1
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, GUNTUR
PRESENT: Smt. S. Premavathi,
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.
FAC V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.
Tuesday, this the 30th day of May, 2017.
SC No.349/2011.
Between:
State: S.H.O. Arundelpet L&O P.S. Guntur Town. (Cr. No. 157/2010 of Arundelpet L&O P.S.)
..Complainant.
Vs
1. Gogula Srinivasa Reddy son of Venkata Siva Reddy, 28 years, Sowpadu village, Vatticherukuru Mandal.
2. Nalukurthi Yohan son of Venkaiah, 21 years, Hindu-Madiga, Sowpadu village, Vatticherukuru Mandal.
... Accused.
This case is coming on 20-04-2017 before me for final hearing, in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri
Neelam Rama Mohan Rao, Advocate for the accused Nos.1 and 2 and upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police, Arundelpet P.S., Guntur Urban filed charge sheet against the accused 1 & 2 in Cr. No.157/2010 of
Arundelpet L&O P.S. Guntur Town for the of fence punishable under
Secs. 363, 302, 379, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief contents of the charge sheet are:
i) L.W.1-Gogula Veera Reddy is the defacto complainant, who is no other than the father of the deceased-Gogula Naga Vardhan Reddy 2 in this case. L.W.2-Gogula Mahesh Reddy is the brother of the deceased. L.W.3-Kommanaboina Naga Raju is the native of Sowpadu village, who saw A1 selling the motorcycle of the deceased at
Rajagarithota, Guntur. L.W.4-Shaik Sambasiva Rao is a private Medical
Practitioner, who purchased the motorcycle of the deceased from A1.
L.W.5-Gogula Nagi Reddy is the junior paternal uncle of the deceased.
L.W.6-Vajrala Sambireddy & L.W.7-Singareddy Sanjeeva Reddy are natives of Sowpadu, in whose presence A1 & A2 confessed the offence.
L.W.8-Taduvai Venkateswara Rao is friend of the deceased who speak about deceiving him to get good marks in degree exams and also to get job in Railway Department by taking cash of Rs.35,000/-. L.W.9-
Gogula Mangamma is the mother of the deceased. L.W.10-Vajrala Nagi
Reddy is resident of Kotha Mallayapalem village and speaks about his noticing the deceased in the company of both the accused in Ponnur on 18-7-2010 at 9-00 p.m. L.W.11-Maguluri Murali Krishna is the private photographer, L.W.12-Vanga Venkata Reddy is the maternal uncle of the deceased and speaks about deceased and A1 coming to him and enquiring about snakes with two heads. L.W.13-Nadikudi Dharma Rao,
L.W.14-Kanala Chalama Reddy, L.W.15-Kanneganti Sambasiva Rao and
L.W.16-Pamulapati Sidda Reddy are the mediators and inquest panchayatdars. L.W.17-Dr. Lakshminarayanaya is the Professor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. L.W.18-M.
Hanumaiah, HC 1360, Arundelpet L&O P.S. and L.W.19-B. Sita Ramaiah,
Inspector of Police, Arundelpet P.S. are the investigation officers.
ii) A1 and the deceased are neighbours. A2 is the servant made in the shop of the father of A1 and both of them are close associates addicted to all sorts of vices. A1 lured the deceased about 3 the purchase and sale of snakes having two heads for making easy money and made him to move in the forests of Srisailam and Nandyala.
In due course, A1 made believe L.W.8-Taduvai Venkateswara Rao, who is the friend of the deceased that he had acquaintance with the authorities of Nagarjuna University and received cash of Rs.35,000/- from him promising him to get good marks in the examination. When the promise could not be withstood, the deceased supported L.W.8-
Taduvai Venkateswara Rao and hence A1 developed hatred towards the deceased. Due to the financial problems and due to the grudge he had against the deceased,A1 sought the assistance of A2 promising for equal share in the booty and both the accused are resorted to this offence.
iii) The deceased Gogula Nagavardhan Reddy and the accused are natives of Sowpadu village of Vatticherukuru Mandal. The house of the deceased is situated in front of the house of A1. Due to which he got good relationship with him. Now and then the accused A1 used to visit the rented room of the deceased. A1 lived on cultivation while A2 worked as maid-servant in the FP shop of the father of A1 and also in their fields. Resulting in both the accused became friends and they addicted to bad vices like consuming liquor and street gambling by means of cheating. Since A1 was fallen in huge debts, he began to commit various offences by means of cheating. About 5 months back, the accused went to the room of the deceased and took him to the house of L.W.12-Vanga Venkata Reddy, the material uncle of the deceased and enquired about the two heads snakes but he denied the knowledge of the same and told that such type of snakes are available in the forest areas like in Srisailam and Nandhyala. Then the accused A1 moved the deceased here and there in the forest area and caused 4 enquiries about the snakes having two heads but in vain. A1 used to instigate the deceased to the business which is a top profitable one.
iv)During the course of his illegal affairs, he also made the friends of deceased believe with his deceitful words that he can manage the concerned authorities in Nagarjuna University to give great marks in their examinations and collect cash from them. Whenever the persons who gave him money failed in their examination, they went upon the house of accused to Sowpadu village and demanded him to return their amount. Suspecting that the deceased himself instigated the above students to go upon his house, he developed grudge against him and waited for an opportunity to wreck vengeance against him.
v) The deceased had been studying 3rd year B.Tech in Amara
Engineering College, Narasaraopet and residing in a rented room situated at 1/2 Brodiepet, Guntur along with his elder brother. He used to visit his native place in order to receive their minimum needs from the house. In the same manner, on the afternoon of 18-7-2010 (Sunday) he went to his village Sowpadu on his motorcycle bearing No.
AP 07 AT 4987, received cash of Rs.8,000/- meant for college fee, meals carrier for his brother from his parents. On the same day evening at about 6-00 p.m., he left the village, returned to Guntur. As and when he reached near Brodipet, the accused who have a pre-planned intention of murder for gain, stopped and lured him about the business of two heads snake and made him believe with their deceitful words that the snake was readily available at Ponnur and forcibly took to Ponnur on the same motorcycle. L.W.10-Vajrala Nagi Reddy noticed the deceased along with
A1 and A2 at Island Center, Ponnur on 18-7-2010 at 9-00 p.m. Later, 5 they went to second show cinema and during interval, A2 mixed sleeping tablets in the cool drink and got the deceased consumed the cool drink. Thereafter, A1 and A2 took the deceased to Kasukarru village, when they crossed Kasukarru village and reached the drain canal, the accused attacked the deceased tied a towel around the neck and killed him by means of throttling. Later A1 & A2 have committed theft of cash of Rs.8,000/- and cell phone from his pocket and in order to screen the evidence, they threw the dead body in the drain canal as is filled with thootikada leaves. Later they escaped from the crime scene through the motorcycle of the deceased.
vi) On the night of 24-7-2010 at 11-45 p.m., L.W.1-Gogula Veera
Reddy came to the police station and presented a Telugu written report about the missing of his son suspecting A1 and basing on the strength of said report L.W.18-M. Hanumaiah, H.C., Arundelpet L&O P.S.
registered a case in Cr.No. 157/2010 initially under Sec. Man Missing of
Arundelpet L&O P.S. and the same was investigated by L.W.19-B.
Sitaramaiah, Inspector of Police, Arundelpet P.S. During the course of investigation, L.W.19-Inspector of Police examined L.Ws. 1 to 4, recorded their statements under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C.
vii) On 26-7-2010, L.W.1-Gogula Veera Reddy gave another report in the police station stating that A1 & A2 killed his son for want of cell phone cash and motorcycle and thrown the dead body in the water of Kasukarru drainage canal and basing on the strength of said report, L.W.19-Inspector of Police re-registered the case altering section of Law to Secs. 363, 302, 379, 201 r/w 34 of IPC of Arundelpet L&O
P.S., Guntur on 26-7-2010 at 11-00 a.m. and continued the 6 investigation.
viii)During the course of further investigation, L.W.19-Inspector of Police re-examined L.W.1 and recored his statement under Sec.161 of
Cr.P.C., visited the scene of offence and inspected the same minutely at 12-00 noon on 26-7-2010 before the presence of mediators L.W.13-
Nadikudi Dharma Rao and L.W.14-Kanala Chalama Reddy got the scene including the dead body photographed in different angles by engaging private photographer L.W.11-Maguluri Murali Krisha and seized a black cotton cap and two steel carrier boxes from the scene of offence before the presence of two mediators under a cover of mahazar duly attested by L.Ws. 13 & 14. Later, L.W.19-Inspector of Police held inquest over the dead body of deceased before the presence of panchayatdars L.Ws.
