IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER SCs/STs (PoA) ACT-CUM-VIII ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE AT
NIZAMABAD
Wednesday, the 13 th day of February 2019
Present:- Sri S. Nagarjuna, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad
SESSIONS CASE No.132 of 2017
(Cr.No.350/2016 of PS Armoor) 1Name of the complainantInspector of Police, P.S. Armoor 2Name of the accusedA1:Gouda Devendar @ Yellaiah @ Bellari S/o Gouda Laxmaiah, aged 20 years, caste Kurma, Occ: Coolie, native of Narsupalli, Medak, now R/o near the SR college, Armoor. A2:Orsu Saibaba @ Sailoo S/o Ramulu, aged 19 years, caste Waddera, Occ: Coolie, R/o Santoshnagar, Waddera Colony, Armoor A3:Shaik Mohammed S/o Habeeb, aged 27 years, caste Muslim, Occ: wall painterR/oRangacharinagar, Armoor.
3 Offences chargedUnder sections 302 and 379 r/w 34 of the IPC 4 Plea of the accused Not guilty 5 Finding of the Judge A3 not guilty, whereas A1 and A2 found guilty 6 Prosecution conducted by Sri S. Sashikaran Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad 7 Accused defended bySri R. Ganga Prasad, Advocate appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, Nizamabad.
8 Sentence or order The accused Nos 1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences u/ss 302 and 379 r/w 34 of the IPC and they are convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for LIFE for the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 of the IPC and also sentenced to undergo RI 2 SC 132-2017 for a period of two years for the offence punishable u/s 379 of the IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.The remand period undergone by them during enquiry and trial shall be set off u/s 428 of the Cr.P.C. MOs 1 to 13 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. However, accused No.3 is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. and he is set at liberty. The Bail bond of the accused No. 3 and his sureties shall be inforce for a period of six months from today.
This case coming on 4-02-2018 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Sashikaran Reddy, Addl. P.P. for the State; and of Sri R. Ganga Prasad, Advocate appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for the accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Hon’ble Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.Sri K. Seetharam, Inspector of Police, Armoor Police Station, has fled charge-sheet in Cr.No.350/2016 of Armoor Police Statioon, registered for the trial of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 379 r/w 34 of the IPC. The learned Judl.
Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, who took cognizance of the case u/
ss 302 and 379 r/w 34 of the IPC against the accused, has committed the same to the Court of Sessions by his order in PRC
No.8/2017 dt.13.7.2017 after following due procedure u/s 209 of the
Cr.P.C.
2.In brief, the case of the prosecution is as under:
On 13.12.2016, Gaddam Sailoo called A.2 to labour adda near the SBH Bank, canal katta to pay his coolie amount. A.2 took A.1 and met Sailoo. Sailoo took out a bundle of rupee notes, on seeing the said notes, A.1 and A.2 hatched a plan and decided to commit theft of the said amount from the Sailoo by killing him. They call A.3 for assisting them by narrating their plan. Later, they lured Sailoo by 3 SC 132-2017 saying that they wish to give a party as their friend who has come.
Sailoo believed their words and agreed to participate in the party.
A.1 and A.2 went to their houses while Sailoo was staying with A.3.
A.1 and A.2 came there with knives which were hidden on the backside of their body and thereafter A.1 to A.3 and Sailoo took liquor and water bottle and went to backside of Vijetha PG College.
While they were consuming liquor, A.2 stabbed Sailoo with a knife.
A.1 gagged the mouth and A.3 caught hold of the legs of Sailoo. A.1 and A.2 stabbed Sailoo with their knives and committed theft of
Rs.4,000/- from Sailoo and the said amount was distributed among them.
(i)On 14.12.2016 at 11.15 a.m., on the complaint received from
Sambadi Anand, the Inspector of Police, Armoor Police Station, registered it as a case in crime No.350/2016 u/s 302 of the IPC and after completion of the investigation of the crime, the charge-sheet was laid against the accused to punish them under the above penal provisions of the Law.
3.On production of A.1 and A.2 and on appearance of A.3 and after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for accused and on consideration of the record, charges under sections 302 and 379 r/w 34 of the IPC were framed against the accused persons, read-over and explained to them, for which, they denied the same and pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.
