two contusions present at right jaw area of 2x1 cm and 2x1.5 cm
3. Three contusions present under left jaw of 34x2 cm, 2x1 cm and 1x0.5 cm
4. Two abrasions present at upper part of chest below right collar bone area of 3x2 cm and 3x1cm
The above injuries are anti-mortem in nature
On dissection of neck he found the following injuries:
1. Contusion of sternocmebomastoid muscle and pharynx present.
2. No fracture of hyoid bone or thyroid present
18. He deposed that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge due to asphyxia caused by anti-mortem strangulation. He admitted having issued Post Mortem Examination report under Ex.P9.
19. He was cross examined but nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony. A careful perusal of the evidence of PW12 it is found that the deceased met with homicidal death and her death is not natural death.
Page 11 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet
20. PW1 is complainant and husband of the deceased. He deposed that on 20.11.2017 he along with LW2 went to Kodad to fix stone in her ring. On the way at Kodad one Goutham provided scooty moped and both of them reached Kodad town. The said scooty was parked near the house of one Aruna who is known person to his wife and both of them started to get the fixing of stone in her ring. On the way his wife stopped stating that she would meet her friend Mounika and she had taken the mobile phone of LW2. Accordingly his wife went to the house of Mounika. After half an hour at about 2.00 pm LW2 made a phone call to his wife but she did not lift his phone call even after 2 to 3 times when he called. Immediately LW2 informed him about the same and he also made phone call to his wife 2 or 3 times but she did not lift his phone calls. Immediately he informed the same to LW3 & 4 requesting them to enquire. LW2 was searched for his wife in Kodad town and he could not found his wife. Therefore he went to Kodad town Police Station and there he came to know that one woman was died in the ground floor portion of
LW5. Then LW2 went along with the police to the scene of offence and there he identified the dead body as that of wife of PW1 and she was lying on a cot and Chunni around her neck. Immediately LW2 informed him and accordingly he along with his family members went and saw the dead body of his wife and filed complaint report under Ex.P1.
Page 12 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet
21. In the cross examination PW1 deposed that he has seen A1 for the first time in mortuary room after the incident. He deposed that police were present near mortuary when he saw A1. He deposed that scene of offence house is not surrounded by other houses.
22. From the above evidence of PW1 it appears that PW1 has no acquaintance with A1 till he has seen him near the mortuary after the incident for the first time.
23. PW2 is brother of PW1 he also deposed more or less on the same lines of PW1. In the cross examination he deposed that he does not know A1. He saw A1 in the Police Station at the time of filing complaint. He also deposed that scene of offence house is not surrounded by other houses.
24. After careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 & 2 it is found that both the witnesses did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused, except seeing the dead body of the deceased in the house of the accused.
25. PW3 is mother of the deceased and she deposed that on 20.11.2017 PW1 made phone call to them at 6.00 pm and informed her daughter was died in the house of LW5 in Kodad town. On the same day evening she along with her husband came to Kodad and went to the house of LW5 and saw the dead body of her daughter in the ground floor portion of LW5 on a cot with Chunni around her neck. Thereafter they
Page 13 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet along with PW1 went to Police Station at 10.00 pm and PW1 lodged complaint. She deposed that her deceased daughter did her engineering in Anurag college, one Vamshi Krishna (A1) also student of same college.
Even after marriage, the said Vamshi Krishna used to make phone calls to her daughter. On the way to Kodad along with LW2 her daughter went to A1 to inform him not to make phone calls here afterwards to her. A2 is wife of A1. She deposed that both A1 and A2 killed her daughter with a
Chunni thinking that she is coming in their way of life.
26. In the cross examination PW3deposed that she did not state
before the police as in Ex.D1. In Ex.D1 PW3 sated to the police that after
completion of engineering by the deceased, she is talking to A1 as such they have seen that cell phone is not accessible to her daughter. In the cross examination she further deposed that she does not know A1. She saw A1 near Police Station on the date of incident for the first time.