13, 15 & 16 and during inquest he examined L.Ws.1, 5 to 7 and 10, recorded their statements under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. and subjected the dead body for autopsy to L.W.17-Dr. Lakshminarayana through PC 1593 of Arundelpet L&O P.S. with a request to conduct autopsy over the corpse and preserve relevant part for DNA test and issue postmortem certificate. After the inquest L.W.19 also examined L.Ws. 9, 11 & 12 and recorded their statements.
ix)During the course of investigation, on 29-7-2010 at 1-00 p.m. L.W.19-Inspector of Police arrested A1 & A2 at Etukuru bye pass road junction and during the course of interrogation, in the presence of mediators L.Ws. 13 & 14, the accused have voluntarily admitted the offence and their confessional statements were recorded under the cover of mediator's report. Basing on the confession of the accused,
L.W.19 had seized cash of Rs.19,200/- from the possession of A1 and 7 cash of Rs.18,500/- and one videocon cell phone of the deceased form the possession of A2. The motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 AT 4987 of the deceased which was committed theft of by the accused also recovered from the possession of L.W.4-Shaik Sambasiva Rao under the cover of same mediatornama duly attested by L.Ws. 13 & 14. and sent both A1 &
A2 for remand to the Hon'ble court.
x)The dead body became to putrefied condition and the identify was established only basing on the wearing apparels. Hence, on being given requisition, L.W.17-Dr. Lakshminarayana preserved
Sternum and Sawn left collar bone containing bone marrow from the dead body of deceased for comparison with the blood samples of the parents of the deceased i.e., L.W.1-Gogula Veera Reddy and L.W.9-
Gogula Mangamma and forwarded the same to the Director, AP Forensic
Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad through the Hon'ble Court for
DNA examination and DNA report is awaited.
xi)The viscera contents preserved from the person of deceased were subjected to FSL Hyderabad through SDPO, Guntur Town for chemical analysis and the expert after analyzing the contents issued his report in FSL file No.TOX/2611/2010, dt. 25-8-2010.
xii)Basing on the FSL report, L.W.17 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued final opinion in PM
No.679/10 as to the cause of death of deceased that “Asphyxia due to the strangulation by ligature associated with Benzodiazepine a sedative substance”. Therefore, A1 & A2 are liable for punishment under Secs.
363, 302, 379, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the charge.
8
3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Secs.
363, 302, 379/411, 201 of IPC against A1 & A2 by V Addl. Munisf
Magistrate, Guntur and on appearance of A1 & A2 copies of documents
were furnished to them as required under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., and as there is prima facie case made out for the offence under Secs. 302 & 201 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused, which are exclusively triable by the
Hon'ble Sessions Court, hence the case was committed to the court of
Sessions under Sec. 209(a) of Cr.P.C., vide PRC No.8/2011 dt. 31-5-
2011. In turn, the Hon'ble Prl. Sessions Judge taken cognizance under
Sec. 193 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Secs. 363, 302, 379, 201 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused and made over the case to this court by allotting Sessions Case No. 349/2011, for disposal according to Law.
4.On receipt of summons, A1 & A2 were present. Sri Neelam Rama
Mohan Rao, Advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of A1 & A2.
After hearing on charges from both sides, my learned predecessor framed charges against A1 & A2 for the offences under Secs. 363, 302, r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.201 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.379 of IPC, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty.
Hence, trial has commenced accordingly.
5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 17, and got marked Ex. P1 to P21 and M.Os. 1 to 10 on its behalf. On the other hand, the defence got marked Exs. D1 to
D7.
6.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of 9
L.W.6-Vajrala Sambi Reddy, L.W.14-Kanala Chalama Reddy and L.W.16-
Pamulapati Sidda Reddy respectively.
7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused 1 & 2 are examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. confronting the incriminating evidence appeared in the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same, but reported no defence evidence.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. The Addl.
Public Prosecutor filed written arguments with decisions of Apex court.
Defence is denial in toto. The learned defence counsel submitted arguments elaborately reiterating the suggestions posed to the prosecution witnesses and contradictions elicited from the prosecution witnesses and relied upon the decisions of Apex Court.
The prosecution relied upon the following decisions:
1. Subhasish Mondal @ Bijoy Vs. State of West Begal Crl. Appeal ` 1391/2008-Supreme Court (D.B.) 2013 Law Suit (SC) 1056.
2. Wakkar and ANR Vs. State of UP – Crl. Appeal 200 & 201 of 2006 Supreme Court of India (D.B.) 2011 Law Suit (SC)136.
3. Bhagavan Dass Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi Crl.Appeal 1117 of 2011-Law Suit (SC)322.
4. Harivardan Babubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat Crl.Appeal 1044/2010 – Supreme Court of India – 2013 Law Suit (SC)512.
5. Gulam Sarbar Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Crl.Appeal 1316/2012- Supreme Court of India-2013 Law suit (SC) 954.
The prosecution also relied upon the following decisions:
1. Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of UP. reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1979.
2. Chirra Shivraj Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 604.
3. Munikar SK and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal reported in Crl.Law Journal page 1193.
10
4. State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & others reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3071.
5. Mahadeb Mal @ Geru Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2017 Crl.L.J. 470.
The defence relied upon the following decisions:
1. Roopsena Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2011 SAR (Criminal) 535 (SC).
2. Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheeshpal & Ors. reported in 2017 SAR (Criminal) 205 (SC).
3. Rambraksh @ Jalim Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2016 SAR (Criminal 689 (SC).
4. Lalit Kumar Yada @ Kuri Vs. State of UP reported in 2014 SAR (Criminal 790 (SC)
5. Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014 SAR (Criminal 337 (SC).
6. Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. Sate of UP reported in 2014 SAR (Criminal 763 (SC).
7. Tomaso Bruni & Anr. Vs. State of UP reported in 2015 SAR (Criminal 454 (SC).
9. Now the point that arise for determination is :
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 & 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against them?
10. POINT:
The prosecution case in nut shell is that A1, A2 and deceased are the natives of the same village of Sowpadu, Vatticherukuru Mandal,
Guntur District. A1 and the deceased are the neighbours and house of the deceased is in front of the house of A1. A2 is the servant maid in the shop of the father of A1 and both of them are close associates addicted to all sorts of vices. As deceased and A1 are neighbours, due to that there is a good relationship between them. The deceased had been 11 studying 3rd year B.Tec in Amara Engineering College, Narasaraopet and residing in a rented room situated at 1/2 Brodipet, Guntur along with his elder brother (P.W.2) studying 4th year Engineer in Nambur
VVIT Engineering College. Deceased used to visit his native place in order to meet his minimum needs from the house. In the same manner, on the afternoon of 18-7-2010(Sunday) he went to his village Sowpadu on motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 AT 4987, received cash of Rs.8,000/- for college fee, meals carrier for his brother from his parents. On the same day evening at about 6-00 p.m., he left the village, returned to
Guntur. Since then his whereabouts are not known till his dead body recovered on 26-7-2010.
11. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 18-7-2010 when the deceased left his native of Sowpadu village on his motor bike and as soon as he reached Brodiept, the accused had a pre-planned intention of murder for gain, stopped and lured him about the business of two heads snake and made him believe with their deceitful words that the snake was readily available at Ponnur and forcibly took him to
Ponnur on the same motorcycle. Later, they went to the second show cinema and during interval, A2 mixed the sleeping tablets in the cool drink and got deceased consumed the cool drink. Thereafter, A1 & A2 took the deceased to Kasukarru village, when they crossed Kasukarru village and reached the drain canal, the accused attacked the deceased tied a towel around the neck and killed him by throttling. Later A1 & A2 have committed theft of cash of Rs.8,000/- and cell phone from his pocket and in order to screen away the evidence, they threw the dead body in the drain canal as is filled with thootikada leaves. Later they escaped from the crime scene through the motorcycle of the deceased.
12
12.The motive for the commission of offence set up by prosecution is that A1 lured the deceased about the purchase and sale of snakes having two heads for making easy money and made him to move in the forests of Srisailam and Nandyala and in due course, A1 made believe P.W.7 that he (A1) has acquaintance with authorities of
Nagarjuna University and he can get secure good marks for P.W.7 by managing the Nagarjuna University authorities and promising to do that favour to P.W.7 he (A1) collected Rs.35,000/- from P.W.7. But, later he failed to perform the said promise made by him, P.W.7 sought help from the deceased to get return Rs.35,000/- as deceased is neighbour of A1 on that deceased asked A1 to return money, galata took place between them, and since A1 fallen in huge debts, began to commit various offences by means of cheating and as the deceased pressed upon the accused No.1 to return the amount of Rs.35,000/- to
P.W.7 received from P.W.7, A1 bore grudge against the deceased and sought the assistance of A2 promising for equal share in the booty and both accused resorted to commit this offence.