4.To prove its case, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has examined PW1 to PW13 and got marked Ex.P1 to P12 and MOs 1 to 13 on behalf of the prosecution.
4 SC 132-2017
5. PW1/S. Anand is the complainant. PW2/P. Laxminarayana,
PW.4 Chala Sagar, and P.W.5 P. Rama Murthy are the witnesses.
PW.3 S. Laxmi is the younger sister of the deceased. PW.6/Gaddam
Devanna is father of the deceased. PW.7/S. Rajendar is panch for scene of offence and inquest. PW.8/Dr. N. Ravindar conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW.9/N. Laxman and
PW.10/R. Limbadri are panch for confession and recovery.
PW.11/Gaddam Sathemma is the wife of the deceased.
PW.12/Gaddam Sathevva @ Sathemma is the mother of the deceased and PW.13/K. Seetharam, Inspector of Police, Armoor PS, is the Investigating Ofcer.
6.Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is inquest panchanama. Ex.P3 is crime details form. Ex.P4 is set of (10) photographs of the seized items. Ex.P5 is the PME report. Ex.P6 is the FSL report. Ex.P7 is the fnal opinion issued PW.8. Ex.P8 is the portion of the panchanama of confession and recovery from A.1. Ex.P9 is the portion of the panchanama of confession and recovery from A.2. Ex.P10 is 161
Cr.P.C., statement of PW.12. Ex.P11 is FIR. Ex.P12 is confessional panchanama of A.3.
7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 3l3 Cr.P.C. stating the particulars of incriminating material made against them, for which, they denied the same and claimed no defence evidence.
8.The point for consideration is:
“Is the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?”
9.I have heard arguments of both sides.
5 SC 132-2017
10.POINT :
The burden of proof is always on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Section 302 of the IPC provides the punishment for murther. Section 300 of the IPC states what is murder. “Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or secondly – If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or thirdly – If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufcient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or fourthly – If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid”. Section 299 of the IPC defnes what is culpable homicide:- Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Section379 of the IPC provides punishment for theft. Section 378 of the IPC defnes what is theft. Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
11.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused to punish 6 SC 132-2017 them under the above penal provisions of the Law. He has relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 13 coupled with Ex.P1 to P12 and
MOs 1 to 13 in support of his arguments. On the other hand, the learned advocate appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
12.It is required for the Court to look into the entire evidence of prosecution to decide whether the accused are guilty or not. In this case, the de facto complainant was examined by the prosecution as
PW.1. Ex.P1 is the report given by him to the police dt. 14.1.2016.
He stated that about ten months ago at about 10.30 a.m., on one day, his brother-in-law/P. Laxminarayana had come to know about the death of a person at Housing Board colony; that he went there and saw the dead body and found it to be that of deceased Sailoo; that he returned and informed him about the same; that they both went there and saw the said dead body; that they noticed that the deceased was killed by someone; and that the dead body had several bleeding injuries. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P1 can be taken into consideration to hold that the death of Sailoo is nothing but a murder within the meaning of Section 300 of the IPC.
But, on the basis of evidence of PW.1, it cannot be concluded that A1 to A3 were the persons who committed the murder of Sailoo.
13.PW.2 was examined to speak that himself and PW.1 went to the Housing Board Colony, saw the dead body and noticed that the dead body had several bleeding injuries. He stated in his evidence that about ten months ago, on one day he came to know that a person was killed and that his dead body was present near Vijetha
PG college. He also stated that he went and saw the dead body and 7 SC 132-2017 the said dead body was identifed by him as that of one Sailoo, who is the husband of Gaddam Satyamma. He also stated that he informed PW.1 about the death of Sailoo, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased Sailoo, and he found stabbing injuries on deceased’s neck, stomach and chest. But, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be taken into consideration to hold that A1 to A3 were the persons who committed the murder of Sailoo. From the evidence of PW.2, it can be a considered fact that Sailoo was killed with the weapon like a knife.
14.PW.3 is the wife of PW.1. She stated that Sailoo is her elder brother. She also stated that about ten months ago, on one day,
PW2 informed her husband about the murder of Sailoo and then herself and PW1 went there and saw the dead body of Sailoo. She also stated that the dead body was identifed by her as that of
Sailoo, who is the husband of Gaddam Satyamma. But, the evidence of PW.3 cannot be taken into consideration to hold that A1 to A3 were the persons who committed the murder of Sailoo. However, the evidence of PW.3 supported the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 to believe that dead body is that of Sailoo who is the husband of Gaddam
Satyamma.