27. It is evident from the evidence of PW3 that on the way to
Kodad along with LW2 her daughter went to Vamshi Krishna (A1) to inform him not to make phone calls here afterwards to her and she deposed that A2 is wife of A1 and both of them killed her daughter thinking that she is coming in the way. As a matter of fact PW3 is not an eye witness to the incident and she has not even deposed who informed her that her daughter along with LW2 went to the house of Vamshi
Krishan (A1) to inform him not to make phone calls here afterwards to
Page 14 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet her. Further in her cross examination she deposed that she does not know A1 and she saw A1 near Police Station on the date of incident for the first time.
28. PW4 is owner of the house where A1 and A2 were staying as tenants in one of the portion. He deposed that he is resident of Shiridi Sai colony, Kodad town. There are three portions in ground floor. The accused persons are tenants in eastern side ground floor portion of his house and they joined as tenants in his house one month prior to the incident. He has no previous acquaintance with the accused. On 20.11.2017 at about 1.30 pm he came to his house for lunch and parked his motor bike in front of rented portion of accused and went to his portion situated on first floor. After having lunch and rest, he came down to ground floor at 5.00 pm and noticed that beside his motor bike, another scooty was parked. The window of portion of accused was found opened and through window he observed that a woman was lying on cot chunni around her neck. When he said “Hello” no one responded then he noticed that the main door of the accused was found locked. Then he came back to the window and observed that the said woman was in unconscious as such observing the situation he made phone call to the
Police Station Kodad town and police came to his house along with PW2.
Thereafter the persons concerned to the woman also arrived. He learnt the name of the deceased is Madhavi. The persons gathered there were
Page 15 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet discussing that A1 had illicit relationship with Madhavi and both A1 and
A2 killed the deceased.
29. In the cross examination he deposed that he informed to police through phone after seeing the dead body at 5.00 or 5.30 pm. The dead body was shifted at about 8.00 pm from the house of the accused.
He admitted that he did not state to the police that he said Hello and no one responded. All the tenants were present in their portions on the date of incident.
30. Pw5 is tenant of PW4 and neighbour of accused. She deposed that the present incident occurred about 6 years back. On the date of incident at about 1.30 pm she was present in front of her house.
At that time A1 was talking on the phone and telling the address to his house to a woman who was coming on a scooty. The woman arrived to the home on scooty and A1 went inside of his house along with said woman. She went into her house. At about 6.00 pm police came and called them as such she came out then they entered into the house of the accused and found dead body of the said woman lying on a cot with chunni around her neck. The persons gathered there whispering that A1 and said woman are having illicit relationship. The name of the deceased is Madhavi. The deceased is none other than woman who came on the scooty during afternoon hours.
Page 16 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet
31. In the cross examination PW5 deposed that there is another portion between her portion and accused portion. The accused was staying in his portion as tenants since 2 months prior to the incident. She further asserted that the woman came there at about 1.30 pm. She deposed that she saw A1 talking over the phone from a distance of 2 meters. At 6.00 pm the owner informed about the incident to all the occupants of the building. Police opened the door of the scene house and entered into the house from north side entrance. She denied a suggestion that she did not see A1 talking over the phone to deceased on the date of incident and not seen the deceased coming on scooty.
32. PW6 is the witness to whom A1 and A2 made extra judicial confession. PW6 deposed that on 23.11.2017 at about 10.30 am A1 and
A2 came to him as he used to act as elderly person. Both of them confessed before him that on 20.11.2017 A1 and A2 killed the deceased by strangulation. Accordingly he took them to the Kodad town Police
Station and handed over them at 12.00 noon. He deposed that A2 also shown video recorded by her to him (A2 recorded video of A1 and deceased in the said cell phone) and both the accused shown Mo.1 to 9.
33. In the cross examination PW6 deposed that he does not have acquaintance with A1 and A2 prior to this incident.
Page 17 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet
34. Pw7 did not support the prosecution case as such she was declared hostile as A2 is her daughter. In the cross examination she denied a suggestion that she stated to the police as in Ex.P2.