13. P.W.1-Gogula Veera Reddy is the father of the deceased.
P.W2-Gogula Mahesh Reddy is the brother of the deceased.
P.W.3-Kommanaboina Naga Raju is the resident of Sowpadu village who indulged in brokerage business in old vehicles.
P.W.4-Shaik Samhasiva Rao is the resident of Adavitakkellapadu, RMP doctor who is said to be purchaser of the Apache motorcycle bearing No. AP 07 AT 4987 belongs to the deceased from A1.
P.W.5-Gogula Nagireddy is the resident of Sowpadu village and junior paternal uncle of the deceased.
P.W.6-Singareddy Sanjeeva Reddy is the resident of Sowpadu village who is said to be the person before whom A1 & A2 13 made confession.
P.W.7-Taduvai Venkateswara Rao is the resident of Narasaraopet from whom A1 collected Rs.35,000/- on the pretext that he will get severe good marks to P.W.7 by managing Nagarjuna University authorities.
P.W.8-Gogula Mangamma is the resident of Sowpadu village mother of the deceased.
P.W.9-Maguluri Murali Krishna is the photographer who have taken the photographs of the scene of offence including the dead body of the deceased.
P.W.10-Vanga Venkata Reddy is the resident of Thatireddypalem village, maternal uncle of the deceased.
P.W.11-Vajrala Nagireddy is the resident of Kothamallayapalem village who is said to be saw the deceased in the company of A1 & A2 for last occasion.
P.W.12-Nadikuidi Dharma Rao the then VRO of Guntur and panchayatdar of scene observation report (Ex.P6), inquest report (Ex.P7), seizure of cell phone under Ex.P9, seizure of Exs.P2 & P3 and Ex.P10 motorcycle and seizure of MO9 i.e., cash of Rs.18,500/-, MO7-motorcycle seized under Ex.P10 seizurenama and Ex.P8 mediator's report.
P.W.13-Kanneganti Sambasiva Rao, native of Vatticherukuru village acted as an elder for inquest (Ex.P7)over the dead body
P.W.14-Dr. Lakshminarayana, the then Forensic Professor and Head of the Department in Forensic Medicine, Guntur, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P11 postmortem certificate.
P.W.15-M. Hanumaiah, the then Head Constable at Arundelpet P.S. who registered Ex.P14 basing on Ex.P1.
P.W.16-B. Sitaramaiah, the then Inspector of Police, Arundelpet P.S., who investigated into the case on section of law under Ex.P15, who filed charge sheet.
P.W.17-Dr. S. Gowthami who is the Assistant Director to Forensic Laboratory, who is one of the Medical Officers who conducted DNA text on two bones of the deceased.
14.The entire case at hand is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no single witness to state that he saw the commission of offence 14 charged under Secs. 363, 302, 201 & 379 of IPC. Therefore, when the prosecution case relies upon circumstantial evidence, it has to prove the following circumstances that are observed in catina of decisions of our
Apex Court, to bring home the guilt of the accused of the charged offences.
1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
2. Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
3. the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
4. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
15.P.W.14 deposed that he found the following anti mortem injuries:
1. After removal of legature material neck over and bellow the level of thyroid constricted, and a depressed light brownish red ligature mark present totally encirclingthe neck of size 24 x5 cm. On cut section the structures and muscles underneath the ligature mark are diffusedly contused. The body and greater horns on both sides of hyoid are fractured showing hemorrhagic areas at the sites of fractures.
2. On opening the chest wall diffuse contusion present over the upper and middle rib cage on both sides.
3. Diffuse irregular contusions with idefinable margins present over inner aspects of middle of both thighs.
The evidence of P.W.14 clearly shows that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to strangulation by legative with benzodiazepine a sedative substance and accordingly Ex.P11 postmortem certificate was issued by P.W.14 to that effect. Though it is elicited in cross- examination that cumulative effect of strangulation as well as the 15 effect of sedative cause the death, but P.W.14 explicitly testified that even without the above said sedative the death can be caused due to asphyxia due to strangulation in the case at hand. Hence, considering the evidence of P.W.14, it can be held that the death of the deceased is homicidal.
16. P.W.1 says that he has two sons namely Gogula Mahesh Reddy and Gogula Nagavardhana Reddy. Gogula Nagavarthana Reddy is no more, he died on 18-7-2010 (deceased in this case) (for brevity herein after referred to as 'deceased'). P.W.1 further says that by the time his eldest son Mahesh Reddy was studying 4th year Engineering in Nambur
VVIT Engineering College, whereas deceased was studying 3rd year
Engineering in Amara College of Engineering, Narasaraopet and both his sons were residing in a rented room in 1/2 Brodipet, Guntur and they used to come to their village either one or the other on each and every
Sunday to get wash their clothes in their house, to collect some amounts for their expenses and also to take away carriage to the other person and he got purchased Apache motorcycle (MO7) to deceased. On 18- 7-2010 at about 3-00 p.m. deceased came to their house from Guntur on
MO7, had a meal, slept for some time and at 6-30 p.m., left the house by taking Rs.8,000/- to pay bus fare, cell phone, a bag and a carriage on said MO7 and since then his whereabouts are not known till 24-7-2010, hence he filed Ex.P1, registered under man missing suspecting the involvement of A1 as he came to know through P.W.3 that MO7 is sold away by A1 on 20-7-2010 and the search is going on by the police as well as the family members of the deceased. In mean time on 25-7- 2010 at 9-00 p.m., P.W.6, L.W.6-Vajrala Sambireddy came to P.W.1 informed that they were informed by P.W.11 that he (PW11) saw the deceased in the company of A1 & A2 at Island Center, Ponnur at about 9- 16 00 p.m. on 18-7-2010, so they along with P.W.11 went to the water tank where A1 & A2 were sitting which is at a distance of about 100 feet to them and on enquiry about the whereabouts of the deceased they confessed the offence stating that they killed the deceased and thrown the dead body of the deceased in a drainage canal near
Kasukarru village on that, P.W.6, L.W.6 and P.W.11 tried to caught hold the accused 1 & 2, but in vain. Hence, as it was late night, P.W.1, P.W.2,
P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.8, relatives and others went to the Kasukarru drainage canal in morning hours of 26-7-2010 and traced out the dead body of deceased and lodged report in the same Cr.No.157/2010 under Ex.P15 altered FIR. He further deposed about the motive for the commission of offence.
As to Motive
17. Since the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, motive place strong role in proving the guilt of the accused.
In catena of decisions our Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the motive for commission of offence is of particular importance in cases of purely circumstantial evidence for, in such cases motive itself would be a circumstance, which the Court would have to consider. In the decision
between Mohibur Rehaman Vs. State of Assam reported in 2000
Crl. L.J., 4725 (GAU), his Lordships held that “some times motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore, motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act, but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention.
In a case where there is a clear proof of motive for the commission of crime, it affords added support the finding of the court that the 17 accused was guilty of the offence, he was charged with”. In the present case in order to connect the accused with motive for kidnapping and murdering the deceased and stealing the property of the deceased, the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.2 and P.W.10 is significant. It is the evidence of
P.W.7 that he was induced by the accused No.1 to deliver cash of
Rs.25,000/- to get him pass in the examination and thereafter
Rs.10,000/- to get job in Railways from P.W.7, thus the accused No.1 cheated P.W.7 and evidence of P.W.7 speaks of such fact. Further, it is the evidence of P.W.7 that as the deceased was neighbour to accused
No.1, he approached the deceased and asked his help for return of money from A1, accordingly deceased along with P.W.7 and other friends namely Udaya Balu and Narendra demanded A1 to repay the amount to
P.W.7 and matter was reached upto the village elders wherein A1 promised to repay the amount to P.W.7. His entire chief-examination remained unshaken even after lengthy cross-examination. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.7. The reading of evidence of
P.W.7 gives an impression that it was the deceased with whose instance and intervention of village elders A1 has to return the amount of P.W.7.