15.PW.4 is the resident of Mamidipally village, Armoor Mandal,
Nizamabad District. He stated that about 10 months ago, he was supervising the construction of building of his uncle Srinivas located at Housing Board Colony, beside Brilliant School, Armoor. He also stated that he used to visit the said house to supervise its construction and as usual when he visited the said site about ten months ago, he found gathering of people and dead body of a male person and he came to know that somebody killed him. But, the 8 SC 132-2017 evidence of PW.4 cannot be taken into consideration to hold that A1 to A3 were the persons who committed the murder of Sailoo.
However, the evidence of PW.4 supported the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 that the dead body is that of Sailoo.
16.PW.5 is resident of Jambi Hanman Galli, Armoor village,
Nizamabad District. He is a retired Headmaster. He has a plot opposite to Vijatha Degree College, Hoiusing Board Colony, Armoor.
He stated that on one day in the month of December, 2016 he heard about the murder of a person nearby his plot; that he went there and saw the said dead body; that he was stated to be Sailoo and the he found that he was killed by someone by stabbing. But, the evidence of PW.5 cannot be taken into consideration to hold that A1 to A3 were the persons who committed the murder of Sailoo.
However, the evidence of PW.5 supported the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 to believe that Sailoo was murdered by somebody with knife.
17.PW.6 is resident of Santoshnagar Colony, Donkal village,
Morthad Mandal, Nizamabad District. He stated that he has two daughters and two sons and Sailoo is his elder son; that about one year ago, he was killed by someone at Housing Board Colony,
Armoor; that the dead body was brought to their house; that the dead body had stab and cut injuries and that he came to know that his son was killed by three persons whose names he does not know.
The evidence of PW.6 cannot be taken into consideration to hold that A.1 to A.3 were the persons who committed the murder of
Sailoo. However, the evidence of PW.6 can be considered in support of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 to hold that Sailoo was murdered.
9 SC 132-2017
18.PW.7 was examined by the prosecution as a panch witness. He is resident of Yellawada, Morthad village and Mandal, Nizamabad
District. He stated that about ten months ago, the police of Armoor
PS called him and another Kammala Gangamallu to act as panch witnesses. He also stated that they observed the dead body of a male person with cut and stab injuries on his body; that they came to know that he was stabbed and killed by someone; that the police drafted panchanama on the dead body and he attested the same; that Ex.P2 is the said panchanama; that Ex.P3 is crime details form; that the rough sketch of scene of offence was also incorporated in the crime details form; that MO1 is one empty Kinley water bottle,
MO2 is one empty Kinley Soda bottle, MO3 is one empty Mcdowell whisky bottle (180 ml), MO4 is a pair of black colour slippers, MO5 is blood stained soil, MO6 is soil (control earth), MO7 is the blood stained cotton, for collection of sample of blood and that Ex.P4 is a set of (10) photographs of the seized items. He denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that MOs 1 to 7 were not seized in his presence by the police under the cover of crime details form. I fnd nothing to discard the evidence of PW.7 because the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 revealed about the murder of Sailoo with a knife by three persons and there was nothing for PW.7 to speak falsehood if really he was not present at the time of seizure of MOs 1 to 7 by the police at the scene of offence.
19.PW.8 was examined by the prosecution to speak about the injuries found on the person of the deceased Sailoo. He worked as
Assistant Civil Surgeon in Community Health Centre, Armoor from
October 2015 to April, 2017. He stated that on 18.12.2016 at 3.00 p.m. he received a requisition from the police of Armoor to conduct 10 SC 132-2017 postmortem examination over the dead body of a Gaddam Sailoo, and accordingly, he conducted postmortem examination over the said dead body from 3.15 p.m., to 5.15 p.m., and issued Ex.P5,
Postmortem Examination Report. He also stated that Ex.P6 is the report dt.17.3.2017 and Ex.P7 is fnal opinion; and that he found the following anti mortem injuries over the said dead body:
1) lacerated wound 15x5 cm fron the neck extended from skin to facial nuscler trachea esophagus to cervical bone all the muscles and vessels cut, 3 cm below the chin.