35. Pw8 deposed that he is running jewellery shop in the name and style of Annapurna Jewellery in Kodad town. On 20.11.2017 at 1.00 pm a woman came to his shop on scooty go get fix a stone in her gold ring. He stated that it will take one hour time as such the said woman handed over the gold ring and stone for repair purpose. But on that day said woman did not come to his shop to take delivery of ring. After four days police during search came to his shop and shown photographs of woman and asked him whether the said woman has given any ring to him. He identified the photographs as the woman who came to his shop and replied positively to the police. The police have recovered the said ring along with stone from his shop i.e. Mo.11. Witness is confronted with the photographs of the dead body of the deceased and witness identified the same woman came to his shop and handed over MO.11.
36. In the cross examination he deposed that he does not have prior acquaintance with the deceased. Deceased alone came to his shop. Deceased came to his shop on a scooty but he cannot say colour of the scooty.
37. After careful perusal of the evidence of material witnesses the prosecution mainly relied on evidence of PW4 to PW6. PW4 is owner
Page 18 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet of the house where A1 and A2 are staying as tenants. PW5 is neighbour of the accused and tenant of PW4. Since the present case depend upon the circumstantial evidence it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the chain of circumstances to point out the guilt towards the accused and except the accused no other person is responsible for the death of the deceased.
38. In support of their contention the learned Public Prosecutor relied on the following judgments.
1. 2017(2) ALT(Crl.) 289 (DB) (A.P) in the case of Maskoori
Srinivas vs. State of A.P wherein the Hon'ble High Court of A.P held at para No.16 as follows.
“16) ….. Since A.1 was the husband and an inmate of the house along with the deceased, the facts relating to her death and the reason for his abscondance were especially within his knowledge and therefore, he owe a responsibility under Sec.106 of Evidence
Act to divulge them which he failed. Considering all these, the trial
Court rightly found him guilty of the charges under Sections 302, 379, 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.”
2. 2077 (21) ALT (Crl.) 388 (DB) (AP) in the case of Muddula
Kurma Chinna Rajanna (A1) vs. State of A.P wherein the Hon'ble High
Court of A.P held at para No.27 as follows:
“27: ….. If somebody killed the deceased, they would have buried the dead body somewhere else or buried the dead body where they killed the deceased. When once a recourse is in the exclusive
Page 19 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet possession of A1, the dead body was found in the said premises and if remained like that more than 10 days, it cannot be believed that the accused had no opportunity to see the traces of digging pit and new earth after burying the dead body. In the absence of any explanation from A1 that others have access to the scene of offence, an inference can safely be drawn that A1 was responsible for the death of the deceased and he also screened the evidence by burying the dead body. The Post Mortem Examination report given by PW16 clearly established that the death of deceased was due to injury on the neck and it is homicidal death.”
39. In the present case the version of the prosecution is that on the date of incident i.e. on 20.11.2017 the deceased and PW2 went to
Kodad to fix stone in ring and on the way deceased went to the house of one Aruna and she dropped PW2 in Nayanagar and asked him to call after some time. Thereafter PW2 called the deceased but she has not given any reply as such he has informed the same to PW1 who is husband of the deceased. He also tried to contact the deceased but there was no response from the deceased. Since there was no response from the deceased PW2 went to the Police Station and there he came to know that one woman died in the house of PW4.
40. From there PW2 along with police went to the house of PW4 and saw the dead body and identified the dead body as that of his sister- in-law and wife of PW1 and chunni was around the neck and she was lying dead on the cot.
Page 20 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet
41. To prove the factum that the dead body of the deceased was found in the premises of the accused, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW4 who is owner of the house and PW5 another tenant of
PW4 and neighbours of the accused.
42. Pw4 is owner of the accused and he deposed that on 20.11.2017 he came to his house at 1.30 pm to have lunch and after having lunch and rest he came down to ground floor at 5.00 pm and found that scooty was parked besides his motorcycle. He also observed that window portion of the accused was opened and through window he observed that a woman was lying on a cot with chunni around her neck and the main door of the accused was found locked. Observing the situation he informed to police Kodad town and police came there along with PW2. Then he came to know the name of the deceased is Madhavi.