Therefore, it is but natural for A1 to bore grudge against the deceased for extending help to P.W.7 in getting money return from A1, who cheated P.W.7. Therefore, A1 held motive for committing crime against deceased. Further, the evidence of P.W.2, brother of the deceased reveals that A1 used to visit the room of deceased and P.W.2 situated at 1/2, Brodiepet, Guntur and lured the deceased for catching two heads snake which fetch good market price. It was accused No.1 who made believe the deceased that two heads snakes exists and the same will fetch good market price. Here, it is also need to be seen the evidence of P.W.10, who gave evidence that deceased along with A1 once 18 approached him and enquired with regard to the existence of two headed snake, wherein P.W.10 states that such snake did not exists and asked to forget about the matter. Deceased helped P.W.7 that he will see in getting the money returned from A1 to P.W.7. From the chain of evidence, as discussed above shows that the deceased and accused had acquaintance with each other and accused No.1 had strong motive to commit crime against the deceased.
18. The decision relied upon by the accused in 2015 SAR (Crl) 454 between in Tomaso Bruno & Another Vs. State of UP. Their Lordships in
Para No.34 held that “where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive will be an important corroborative piece of evidence. If the motive is indicated and proved, it strengthens the probability of commission of offence. In the present case at hand, the evidence adduced by the prosecution suggesting motive is not by way of improvement at the stage which, in our view, does not inspire confidence of the court”. But, in the present case at hand, from the inception of investigation, the motive is stated by the prosecution witnesses and it is not an improvement as that of the facts in the cited case. Hence, the cited case has no application as it differs from the context.
19.The next chain of event which required to see is the evidence of
P.W.3. It is the evidence of P.W.3, who gave information to P.W.1 against accused No.1 informing the sale of bike of the deceased on 20- 7-2010. It is the evidence P.W.3 that on 20-7-2010, accused No.1 made a phone call to him and informed him that the deceased intend to sell his bike for making some urgent need. As such P.W.3 visited
Rajavarithota and found A1 with bike of the deceased wherein accused
No.1 reported that deceased is required money urgently as such asked 19 accused No.1 to sell his bike, however accused No.1 stated that the deceased was in bus-standwhen enquired by P.W.3. After arriving to an amount to sale M.O.7 for Rs.40,000/- at the pretext to obtain the signatures of the deceased on transfer forms A1 left with M.O.7 and later he did not return to P.W.3. Therefore, it is the first positive evidence of P.W.3 that shows the involvement of accused No.1 in commission of crime for having possession of MO7 belongs to the deceased on 20-7-2010 which is stated to be two days later when the deceased was not seen by his parents and others. Further in order to attribute strong suspicion against accused No.1 is spoken by P.W.4 in his evidence. P.W.4 evidence clinchingly discloses that he received a phone call from A1 at 11-30 a.m., on account of his previous information dropped with mechanic shops at Rajavarithota so he received a phone call informing the intention of A1 to sell M.O.7, accordingly, P.W.4 reached to Rajavarithota, saw accused No.1, a mechanic with M.O.7.
P.W.4 further evidence discloses that on enquiry with A1, he came to know that M.O.7 belongs to deceased and deceased requires money and he was at bus stand and settlement arrived for sale of MO7 at
Rs.41,000/-, then A1 made a phone call to the person said to be deceased and gave phone to P.W.4 to have conversation as to the reason of sale of MO7 and the person who was on the other end stated that he needs money and intends to sell MO7. Then on enquiry with A1 for required record to get transfer MO7, A1 left the place to obtain signatures of the deceased and returned within 15 minutes and handed over Exs.P2 & P3 i.e., transfer forms and registration certificate respectively, on that payment of Rs.41,000/- made by P.W.4 to A1 and custody of M.O.7 came into the hands of P.W.4.
20.On perusal of cross-examination of P.W.3 & P.W.4, it is observed 20 that no motives are attributed to P.Ws. 3 & 4 for deposing false against the accused who is said to have possessed MO7 of deceased that was sold by accused No.1 to P.W.4. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 3 & 4 clinchingly proves the fact that A1 sold MO7 of the deceased on 20-7-2010 and the same was sold in favour of P.W.4. Even in examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., A1 failed to give account for having possessed MO7 on 20-7-2010 with him, as such, the circumstance of A1 holding MO7 with him on 20-7-2010 is a strong suspicious circumstance proving the guilt of the accused No.1 for committing the crime in the present case.
21.P.W.1 spoken that as information given by P.W.3 he lodged report with the police suspecting A1. The report lodged by him under Ex.P1 and case was registered under the head of man missing by P.W.15 and subsequently on information by P.W.6 again a detailed report is lodged against A1 & A2 wherein P.W.16 re-registered the case in the same crime No.157/10 altering the Section of Law from man missing to Secs.
363, 302, 379, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and commenced investigation.
22.The evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.8 corroborates with the evidence of
P.W.1 and prosecution case.
As to Extra-judicial Confession
23. In support of the aforementioned circumstances, the extra judicial confession made before P.W.6 strengthens the case of the prosecution as he testified that he came to know on 20-7-2010 that whereabouts of deceased were not known for the last three days and on 24-7-2010 at about 6-30 or 7-00 p.m., he came to know through
P.W.1 that the deceased motorcycle was sold away by A1 at
Rajavarithota, Guntur, on that he advised to give report and on 25-7- 2010 at 7 or 8 p.m., he came to know through P.W.11 that he saw the 21 deceased with the company of A1 & A2 at Island Center, Ponnur on that
P.W.6 enquired A1 as A1 & A2 were found in a drunken condition and making galata at a distance of 100 feet to them and on enquiry with A1 as to what happened the deceased as they were found with deceased in
Island Center, Ponnur, for that, A1 confessed that to get the amount from the deceased, they killed Nagavardhan Reddy (deceased) and thrown the dead body in a drainage canal near Kasukarru and sharing the amount.
24.In Sivakumar Vs. State (2006) 1 SCC 714, Apex Court in a decision held that
“ An extra judicial confession may or may not
be a weak evidence. Each case has to be
examined on the basis of its own facts and
circumstances.”
Apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 1985 SC 1678 between Narayan Singh Vs. State of MP held that “ the court should not start with the
presumption that extra-judicial confession is a
weak type of evidence.”
25.Extra-judicial confession is not a substantive proof of evidence, basing on which alone the confession cannot be maintained, but if the evidence is otherwise available, there is no bar to consider the extra- judicial confession is one of the circumstance in proving the guilt of the accused. The two tests that should apply to consider the extra-judicial confession, 1) Whether such extra judicial confession is voluntary? 2.
Whether it is true or not?
26.In th present case, it is the evidence of P.W.6 that A1 confessed
before him of killing the deceased by throttling him apart from taking
money. Further, P.W.6 testified that A1 confessed that they have thrown the dead body of the deceased in Kasukarru drainage canal 22 and P.W.6 further deposed that while making the confession A1 & A2 are in drunken condition. As per Sec.29 of Indian Evidence Act, a confession does not become irrelevant merely because it was made when the accused was in drunken condition. Hence, there is no bar to take into consideration the evidence of P.W.6 that confession made
before him while the accused were in drunken condition. Further, in
the case at hand, the extra-judicial confession is not before the police officer, or while they were in custody of police and it is not hit by Secs.
by Secs. 25 & 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, confession before
P.W.6 is relevant. With regard to the proof of such confession there appears no strong enimical terms between A1 & P.W.6. The elicitations that there were previous civil disputes between the wife of brother of grand-father of A1 and P.W.6, a report against P.W.6 by
A1's mother are no way effects the evidence of P.W.6 since the disputes were occurred long ago and further there appears no gain to P.W.6 in falsely implicating the accused. Mere the exaggeration in the evidence of P.W.6 with regard to the identity of the fact of the deceased stating that the deceased face is normal in condition and on seeing his face he could identify the dead body of the deceased during the time of its recovery from Kasukarru drainage canal did not brush away the entire evidence of P.W.6 and does not make the evidence of P.W.6 untrustworthy, since there is no serious enemity between P.W.6 and A1 directly. Hence, the evidence of P.W.6 is one of the corroborative piece of evidence for the prosecution case. It is relevant to observe here the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the
Kasukarru drainage canal and there is no possibility for any person to find the dead body since the same was dumped in Kasukarru drainage canal, as such foul smell from the dead body could not be observed by 23 any person. Therefore, no suspicion could be raised for not having found dead body of the deceased for a period of over 8 days till it was recovered on 26-7-2010. It is required to observe that P.W.6 did not have any independent clue with regard to the dead body of the deceased dumping in Kasukarru drainage canal, it is only under the confession made by P.W.6 the dead body could trace out from drainage canal. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.6 need to be considered by the court and extra-judicial confession made by A1 to P.W.6 is same piece of evidence as no imputation could be made to depose
P.W.6 for deposing false against the accused. Hence, the evidence of
P.W.6 stating that accuse No.1 confessed before him is one of corroborative evidence in the chain of events to prove the present case.