2) Stab injuries (1) front of the neck supre sternal region 2x2 cms superfcial. (2) Left side of the chest from inter costal space to piercing the heart, left ventricle. (3) Epigastric region deeply piersed the stomach.
3) Burn injury both lower limbs from thigh to legs.
(i)He also found that Neck blood vessels were cut. He opined that the deceased was died due to cardio respiratory arrest due to cardiac injury and neck injury. He admitted during the cross- examination that he did not mention in the report about the age of the injuries. Though PW.8 did not mention the age of the injuries, the evidence of PW.8 cannot be rejected because the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 is available on record to believe that Sailoo was murdered with a knife and the injuries found on the person of Sailoo were supported by their evidence.
20.PW.9 was examined by the prosecution to speak that the accused confessed the offence in the presence of the witnesses.
PW.9 is working as a VRO, Armoor. He stated that while himself and
Gajula Limbadri, who is working as VRO of Isapally Village, the police called them on 11.3.2017 at about 2 p.m., and they went to Toddy shop No.4 in Jamanjatti Gally, Armoor, and they found three persons in the custody of the police. He also stated that on their enquiry, his 11 SC 132-2017 particulars of identity as A.2 were revealed. The evidence of PW.9 also discloses that A.2 confessed before him and another that A.2 and two others took the deceased Gaddam Sailoo to the side of
Vijetha Degree College, Armoor, and consumed toddy, that a quarrel took place among them, A.1 stabbed the deceased Gaddam Sailoo with a knife, that Gaddam Sailoo was stabbed with a knife on chest by one and another above the right eye on the face and they dumped garbage on the deceased and set fre to him and went away. The evidence of PW.9 also made it clear that A.2 and two others took money from the deceased and distributed it among them; that the police conducted a panchanama of the confession of
A.2 and they attested the same; that the police seized a knife from the possession of A.1.
21.In support of evidence of PW.9, PW.10 was also examined by the prosecution to prove the confessional statement made by the accused. PW.10 stated that on 11.3.2017 at about 4 pm, the police of Armoor PS called them to toddy shop No.4 of Zirathnagar, Armoor to act as panch witnesses and they found four persons present in the custody of the police and they took one of them to the side and enquired, who stated as A.1; that they also called A.2, who confessed that they killed Gaddam Sailoo and took money from
Sailoo. According to PW.10, A.1 got Rs.1500/-, A.2 also got the same amount and A.3 also got Rs.1000/- towards their shares. The confessional statements made before PWs 9 and 10 go to show that
A.1 and A.2 had killed the deceased with knives and washed those two knives; and that they kept them in their respective houses.
Through this witness, Ex.P8 the admissible portion of the panchanama for the recovery from A.1 was marked, and Ex.P9, the 12 SC 132-2017 admissible portion of the panchanama for recovery from A.2 was marked. PW.10 identifed that MO.8 is the knife recovered from A.1 in pursuance of the confession made by him and MO.9 is the knife recovered from A.2 in pursuance of confession made by him. PWs 9 and 10 were cross-examined by the advocate appointed as a Legal
Aid Counsel for the accused, but I do not fnd any reason to discard the evidence of PWs. 9 and 10 because A.1 and A.2 never stated in their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C., that they have not made such confessional statements before PWs. 9 and 10. They did not speak as to how they were in possession of Mos. 8 and 9, the knives said to have been used for committing the murder of Sailoo. The contents of
Ex.P8 go to show that A.1 placed before the panch witness the knife said to have been used for committing the murder of Sailu. Ex.P9 discloses A.2 placed before the panch witness the knife said to have been used for committing the murder of Sailu. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PWs. 9 and 10 as to why they deposed against
A.1 and A.2 if really A.1 and A.2 confessed the offence by showing the knives said to have been used by them for committing murder of
Sailoo. The evidence of PWs. 9 and 10 can be considered in support of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 8 to hold that the murder of Sailoo was committed by A.1 and A.2 by using MOs 8 and 9.
22.PW.11 is the wife of deceased Sailoo. She stated that on 14.12.2016, PW2 informed her about death of her husband and immediately she rushed to the scene of offence and found the dead body of her husband with stab injuries at stomach. The evidence of
PW.11 is also in support of the evidence of PWs 1 to 10.