It is elicited from the evidence of PW4 that the accused persons are tenants in eastern side of ground floor portion of PW4. In the cross examination PW4 asserted that the accused occupied the portion in his house one month before the incident.
43. Pw5 is another tenant of PW4 and she also supported prosecution case saying that she is the tenant of PW4 in ground floor portion beside the portion of accused. On the date of incident at about 1.30 pm she was present in front of her house at that time A1 was talking over the phone and telling address of his house to a woman who was
Page 21 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet coming on a scooty and the woman arrived on scooty and A1 went into his house along with the said woman. At about 6.00 pm police came and called them as such she came out. Then they entered into the house of the accused and found the dead body of the said woman lying on a cot and the chunni around her neck. The said woman is none other than the woman who came on scooty at 1.30 pm in the afternoon hours. In the cross examination PW5 further asserted that the accused was staying in his portion as tenant since 2 months prior to the incident. A woman came there at about 1.30 pm. She further asserted that she saw the accused talking over phone from a distance of 2 meters. Police opened the door of the scene house and entered into the house from north side entrance.
44. The evidence of PW4 & 5 categorically indicate that accused was staying as tenant in the house of PW4 as on the date of incident. It is further elicited from the evidence of PW4 that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused lying on a cot with chunni around her neck.
45. The evidence of Pw5 further corroborated the evidence of
PW4 saying that the accused was tenant of PW4 and she also staying in the same premises as neighbour of the accused. She further deposed that on the date of incident at 1.30 hours she saw A1 talking over phone and telling address to a woman who is coming on a scooty and after she came A1 and the said woman went into his house and at 6.00 pm police
Page 22 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet came and called them as such she came out and saw the dead body and she further deposed that the deceased is none other than the woman who came on scooty during afternoon hours. The PW4 also deposed that he has seen one scooty parked besides his vehicle.
46. Pw1 and 3 along with family members came to the Kodad town, on knowing about the death of the deceased and they saw the dead body in the house of the accused. PW2 also supported the said evidence that he saw the dead body on a cot in the house of the accused.
However there was a discussion among the gathered people that A1 and deceased were having illegal intimacy as such they killed the deceased.
All these witnesses i.e. Pw1 to 5 were cross examined by the learned defence counsel but nothing was elicited to discredit their testimony so far as the seen the dead body of the deceased by them in the house of the accused.
47. In view of the above facts and circumstances the prosecution established the factum that the dead body was found in the house of the accused in Kodad town with chunni around her neck.
48. Apart from the above evidence the prosecution also relied on evidence of Pw6 to whom accused alleged to have made extra judicial confession stating that they have killed the deceased on 20.11.2017 and they have also shown MO.1 to 9 belonging to the deceased. However in the cross examination PW6 deposed that he does not have acquaintance
Page 23 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet with A1 and A2 prior to this incident. But he deposed that approximately he has attended 50 panchayats as elder. It cannot be expected that the accused would confess their offence to a stranger though he is an elder in the locality. Normally, without knowing the elder person no accused would go to him and confess their offence. Normally the accused would go to the known persons who have influence with the police so that they could help him out from the harassment of the police. But in the present case
PW6 clearly admitted that he does not have acquaintance with A1 and A2 prior to this incident.
49. On this aspect the learned defence counsel relied on the the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Chourasia vs The
State Of Bihar wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para NO.5 as follows:
“5. As far as extrajudicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extrajudicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to
Page 24 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility.”
50. In the present case also the accused alleged to have made extra judicial confession to PW6 who does not have acquaintance with the accused prior to the incident. Therefore it is not safe to rely on the sole evidence of PW6 to base the conviction of the accused for the charges leveled against them.