The reliance placed by the prosecution in decision reported in 2013
Law Suit SC 512 between Harivadan Babubai Patel Vs. State of
Gujarat, where his Lordships held that
“It is also not in dispute that the panch witnesses
have turned hostile, but the facts remains that
place from where the dead body of the deceased
and other items were recovered was within the
specific knowledge of the appellant” .
The observation of out Hon'ble three Judges Bench made in a case between State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Gian Chand --- 2001 6
SCC 71 that the court is required first to accept the trustworthiness of the evidence available on record and if the Court finds the evidence adduced worthy of being relied upon, then the testimony has to be accepted and acted upon them, there may be other witnesses available who could also have been examined, but were not examined is squarely applicable to this case, as the evidence of P.W.6 as mentioned earlier is trustworthy and there appears no significant instances that were make 24 his evidence untrustworthy.
27. It is the contention of the accused that recovery of dead body of the deceased was made by P.W.1 and others and the same was not made when accused was in custody of police. As such, the recovery of dead body of the deceased is hit by Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act since the accused was not in the custody of police when recovery of dead body was made. He relied upon the decision in between Lalit
Kumar Yadav @ Kuri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2014 SAR (Crl.) 790 stressing the two points i.e., (i) the discovery must have been inconsequence of some information received from the accused and not by the accused's own act (ii) the discovery of any act in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to”. In order to answer the contention, as already stated supra that based on extra judicial confession of the accused No.1,
P.W.6 furnished information to P.W.1 and on such information, P.W.1 and others went to Kasukarri drainage Canal, Ponnur and taken out the dead body from the canal. When the dead body was recovered based on the extra judicial confession of A1 made to P.W.6, Section 27 of Indian
Evidence Act is not applicable as confession was not made to the police officer and recovery of dead body was not made by police officer in pursuance of the confession made by the accused. Therefore, the contention that recovery of dead body was hit by section 27 of Indian
Evidence Act could not be tenable as per the discussion made supra.
As to Last seen theory.
28.It has to be seen the evidence of P.W.11 whose evidence is vital to the prosecution case to prove the guilt of the accused. But P.W.11 has not supported the prosecution version and he was declared as hostile witness by the prosecution. At this juncture, the learned Addl.
25
Public Prosecutor has submitted that on the whole reading of evidence of
P.W.11 giving of impression that he gained over by the accused, as such he did not support the case of prosecution and submitted that as per the following ratio laid down in the decision between Ramesh Harijan Vs.
State of UP reported in AIR 2012 SC 1979, wherein their Lordships at
Para-18 held that
“it is settled preposition that the evidence of
prosecution witnesses cannot be rejected in
toto; merely because the prosecution choose to
treat him as hostile and cross-examine him.
The evidence of such witnesses cannot be
treated as effaced or washed of the record
altogether, but the same can be accepted to the
extent that their version found to be dependable
on careful scrutiny there off” and submitted that
the evidence of P.W.11 can be taken into
consideration to the extent that he supported
the prosecution's case as it proves the guilt of
the accused.
29. Refuting the argument of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the learned defence counsel submitted that even according to the prosecution version itself there is 8 days period of time gap between point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive together and in that interregnum period of 8 days is a considerable one and in that period there is every possibility of involvement of the persons other than the accused. He relied upon a decision of our
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2016 SAR (Criminal) 689 between
Rambraksh @ Jalim Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, wherein their Lordships held that 26 “It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.”
30. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.11 proves the acquaintance between the deceased and P.W.11 as P.W.11's mother birth place is the native place of the deceased. Further, it proves that after he came to know that the death of the deceased, he went to Kasukarri drainage canal from where the dead body of the deceased is recovered. It is elicited that he was present at the time of recovery of dead body and saw the dead body and other apparels on the body of the deceased and he noticed the dead body was sub-merged in the mud and he also noticed that the dead body was kept in supine position on the ground, he called the media and arranged to take photographs and also shifted the dead body into the van and said elicitations falsifies his own testimony that he was not present when police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased.
But from the above said elicitations it can be taken as proved only to the extent that he was present at the time of recovery of dead body at Kasukarru drainage canal, Ponnur. But mere proof of presence of P.W.11 at the place of recovery from where the dead body was recovered, the court cannot take such presence is sufficient proof to hold that P.W.11 has last seen the deceased with accused
Nos.1 & 2 on 18-07-2010 at Island center, Ponnur as alleged by the prosecution 27 when, P.W.1 explicitly deposed that he has seen the deceased while he was aged about 14 years and later, he never saw him at any time while he was alive.
31.The decision relied upon by the prosecution reported in 2017
Crl.L.J. 470 between Mahadeb Mal @ Geru Vs. State of West Bengal entirely differs from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the cited case, P.W.14 sister of the accused for obvious reasons turned hostile during the trial to help the accused. Though P.W.14 resiled from her statement made under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. during investigation as well as from her statement under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C., their Lordships declined to wiped out their evidence in toto since in the cited case the facts and circumstances deposed by P.W.14 itself amply proves the guilt of the accused. But in the case at hand the entire evidence of P.W.11 shows that there is acquaintance between himself and deceased and his presence at Kasukarru drainage canal at the time of inquest over the dead body and nothing else. The decision Bhagwan Dass Vs. State
(NCT) of Delhi Crl.Appeal 1117 of 2011 Law Suit (SC) 322 relied
upon by the prosecution, the facts of cited case are distinguishable with the case at hand. In the cited case witness who turned hostile is no other than the mother of the accused. Hence, she is a natural witness. Further the other circumstances that place of offence i.e., house of accused and absence of any person other than the mother (hostile witness) accused and deceased and the motive that deceased was said to be living in an adulterous and incestuous relationship with her uncle (her father's cousin) by leaving the company of her husband etc., considering all these circumstances their Lordships inclined to consider that to save the accused from the punishment his mother turned hostile to the prosecution case and deposing falsehood before 28 the court. Hence, their Lordships inclined to consider her statement under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. made before the police and upheld the conviction. But no such circumstances or relation as were in the cited case are present in the case at hand. Hence, the analogy applied by their Lordships in the cited case cannot be applied to the case at hand.
Therefore, for the discussion made supra, further elicitation that P.W.11 is the relative of A1 & A2 is no way helps the prosecution. Thus, it can be held that prosecution failed to prove the last seen theory concept.
As to Investigation
32.P.W.15 testified that on 24-7-2010 at 11-45 p.m. P.W.15 registered the case in Cr.No.157/10 under the head of man missing on receipt of written information presented by P.W.1 which is marked as
Ex.P14 and the same is received by P.W.16 on 24/25-7-2010 at 12 mid night and on receipt of information from P.W.15 about the registration of crime No.157/2010 under man missing. Then, he proceeded to
Rajavarithota and secured the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and examined them and recorded their statements and put efforts to trace the deceased person. Later on 26-7-2010 at 11-00 a.m., P.W.16 received written representation about the murder of the deceased through PW1, so he re-registered the 1st FIR along with written information received from P.W.1 and Section is altered in Ex.P15 from man missing to Secs.
363, 302, 379, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and sent the express FIR to the court and took up investigation, examined P.W.1 and again recorded his statement. Then, he secured mediators P.W.12, L.W.14-Kanala
Chalama Reddy, private photographer (PW9) then proceeded to the scene of offence along with P.W.1 and others, found the dead body in the drainage canal in the bushes of thootikada, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence (Ex.P16) and got obtained photographs (Ex.P4), 29 prepared observation report (Ex.P6), seized black colour cap from the dead body and also meals carriage at the place of offence covered under
Ex.P6, secured inquest mediators – P.Ws. 12, 13 & L.W.16-Pamulapati
Sidda Reddy conducted inquest on the dead body, at the time of inquest examined P.W.1, P.W.5, L.W.6-Vajrala Sambi Reddy, P.W.6 & P.W.11 and recorded their statements, after completion of inquest forwarded the dead body to Government General Hospital Mortuary, Guntur for postmortem examination with a request to P.W.14 to observe Viscera and also some parts of the deceased for DNA test. Then, he left the scene of offence and came to Government General Hospital Mortuary,
Guntur and after completion of postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to the police, on the same day he visited
Sowpadu village and secured the witness Vanga Venkata Reddy-P.W.10 examined him and recorded his statement. On 29-7-2010 on receipt of information about the accused 1 & 2 at Etukuru by-pass road junction, he went and arrested them in the presence of mediators P.W.12 &
L.W.14-Kanala Chalama Reddy and seized M.Os. 9, 10 & 8 under Exs.