23.PW.12 is the mother of the deceased Sailoo. She also stated that she saw the dead body of her son in the village when the dead 13 SC 132-2017 body was brought for funerals. The evidence of PW.12 is also in support of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 11. Though PW.12 stated that she does not know about the murder of her deceased son, her evidence cannot be discarded because she was 66 years old by the time of her examination and the other evidence is available on record to connect A.1 and A.2 for the above said offences.
24.PW.13 is the Investigating Ofcer of this case. He worked as
Circle Inspector of Police, Armoor from 25.11.2015 to 28.5.2018, on 14.12.2015 at 11.15 a.m., he received a complaint from PW1 and on the basis of it, he registered the same as case in Cr.No.350/2016 for the offence under section 302 IPC and issued FIR Ex.P11; that he took up investigation and visited the scene of offence along with
PW1; and that he examined PWs. 1 to 5 and recorded their statements. He also conducted panchanama of scene of offence in presence of two witnesses and seized MOs 1 to 7; that he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of two witness and blood relatives of deceased; that he also seized black and blue colour Sweater which is MO10, light blue colour T shirt which is MO11, and also a burnt drawer which is MO12 and also burnt pant which is MO13 from the dead body of deceased. He further deposed that on 11.3.2017 at 2.45 p.m., he rushed to the toddy shop no.4 at Zirayathnagar, Armoor along with his staff and he apprehended A1 to A3 and Uppu Laxman and on interrogation, the accused confessed the offence and in pursuance of their confession, he recovered MO8 from A1 and also two cell phones and MO9 from
A2 along with one hammer in the presence of two witnesses and recorded the confession and recovery panchanama; that he brought the property and A.1 and A.2 to Police Station, arrested them and 14 SC 132-2017 sent them for judicial custody; that on 12.3.2017, he fled requisition
before the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, to issue PT warrant
for A.1 and A.2 as they are concerned in other crime number, subsequently, he got remanded A.1 and A.2 in this case. He further deposed that on 15.3.2017 he had also taken A.3 for police custody and A.3 confessed the same during police custody and he recorded the confession of A.3 in the presence of two witnesses. The confessional statement of A.3 is Ex.P12, but no witness was examined to prove the contents of Ex.P12. He denied the suggestion during the cross-examination that he has not seized MOs 10 to 13 from the dead body of the deceased and that he planted MOs 9 and 10 and that A.1 and A.2 never confessed the offence and that MOs 1 to 7 are also planted in this case. It was elicted from PW.13 during the cross-examination by the advocate appointed as a Legal Aid
Counsel for the accused that there is difference between deceased and his wife and no investigation was done in that angle; and the advocate for the accused claimed beneft of doubt. I feel that merely on the ground that there was some ill-feelings between the deceased and his wife, it cannot be a ground to reject the case of the prosecution because the wife of the deceased was examined as
PW.11 in support of the evidence of prosecution. She immediately went to see the dead body of the deceased after she came to know about the murder of her husband. Further, the evidence of PWs 9 and 10 is available on record to hold that MOs 8 and 9, the knives said to have been used by A.1 and A.2 for commission of murder of
Sailoo, were seized by the police in the presence of two panch witnesses and for their account, A.1 and A.2 did not state anything in their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
15 SC 132-2017
25.It was also elicited from PW.13 during the cross-examination that PWs 9 and 10 are stock witnesses and the recoveries cannot be believed. Though two VROs were called to be present at the time of recovery, it cannot be said that they are not independent witnesses because they are Government ofcials and there was nothing for them to build up a false case against innocent persons. Further, the two witnesses supported the case of prosecution about the confessional statements made by A.1 and A.2.
26.In view of my discussion in the foregoing paras, I have come to conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A.1 and
A.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. The ingredients to constitute the offences punishable under sections 302 and 379 of the IPC have been established by the prosecution, but in my view, A1 and A2 are only liable for the punishment under the above penal provisions of law. So far as the guilt of A3 is concerned, there is no considerable evidence on record to connect him to the offences. Therefore, I fnd
A1 and A2 are guilty for the offences punishable u/ss 302 and 379 of the IPC. I fnd A3 not guilty of the above offences. Accordingly, the point is decided.