51. However the prosecution has placed heavy reliance on evidence of PW4 & 5 who have seen the dead body of the deceased in the house of the accused more particularly PW5 has seen arriving of a woman to the house of the accused on a scooty and after the death of the deceased she went inside the house of the accused in the evening hours on the date of incident and saw the dead body on a cot with chunni around her neck and she asserted that the deceased is none other than the woman who came on scooty during the afternoon hours. Therefore the evidence of PW4 & 5 clearly indicate that on the date of incident in the afternoon at 1.30 pm the deceased came to the house of the accused.
52. At this stage it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW15 the Scientific Officer FSL. She had examined the video recorded in the cell phone and the said video was displayed at the time of recording the
Page 25 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet evidence of PW13, at the instance of the learned counsel for the accused (in camera). When the said video displayed in camera A1 and deceased were having sexual intercourse.
53. PW14 is the Assistant Director of TS FSL Hyderabad and he analyzed the conversation between A1 and the deceased and it was also displayed in the court hall at the time of recording his evidence (in camera). This conversation also discloses that A1 and deceased were talking over the phone. These facts indicate that A1 and deceased having prior acquaintance.
54. Further nothing was elicited to discredit the evidence of PW4 & 5 that on the date of incident deceased has not come to the house of
A1. Therefore the prosecution clearly established the factum that the deceased came to the house of A1 and thereafter her dead body was found in the house of A1. Further there is no much time gap between the arrival of the deceased to the house of accused and seeing the dead body in his house on the same day in the evening hours by the police
PW4, PW5 and PW1 to 3.
55. Further there is no evidence to show that in the intermittent time some third party entered into the house of the accused and killed the deceased for gain. In absence of said evidence all the circumstances pointing towards the accused that except the accused no other person is responsible for the death of the deceased. PW5 is the person who has
Page 26 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet last seen the deceased coming to the house of the accused in the afternoon at 1.30 pm and at 6.00 pm she saw the dead body of the deceased on a cot with chunni around her neck in the house of the accused and this evidence was not impeached by the learned defence counsel in her cross examination.
56. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the accused is not responsible for the death of the deceased a as there is a time gap between the death and arrival of the deceased as prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances and last seen theory.
57. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the accused relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Randeep Singh @ Rana vs The State Of Haryanawherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held at para No.12.1 as follows:
“The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.”
58. The learned counsel for the accused relied on another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Darshan Singh vs.
State of Punjabwherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para No.37 as follows:
“ Seen in this background, we need not go further and consider the evidence qua other circumstances sought to be proved by the
Page 27 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet prosecution since the failure to prove a single circumstance cogently can cause a snap in the chain of circumstances. There cannot be a gap in the chain of circumstances. When the conviction is to be based on circumstantial evidence solely, then there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances. If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. If some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”
59. The learned counsel for the accused relied on another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Randeep Singh @
Rana vs The State Of Haryanawherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para No.30 as follows:
“ We may hasten to clarify that the fact of last seen should not be weighed in isolation or be segregated from the other evidence led by the prosecution. The last seen theory should rather be applied taking into account the case of the prosecution in its entirety. Hence, the
Courts have to not only consider the factum of last seen, but also have to keep in mind the circumstances that preceded and followed from the point of the deceased being so last seen in the presence of the accused.”
60. The learned counsel for the accused also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jabir vs The State of
Uttarakhand wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para No.24 as follows:
“… It is well-settled by this Court that it is not prudent to base the conviction solely on "last seen theory". "Last seen theory" should be applied taking into consideration the case of the prosecution in its
Page 28 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet entirety and keeping in mind the circumstances that precede and follow the point of being so last seen.”
61. In the present case the evidence of PW4 & 5 clearly indicate that on the date of incident in the afternoon the deceased came to the house of the accused and in the evening hours the dead body of the deceased was found on a cot in the house of the accused with chunni around her neck. PW5 has last seen the deceased coming to the house of the accused on a scooty in the afternoon and in the evening she again saw the dead body of the deceased on a cot and she stated that the deceased is none other than the woman who came on scooty during afternoon hours.
62. In view of the above circumstances the prosecution has established that the dead body was found in the house of the accused and accused was very much present in the house on the date of incident.