P8 & P10.
33.His further evidence is that A1 & A2 led them to plot No.10 of
Raajeeva Gruha Kalpa in Adavitakkellapadu and seized MO7, Exs. P2 &
P3 of P.W.4 as A1 & A2 told that MO7 is no other than the vehicle which was sold by them under the cover of Ex.P10 and then P.W.16 produced
A1 & A2 before the court of law with a request to send them to judicial custody.
34.On 2-8-2017 P.W.16 visited Narasaraopet and secured P.W.7, examined him and recorded his statement. On 4-8-2010, P.W.16 called
P.W.8 to the police station examined her and recorded her statement and viscera and other particles seized by doctor at the time of 30 postmortem examination were sent to the RFSL, Guntur and filed a memo in the court to obtain sample blood from the parents of the deceased to send it for DNA test and through the court they sent blood samples and other particles seized by the doctor to Forensic Science
Laboratory, Hyderabad for DNA test after obtaining RFSL report, from
Guntur and also final opinion he laid charge sheet. The DNA report was received by the Hon'ble court which is marked as Ex.P17.
35.P.Ws.15 & 16 were cross-examined by the defence at length. At this juncture, defence counsel raised contention that on 24-7-2010 on the basis of information furnished by P.W.1, P.W.15 registered the case in Cr.No.157/10 under the head of man missing with omissions criminal law was set into motion by P.W.1 on 24-7-2010 itself and P.W.17 commenced the investigation by examining P.Ws. 1 to 4 and recorded their statements under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. Hence, Ex.P15 is re- registered by P.W.16 on 2nd report lodged by P.W.1 on 26-7-2010.
Thus, submitted that there are two FIRs relating to the offences occurred in the alleged circumstances which is not permissible by law and he further contended that Ex.P16 containing the signatures of P.W.1 cannot be considered as statement under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. of P.W.1 as it is hit by Sec.162 of Cr.P.C. Hence, submitted that there is no case made out by the prosecution against the accused.
36. To answer the above said contention, it is necessary to refer
Sec.154 of Cr.P.C. to see what actually it says. It says as follows:
Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to 31 be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
The reading of above section, and in catena of decisions, Hon'ble Apex
Court stated that report recorded by the police relating to the commission of cognizable offence is first information report giving first information to the cognizable crime. Whether or not a particular statement would constitute the first information is a question of fact and would depend upon the circumstances of the case. It is not every piece of information, however vague and indefinite or unauthenticated which will form the FIR merely because it was first to reach the police station.
37. In Subhash Agarwal Vs. State of Bihar, 1988 Criminal Law Journal 1752, his Lordships held that “First information report, at the initial stage must disclose some cognizable offence so that the police may proceed with the investigation of the case, as it is prerogative of the police to investigate the same.”
However, in the present case on 24-7-2010, the report lodged by P.W.1 under Ex.P1 did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence as such same was registered under the head of man missing. The
Investigation Officer (P.W.16) received statement of P.W.1 to P.W.4, said statements did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence, as such registration of FIR on 24-7-2010 and statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4 recorded by P.W.16 need to be treated as preliminary enquiry in order to find out whether facts under Ex.P1 lead to commission of any cognizable offence. Even the evidence of P.W.16 speaks of such fact that he made efforts to trace out deceased and in such process he recorded the statement of P.Ws. 1 to 4. Therefore, registration of FIR under Ex.P1 does not fall within the ambit of Sec.154 of Cr.P.C. and 32 statements recorded by P.W.16 of P.Ws. 1 to 4 would not come within the purview of Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. since such statements were not recorded in due course of investigation for cognizable offence. Such statements are purely part of preliminary enquiry recorded by P.W.16.
In this regard, Judgment of our Hon'ble Apex court in Lalitha Kumari
Vs. State of UP and others, dt. 12th November, 2013 would be relevant for reference and relevant para No.110 extracted hereunder for clarity.
“ Therefore, in view of various counter claims
regarding registration or non- registration, what is
necessary is only that information given to the
police must disclose the commission of cognizable
offence. In such a situation, registration of FIR is
mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is
made out in the information given, then the FIR
need not be registered immediately and perhaps
the police can conduct a sort of preliminary
verification or enquiry for the limited purpose of
ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has
been committed. But, if the information given
clearly mentions the commission of cognizable
offence,there is no other option but to register an
FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not
relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as
whether the information is falsely given, whether
the information is genuine, whether the
information is credible etc. These are the issues
that have to be verified during the investigation of
FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to
be seen is merely whether the information given
ex-facie discloses the commission of cognizable
offence. If after investigation, the information
given is found to be false, there is always an option
to prosecute the complainant for filing false FIR.”
33
38.In the light of the said Judgment, the Investigation Officer is duty bound to register the case if facts informed to him disclose cognizable offence and upon the information, Investigation Officer need to register the FIR under Sec.154 of Cr.P.C. However, when the report does not disclose any commission of cognizable offence, Investigation
Officer having right to conduct preliminary enquiry in order to find out facts leading to any commission of cognizable offence. In the light of understanding of above said Judgments Ex.P1 dated 24-7-2010 and statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4 recorded by P.W.16 on 25-7-2010 need to be considered as preliminary enquiry, but not information relating to cognizable offence. It is representation/statement of P.W.1 given on 26-7-2010 that discloses commission of cognizable offence need to be treated as FIR relating to cognizable offence on which investigation commenced as such the contention that representation/statement on 26-7-2010 hit under Sec. 162 of Cr.P.C. and consequential investigation is improper and illegal need to be negatived.
39. In decision between Chirra Shivraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 604, at the first instance FIR registered for the offence under Sec.307 of IPC which is cognizable offence and later as the victim who received burnt injuries died due to the burnt injuries, for the second time another FIR is also registered for the offence under Sec.302 of IPC. Hence, His Lordships held that there cannot be second FIR in respect of the same offence/event because whenever any further information is received by the
Investigation Agency, it is always in furtherance of the FIR. Hence, His
Lordships declined to agree with the submissions that merely because 2nd FIR was filed, the entire investigation was defective and that 34 should result into acquittal of the accused.
40. Reading to the evidence of P.W.12, P.W.13 & P.W.9, it is clear that dead body is recovered from Kasukarru drainage canal containing black cap, tifin carriage boxes ( two utensils), jeans pant and tea shirt on the dead body and towel tied to the neck of the deceased is noticed and the photos under Exs.P4 of said things along with dead body was recovered were taken by P.W.9 and the consistency among the oral and documentary evidence of P.W.12, P.W.13 & P.W.9 coupled with Ex.P6 (observation report) and Ex.P4 (photographs) and recovery of MO9 i.e., cash of Rs.19,200/- under Ex.P8 and MO10 i.e., cash of Rs.18,500/- under Ex.P9, MO8 i.e., cell phone from the possession of A1 & A2 respectively. The seizure is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.16 that he secured P.W.12 and L.W.14-Kanala Chalama Reddy proceeded to the by-pass road junction along with staff and caught hold of the accused 1 and 2 and enquired them separately in the presence of said mediators and seized M.O.9 & M.O.10 under Exs. P8 and P10.
41. Mere because P.W.16 is Investigation Officer, his evidence cannot be brushed aside with the regard to the recovery of M.O.10 from the possession of A2. The evidence of P.W.16 is totally corroborating with the evidence of P.W.12 & P.W.13 stating that M.Os. 8 to 10 ( cell phone, cash of Rs.19,200/- and Rs.18,500/-) were recovered from the possession of A1 & A2. In the cross-examination of P.W.16, P.Ws. 12 & 13, nothing appears to dislodged the evidence of P.W.16, P.Ws. 12 & 13 as regard to the recovery of M.Os. 8 to 10.
35
As to identity of the dead body
42. P.W.14 stated that he has preserved viscera for chemical analysis and also sternum and sawn, left colar bone containing bone narrow persevered for DNA finger printing as directed by Investigation
Officer. Accordingly DNA test was conducted in Forensic Laboratory
Hyderabad.
43. P.W.17 one of the doctors at Forensic Laboratory, who conducted
DNA test of two bone pieces of the deceased after collecting the blood samples of P.W.8 (mother of the deceased) deposed that they could not secure DNA samples in the bone pieces of the deceased as such they could not give any result as to the identify of the deceased as that of the son of P.Ws. 1 and 8. Our Hon'ble Apex Court in decision between
Dharam Deo Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2014
SAR (Crl.) 763 SC, observed that “ Teeth, as often noticed is an excellent source of DNA, as it forms a natural barrier against exogenous
DNA contamination and are resistant to environmental assaults”.