27.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are guilty for the offences u/ss 302 and 379 r/w 34 of the IPC and they are convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of February
2019
Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs/ STs (PoA)Act, Nizamabad 16 SC 132-2017
28.A.1 and A.2 are heard under section 235(2) Cr.P.C., with regard to the quantum of sentence.
A.1 stated that he has two sisters and he pleaded mercy of the
Court.
A.2 stated that his father has no eyes and his mother is unsound mind and he has to maintain them.
29.Since the above mentioned offences proved against A1 and A2 are grievous in nature and opposed to the public policy, A1 and A2 cannot be released u/s 360 of the Cr.P.C., and they are deserved for punishment with life imprisonment. However, I feel that the request of A1 and A2 can be considered only with regard to payment of fne amount.
30. In the result, A.1 and A.2 are convicted under section 235(2)
Cr.P.C., and they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for LIFE for the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 of the IPC and they are also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years for the offence punishable u/s 379 of the IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.The remand period undergone by them during enquiry and trial shall be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. MOs 1 to 13 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. However, A.3 is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The Bail bond of A.3 and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months. A.1 and A.2 are informed about their right of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the conviction and sentence and they are further informed that if they have no means to engage advocate, the advocate will be 17 SC 132-2017 appointed at the expense of the State on their application to the
State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of February,
2019
Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases, under SCs/STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::- Witnesses examined For prosecutionFor defence
PW1Sri S. Anand None PW2Sri P. Laxminarayana PW3Smt. S. Laxmi PW4Sri Chala Sagar PW5Sri P. Rama Murthy PW6Sri G. Devanna PW7Sri S. Rajendar PW8Dr. N. Ravindar PW9Sri N. Laxman PW10Sri R. Limbadri PW11Smt. G. Sattemma PW12Smt. G. Sattevva @ Satyamma PW13Sri Seetharam, IO
Exhibits marked Ex.P1 Complaint Nil
Ex.P2Inquest panchanama.
Ex.P3Crime details form
Ex.P4Set of (10) photographs of the seized items. Ex.P5PME report
Ex.P6FSL report Ex.P7Final opinion
Ex.P8Portionofthe panchanama of confession and recovery from A1
Ex.P9portionofthe panchanama of confession and recovery from A2
Ex.P10161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.12 18 SC 132-2017
Ex.P11FIR
Ex.P12Confession panchanama of A3
Material objects marked
MO1 is one empty Kinley water bottle,
MO2 is one empty Kinley Soda bottle,
MO3 is one empty Mcdowell whisky bottle (180 ml),
MO4 is a pair of black colour slippers,
MO5 is blood stained soil,
MO6 is soil (control earth),
MO7 is the blood stained cotton, for collection of sample of blood
MO8 is knife
MO9 is knife
MO.10 is black and blue colour Sweater
MO.11 is light blue colour T shirt which
MO.12 is Burnt drawer which is MO12
MO.13 is Burnt pant
Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases, under SCs/STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad 19 SC 132-2017
CALENDER
IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs/STs (PoA) ACT CUM
VIII ADDILTIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE NIZAMABAD
SPL.S.C. No.132 of 2017 Between: Inspector of Police, PS Armoor.
..Complainant
And
Gouda Devendar @ Yellaiah @ Bellari and two others
.. Accused
1Date of offence/occurrence 13-12-2016 2Date of report/Complaint 14-12-2016 3Name of complainant The Inspector of Police, PS Armoor 4OffenceUnder sections 302 and 379 of the IPC 5Date of commencement of trial23-10-2017 6Date of closure of trial08-01-2019
7.Date of Judgment 13.02.2019
8.Finding of the JudgeA1 and A2 are found Guilty, but not A3.
9.Sentence or order.The accused Nos 1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences u/ss 302 and 379 r/w 34 of the IPC and they are convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for LIFE for the offence of murder punishable u/s 302 of the IPC and also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years for the offence punishable u/s 379 of the IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.The remand period undergone by them during enquiry and trial shall be set off u/s 428 of the Cr.P.C. MOs 1 to 13 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. However, accused No.3 is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. and he is set at liberty. The Bail bond of the accused No. 3 and his sureties shall be inforce for a period of six months from today.
10Explanation for delayNo delay after commencement of trial
Spl.Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad
To The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl), High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.