Therefore the burden shifts on the accused to explain the reasons for the death of the deceased in pursuance of Section 106 of Evidence Act.
63. But the accused has not given any explanation for the death of the deceased except saying at the time of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C that “on 20.11.2017 Madhavi (deceased) came to his house, thereafter they both went into his house and spoke for some time. At that time his wife is not present in the house. 10 minutes thereafter his wife came followed by one person. Seeing the said person Madhavi got afraid and
Page 29 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet deceased told them that he is her brother-in-law. The moment he entered into the house, he spoke rashly and they both quarreled, at that time he along with his wife went out of the house and came back to their house after half an hour and saw the dead body of the deceased on a cot. On seeing the same he got scared and he along with his wife went to the
Police Station and informed about the incident.” This is one of the circumstance which corroborate the evidence of PW4 and PW5. This explanation of A1 during the examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C clearly indicate that on 20.11.2017 the deceased came to his house.
Further A1 also admitted to question No.20 that the deceased came to his house. In view of the above facts and circumstances the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused is not applicable to the present set of facts.
64. The prosecution also examined Pw9 who is the panch for the scene of offence and inquest panchanama and he deposed that on 21.11.2017 police conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P4 and seized rold gold bangles, nose stick, pair of gold jumkies, silver mettelu, cell phone etc MO.13 is Nokia cell phone.
65. He further deposed that police also conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased at Government
Hospital, Huzurnagar and police seized her wearing clothes MO.12.
Page 30 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet
Ex.A5 is the scene report and Ex.P6 is seizure panchanama relating to
Mo.12.
66. Pw10 is panch for scene of offence and he deposed that on 21.11.2017 police called him to the scene of offence situated at the house of PW4 and conducted its panchanama.
67. PW11 is panch for confession and he deposed that on 23.11.2017 police Kodad called them to Police Station and at that time A1 and A2 were in the custody of the police. At the request of police firstly they enquired A1 and he confessed his offence. However the confession of the accused in presence of police is inadmissible.
68. PW15 is the investigating officer she deposed with regard to her investigation. Through PW15 the prosecution marked MO.19 Hero
Motorcycle bearing No.TS-29-A-7053 seized from A1; it is in the police custody and the learned defence counsel raised objection for marking the same. This motorcycle neither involved in the crime nor shown by the prosecution that A1 has taken the deceased on this motorcycle.
69. After careful perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses the prosecution has proved the charge u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC against the accused that on 20.11.2017 the deceased came to the house of accused and thereafter her dead body was found in their house in the evening hours. Since the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused it is incumbent on the accused to explain the
Page 31 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet reasons for the death of the deceased. On behalf of the accused he has not given any reasons for the death of the deceased. But he has stated during the course of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C that on 20.11.2017 the deceased came to his house and at that time he was present in his house and his wife was not present. After arrival of the deceased A1 and deceased spoke for some time and after 10 minutes his wife came followed by one person and the said person spoke rashly and on seeing the said person the deceased got scared and she introduced him as her brother-in-law. Then he started quarrelling with the deceased then A1 and
A2 went outside of the house and they came back after half an hour and saw the dead body lying on the cot. This explanation is not appears to be correct so far as one person came to his house and spoke to them rashly and he quarreled with the deceased and A1 and A2 went outside of the house. Because brother-in-law of the deceased is PW2. PW2 also came to the scene of offence along with police but on his own he has not come to the house of the accused. Because in the cross examination PW2 deposed that he does not know A1 and he saw A1 in the Police Station at the time of filing complaint. Further he denied a suggestion that the deceased introduced him to the A1 and A2 in shivering manner and after seeing him A1 and A2 ran away from the scene of offence and he informed to PW1 about this incident. For the said reasons prosecution has proved all the circumstances which point out towards the accused
Page 32 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet only and except the accused no other person is responsible for the death of the deceased and both the accused have committed the said offence with common intention to get rid of the deceased from their life.
70. Whereas the prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 379 r/w 34 IPC against the A1 and A2, therefore they are liable to be acquitted for the said charge. Accordingly the point is answered.