Placing reliance in the observations of our Hon'ble Apex Court, the defence counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the dead body is that of a person who was missing i.e.,
Nagavardhan Reddy as the investigating officer sent collar bones in stead of sending teeth of the deceased.
44.But, going through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.8, P.W.2 and P.W.5 that since 18-7-2010 evening deceased was found missing and his dead body was traced on the morning hours of 26-7-2010 having un- identified condition but by seeing the clothes and other apparels on the dead body of the deceased, his parents and relatives, villagers could identify that the dead body is that of the deceased Gogula Naga Vardhan
Reddy. Further the testimony of P.W.14 is also corroborates the 36 evidence of PWs. 1, 8, 2 and 5 with regard to the identify of the deceased since he stated that death occurred approximately 7 to 9 days prior to 26-7-2010 i.e., the date of postmortem examination by him. It is not the specific case of defence that the dead body of the deceased is not that of the deceased and the record also does not reflects that there are some others claiming the dead body stating that it was belongs to them. It is observed that P.W.1 and P.W.8 are no other than the parents of the deceased, who are best persons to speak with regard to the identity of their son. Hence, their evidence is relevant and admissible and for the reasons mentioned supra version of
P.W1 & P.W.8 can be taken into consideration as they identified the dead body is that of their son without expressing single doubt. Hence, absence of result from DNA samples of the deceased bones as stated by P.W.17 no way disturbs with regard to the identity of the dead body as that of son of P.W.1 & P.W.8 (i.e., Naga Vardhan Reddy).
As to contradictions
45.The contradiction as marked in Ex.D1 that P.W.1 stated in Ex.P1 that Naga Raju informed him that A1 herein and his deceased son together sold the motorcycle on 20-7-2017 in Rajavarithota, Guntur no way effects the prosecution case, since it does not disclose that P.W.3 saw the physical presence of deceased with A1.
46.The contradiction in as Ex.D2 that P.W.1 stated before the police that A1 along with some other person together sold the motorcycle and that it was later changed to some other person in the place of along with some other person does not shake the prosecution case as said contradiction does not shake the fact that A1 sold MO7 belongs to the deceased.
47.Contradictions as in Exs.D3, D4, D6 do not assume importance 37 since identify of P.W.3 is not disputed in the present case as it is the evidence of P.W.3 that he gave information to P.W.1 and it is also the evidence of P.W.1 he was given information by P.W.3 about sale of MO7 by A1. Mere because surname of P.W.3 is different which is elicited in
Ex.D3, Ex.D4, Ex.D6, it cannot be stated that the identity of P.W.3 is disputed. Further in cross-examination of P.W.3 also no clarification has been sought by defence with regard to the surname of P.W.3 and dispute about his identity. Therefore, variation in mention of surname under Ex.D3, D4, D6 need to be taken as clerical error and such variation does not vitiate the case of the prosecution. Exs.D5 and D7 are also not significant.
48.It is well settled in Law that minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The only test to apply is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If an omission or discrepancy does not go to the root of the case, it need not be given much importance. Every omission cannot take place of a material omission. The minor contradiction, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not effect the core case of the prosecution and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence.
49.In the case at hand there appears no such type of contradictions or omissions which are material that can touch the core case of the prosecution and liable to set aside prosecution case. Hence, much importance cannot be attributed to omissions and contradictions elicited in this case.
50. In C. Muniappan and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nandu, reported in 38 (2010) 9 SCC 567, this Court explained the law on this point in the following manner:
“There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the
Investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal.
If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc.,which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth.
Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.”
Conclusion
51.Even the evidence of P.W.11 is discarded with regard to last seen theory, the other circumstances mentioned above are pointing only towards accused No.1 of his committing offence punishable under sections 302 & 201 of IPC. However, the evidence on record does not connect the accused No.2 for the offence under sections 363, 302, & 201 of IPC. The chain of events and circumstances discussed above 39 with reference to the evidence on record shows that accused No.1 and deceased acquainted with each other, deceased helped P.W.7 in asking the return of money of P.W.7, which A1 cheated, as such A1 has strong motive for committing the crime. In this regard, the evidence of P.Ws.2, 7 & 10 is helpful in establishing the motive for Accused No.1 in committing the crime against the deceased. This Court is conscious about the settled principle however the motive is strong, cannot take place of proof and conviction cannot be maintained only basing on such motive, even it is proved true. But, there is no bar to maintain conviction when other evidence is available on record and proved the guilt having connection with such motive. In the case at hand, the second circumstance that came in the prosecution evidence is the evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4 and it is the evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4 that A1 possessed M.O.7 of the deceased on 20-07-2010, which is stated to two days later and this happened to be strong circumstance against Accused
No.1 since he failed to account for possession of M.O.7.
52 The other corroborative evidence that connects the link is the evidence of P.W.6 since he testified that A1 confessed before him of having killed the deceased and stolen M.Os.9 & 10 from the dead body of the deceased. The relevancy of P.W.6 evidence with reference to legal position is discussed as Supra, showing that the evidence of P.W.6 is truthful and trustworthy as there is no strong motive attributed to P.W.6 for deposing false against the accused.
53.The evidence of P.Ws.12, 13 coupled with the evidence of P.W.16 proves the recovery of M.O.8 from the possession of Accused No.2 and there is no account given by Accused No.2 for having possession of
M.O.8. Adding to the above other circumstances and evidence of
P.Ws.1, 2, 5, 8 & 10 coupled with investigating officer examined as 40
P.W.15 & 16, apart from medical evidence of P.W.14 from all linking in a chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of Accused No.1 with no possibility to entertain the presumption of innocence against the
Accused No.1 for the offence under sections 302 & 201 of IPC. All circumstances and evidence produced by the prosecution points only towards guilty of the accused with no score basing on the defence in the cross-examination to extend any benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. No material on record suggest that the deceased was having any vices or disputes with others. The guidelines of the Apex Court stated Supra for evaluating the circumstantial evidence is completely meted by the prosecution in the present case and even the chain of events from the point of deceased missing on 18-07-2010 evening till the recovery of dead body of the deceased on 26-07-2010 morning point a finger towards accused alone for committing the murder of deceased and thereafter thrown the dead body of the deceased in drainage canal, committing the offence under section 201 of IPC since the corpus/dead body of the deceased was tried to be disposed off without any clues for its recovery. Going through the entire evidence coupled with evidence of PW 4 it is proved that death of
Nagavardhanareddy occurred on 18-7-2010 as PW 14 testified and Ex
P11 disclose that death caused approximately 7 to 9 days prior to 26-7- 2010. Hence, it is clear that by the date i.e., 20.7.2010
Nagavardhanareddy died and on 20.7.2010 A1 sold the vehicle hence,
A1 is guilt of offence U/Sec. 404 of IPC. Sec. 221 (1) of Cr.P.C.
envisages as follows:
If a single act or series of act is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or 41 any of such offences; and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences.
(2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of Sub-sec.(1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it.
Hence, taking the aid of (2) of Sec.221 of Cr.P.C., in this case the accused No.1 is found guilt of the offence under Sec.404 of IPC as discussed above , hence he may be convicted for the offence u/Sec.404 of IPC though he was charged with Sec.379 of IPC although he was not charged under Sec.404 of IPC.
54.Therefore, it is to be held that evidence adduced by the prosecution against A1 is cogent, convincing, acceptable and offering a complete chain of circumstances without missing any link pointing the guilt of accused No.1 for the offence under sections 302, 201 & 404 of
IPC beyond reasonable doubt and failed to prove the guilt of Accused
No.1 for the charged offence under section 363 of IPC. It need to be observed that there is no material brought on record to prove that
MO8 belongs to the deceased in support of oral evidence. Hence, though seizure dt. 29-7-2010 (by then Nagavardhan Reddy died) is proved but on account of absence of sufficient proof of MO8 belongs to the deceased, it cannot be said that prosecution proved the guilt of A2 for the offence punishable under Sec.404 of IPC.
55. Therefore, on conglomeration of facts and circumstances, it can be held that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 for the 42 offences under Secs. 302, 201, 404 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
However prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused No.1 for the offence under Sec.363 of IPC. Further prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Secs.
363, 302, 201, 404 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. A2 is entitled for benefit of doubt, hence A2 is entitled to be acquitted for said charges.
56. In the result, accused No.1 is found guilty of the offences u/secs.
302, 201, 404 of IPC and thereby he is convicted u/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C.
for the said charged offences.
Typed to my dictation, corected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of March, 2017.