71. In the result, the A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. Further the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 379 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9 th day January, 2025.
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, SURYAPET
72. The accused No.1 and 2 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed against them for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC. The accused No.1 stated that he is having two small children aged about 6 years and 4 years respectively and his mother suffering with blood cancer and except him there is nobody to look after her and requested to take a lenient view.
73. Further A2 stated that she is having two small children and her mother-in-law has been brought to the house who is suffering with
Page 33 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet blood cancer and the doctors informed that there is no guarantee of her life, as such she requested to take lenient view.
74. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no possibility of taking any lenient view as the punishment prescribed for the offence of murder u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC is death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
75. Accordingly, the accused No.1 and 2 are convicted u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C for the offence u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In default to undergo S.I for (6) months. The remand period if any undergone by the accused shall be given set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.
76. The accused are informed that an appeal lies to the Hon’ble
High Court for the State of Telangana against the judgment and conviction passed by this court. It is also informed to the accused that if they have no means to prefer an appeal to the Hon’ble High Court, a legal aid counsel will be appointed on their behalf to prefer an appeal and accordingly cover sheet of contact address and phone number of the
Legal Service Authority is appended to this judgment.
77. The Mos 1 to 8 & 11 shall be returned to PW3 mother of the deceased and M.O.19 shall be returned to A1 and all other MOs and
Page 34 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet
Unmarked non valuable property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9thday January, 2025.
SD/-
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
SURYAPET
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
PW.1 LW1 P.Satheesh Complainant and circumstantial witness PW.2 LW2 P.Naresh Circumstantial witness and brother of PW1 PW.3 LW3 P.Venkata Ramanamma Circumstantial witness and mother of deceased PW.4 LW5 D.Surender Reddy Circumstantial witness and house owner of accused PW.5 LW6 G.Laxmi Narsamma Circumstantial witness and neighbour of accused PW.6 LW9 P.Thirupaiah Witness for extra judicial confession of accused PW.7 LW10 Y.Padma Circumstantial witness and mother of A2 PW.8 LW11 K.Madhusudhan Rao Circumstantial witness PW.9 LW12 A.Venkateshwarlu Panch for scene, seizure and inquest panchanama PW.10 LW13 K.Srilaxmi Panch for scene, seizure and inquest panchanama PW.11 LW14 K.Pitchaiah Panch for confession and recovery of A1 and A2 PW.12 LW16 Dr.B.Sridhar Conducted autopsy PW.13 LW K.Anjana TSFSL Officer PW.14 LW K.Gnaneshwar Rao TSFSL Officer PW.15 LW21 G.Rajitha I.O and arrested A1 and A2.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
-None-
Page 35 of 35 S.C.No.188 of 2019 on the file of Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 Complaint report Ex.P2 Portion of 161 CrP.C Statement of PW7 Ex.P3 Bunch of photographs of deceased Ex.P4 Scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch Ex.P5 Inquest report Ex.P6 Seizure panchanama Ex.P7 Admissible portion of confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 Ex.P8 Admissible portion of confession cum seizure panchanama of A2 Ex.P9 Post Mortem Examination report Ex.P10 FSL report DT:30.12.2022 Ex.P11 FIR Ex.P12 FSL report DT: 8.2.2018
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 Relevant portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:
MO.1 Gold pusthela chain with gold pusthe MO.2 Gold ring with “D” MO.3 Cash of Rs.930/- MO.4 One pair of silver anklets MO.5 Black coloured purse MO.6 ID card of the deceased MO.7 PAN card of deceased MO.8 ATM card MO.9 Cell phone make of LYF of A2 MO.10 Cell phone of PW7 MO.11 Gold ring and green stone MO.12 Clothes of the deceased MO.13 Cell phone MO.14 Hand bag MO.15 Ear Phones MO.16 Kerchief MO.17 Pair of chappals MO.18 Samsung mobile phone with Airtel G4 SIM MO.19 Herohonda motorcycle bearing No.TS-29-A-7053
SD/-
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
SURYAPET