Sd.S. Premavathi
II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.
FAC V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
GUNTUR.
57. Accused No.1 is present. He is examined and questioned about the sentence. Accused No.1 stated that he did not commit the crimes under Secs. 302, 201, 404 of IPC and intends to file a petition. But did not file any petition.
58. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case and to meet the interest of justice, the accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo
Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, in default of payment of fine he shall go to suffer SI for three months. Accused No.1 is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 of
IPC, in default of payment of fine he shall go to suffer SI for one month. Accused No.1 is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS and to pay fine of Rs.500/- 43 for the offence punishable under Section 404 of IPC, in default of payment of fine he shall go to suffer SI for one month.
All the sentences awarded to the accused No.1 shall run concurrently.
Accused No.1 is acquitted under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC.
Accused No.2 is acquitted under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 302, 201, 404 of IPC.
The accused No.1 entitled for set-off of remand period under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Mos. 1 to 6 and unmarked case property shall be destroyed on expiry of appeal time. M.Os. 7 to 10 shall be returned to the claimants on expiry of appeal time.
The accused No.1 is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal and entitlement of legal aid. Free copy of judgment is supplied to the accused.
Typed to my dictation, corected and pronounced by me in the open
Court, this the 30th day of March, 2017.
Sd.S. Premavathi
II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.
FAC V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
GUNTUR.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined.
For Prosecution: For defence: None
PW1-Gogula Veera Reddy.
PW2-Gogula Mahesh Reddy.
PW3-Kommanaboina Nagaraju.
PW4-Shaik Sambasiva Rao.
PW5-Gogula Nagireddy.
44
PW6-S. Sanjeeva Reddy.
PW7-Taduvai Venkateswara Rao.
PW8-Gogula Mangamma.
PW9-Maguluri Murali Krishna.
PW10-Vanga Venkata Reddy.
P.W.11-Vajrala Nagireddy.
P.W.12-Nadikudi Dharma Rao.
P.W.13-Kanneganti Sambasiva Rao.
P.W.14-Dr. B. Lakshminarayana.
P.W.15-M.Hanumaiah, Head Constable.
P.W.16-B. Sitaramaiah, Inspector of Police.
P.W.17-Dr. S. Gowthami.
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1/--: Report of P.W.1.
Ex.P2/--: Transfer form.
Ex.P3/--: Registration certificate.
Ex.P4/--: 10 photographs.
Ex.P5/--: Statement of P.W.11.
Ex.P6/--: Observation report.
Ex.P7/--: Inquest report.
Ex.P8/--: Mediators report.
Ex.P9/--: Portion of Mediatornama.
Ex.P10/--: Seizurenama.
Ex.P11/--: Postmortem certificate.
Ex.P12/--: Final Opinion.
Ex.P13/--: RFSL report.
Ex.P14/--: FIR in Cr.No.157/2010.
Ex.P15/--: Altered FIR.
Ex.P16/--: Rough Sketch.
Ex.P17/--: DNA report.
Ex.P18/--: Memo dt. 24-8-2010.
Ex.P19/--: Letter of FSL.
Ex.P20/--: Photocopy of Jar.
Ex.P21/--: Rectification letter.
45
For defence: Ex.D1/--: Portion of 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.
Ex.D2/--: Portion of 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.
Ex.D3/--: Portion of 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.
Ex.D4/--: Portion of 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 (Bommanaboina).
Ex.D5/--: Portion of 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.
Ex.D6/--: Portion of 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8.
Ex.D7/--: Portion of 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8.
Material objects Marked
M.O.1: Carriage.
M.O.2: Pair of chappals.
M.O.3: Striped Tea Shirt.
M.O.4: Jeans pant.
M.O.5: Towel.
M.O.6: Cap.
M.O.7: TVS Apachi Company Motorcycle.
M.O.8: Cell phone.
M.O.9: Cash of Rs.19,200/-.
M.O.10: Cash of Rs.18,500/-.
Sd.S. Premavathi
II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.
FAC V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
GUNTUR.
//True Copy//
II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.
FAC V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
GUNTUR.
46
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, GUNTUR.
1.Name of the Case Sessions Case No.349/2011
2. Name of the committing
Magistrate V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.
3. Name of the complainant S.H.O. Arundelpet L&O P.S. Guntur Town. (Cr. No. 157/2010 of Arundelpet L&O P.S.)
4. Name of the Accused 1. Gogula Srinivasa Reddy son of Venkata Siva Reddy, 28 years, Sowpadu village, Vatticherukuru Mandal.
2. Nalukurthi Yohan son of Venkaiah, 21 years, Hindu-Madiga, Sowpadu village, Vatticherukuru Mandal. 5.Date of 28-6-2011
i) Filling ii)Apprehension of Accused 28-7-2011 (Appearance before sessions court) iii)Commencement of trial10-02-2014 iv)Closure of trial05-02-2015
v)Pronouncement of 30-05-2017 Judgment 6.Offence(s)Under Secs. 363,302,379, 201 r/w 34 of IPC 7.Plea of Accused Not Guilty 8.Finding of the Court A1 found guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs. 302, 201, 404 of IPC,
A2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Secs.363, 302, 201, 404 of IPC.
A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.363 of IPC.
9.Sentence or order:-
In the result, accused No.1 is found guilty of the offences u/secs. 302, 201, 404 of IPC and thereby he is convicted u/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the said charged offences. A1 is found not guilty of the offence under Sec.363 of IPC. A2 is found not guilty of the offence under Secs. 363, 302, 201, 404 of IPC
Therefore, accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, in default of payment of fine he shall go to suffer SI for three months. Accused No.1 is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC, in default of payment of fine he shall go to suffer SI for one month. Accused No.1 is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 404 of IPC, in default of payment of fine he shall go to suffer SI for one month. All the sentences awarded to the accused No.1 shall run concurrently.
47
Accused No.1 is acquitted under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. Accused No.2 is acquitted under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 302, 201, 404 of IPC. The accused No.1 entitled for set-off of remand period under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Mos. 1 to 6 and unmarked case property shall be destroyed on expiry of appeal time. M.Os. 7 to 10 shall be returned to the claimants on expiry of appeal time.
The accused No.1 is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal and entitlement of legal aid. Free copy of judgment is supplied to the accused.
10.Explanation for Delay:- Originally this case was received from V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur under PRC No.8/2011 against the accused by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions and the Sessions Judge, Guntur made over this case to II Addl. District &
Sessions Judge's court, Guntur by allotting Sessions Case No. 349/2011,
for disposal according to Law. On 15-9-2011 accused were examined and charges were framed. On 13-3-2012, this case of transferred to this court i.e., V ADJ (FTC) Court, Guntur as per the District Court's proceedings in Dis.No.1689, dt. 9-3-2012. On 10-2-2014 P.W.1 was examined in chief. Ex.P1, D1,D2 and M.Os. 1 to 8 were marked. On 11-2-2014, P.W. 2 was examined in chief, Ex.D3 was marked. On 12-2-2014 P.Ws. 1 and 2 were cross-examined. On 17-2-2014 P.Ws. 3 and 4 examined, Exs.P2 & P3 were marked. On 21-2-2014 P.W.5 was examined, Exs.D4 & D5 were marked. On 4-3-2014 P.Ws. 6 & 7 were examined. On 6-3-2014 P.Ws. 8 to 10 were examined, Exs. P4, D6 D7 were marked. On 11-3-2014 P.W.11 was examined Ex.P5 was marked. On 11-4-2014, P.W.12 was examined in chief, Exs.P6 to P10, M.Os. 9 and 10 were marked. On 24-6-2014 P.W.12 was cross-examined. On 9-7-2014 P.W.13 is examined. On 30-7-2014 P.W.14 is examined, Exs.P11 to P13 were marked. On 9-9-2014, P.W.15 was examined, Ex.P14 is marked. On 22-9-2014, P.W.16 was examined, Exs.P15 to 17 were marked. On 28-10- 2014, P.W.16 was further examined and Exs.18 & 19 were marked. On 5-2-2015 P.W.17 was examined, Exs.P20 & 21 were marked. On 17-3-2016 accused were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence and posted to 29-3-2016 for arguments. From 29-3-2016, this case was posted from time to time for both sides arguments. On 20-4-2017, heard arguments. On 30-5-2017, Judgment
pronounced. Hence the delay.
Sd.S. Premavathi
II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.
FAC V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
GUNTUR.
Copies to:
The Registrar(Judl.), Hon’ble High Court of A.P, Hyderabad.(CD) //True Copy//
II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,GUNTUR.
FAC V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
GUNTUR.
48