Smt.S.Premavathi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS 

JUDGE, AT L.B.NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. S. Premavathi

IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar

This the 13 th day of November, 2019

SC No.8 of 2013

1.Name of the complainant: The State of Telangana through Inspector of Police, Police Station Nacharam

2.Name of the AccusedGatla Mahipal Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, Aged 29 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.1­ :6/41/1/82 Green Hills Colony, Mallapur.

3.Offence under Section: U/s. 302, 304­B IPC.

4.Cr. No. and Name of P.S: 71 of 2012 of PS Nacharam. 

5.P.R.C. No.: 25 of 2012

6.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

7.Finding of the Court: Found guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC

8.Sentence of Order: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Sections 302 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for Life and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/­ for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple Imprisonment for Three Months and accused found not guilty for the offence under Section 304­B of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

9Prosecution conducted by: Sri K. Krishna Reddy

Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

10. Defence conducted by: Sri.A. Dasharatha Advocate for accused

11. Case committed by: XIIIMetropolitanMagistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, R.R. District. 

2

This case coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Krishna Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A. Dasaratha, learned counsel for the Accused; and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T 

The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri filed charge sheet against the accused Galla Mahipal Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy for the offence under 

Section 302, 304­B IPC in Cr.No. 71/2012 of P.S Nacharam.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 22­03­2012 at 01.00 hours received a message from Gandhi 

Hospital, Secunderabad regarding admission of one patient by name Smt. 

Saritha, W/o. Mahipal Reddy aged about 23 years R/o. Mallapur in female burns ward on 21­3­2012 at 23.00 hours with 96% burns as her husband poured kerosene on her body and set ablaze. Smt. Saritha stated that about 5 years ago the accused married her before the elders as per Hindu customs, she blessed with two children, (one son and daughter namely 

Rakesh(4 years) and Ramya (3 years) respectively) and they are pursuing studies at Mallapur. She further stated that he is doing private job at 

Deepthi Company situated at Mallapur and she is getting salary Rs.5000/­ per month including over time. Accused took Tata Ace Vehicle through finance, due to non payment of installments the finance authorities seized the vehicle, he addicted to alcohol without doing any work moving lavishly, she maintaining family on her salary. Accused harassed her both physically and mentally for additional dowry, due to which when she begot female child her father gave one acre agricultural land and pleaded her husband not to harass her, even though he did not change his attitude and continued his harassment. On 21­3­2012 night at about 10.30 pm accused came to the house in fully drunken condition and demanded her about not giving money 3 for his expenses and also questioned her so far where she had gone, on which she replied that she went to her parents house, on which he became annoyed and when she slept in the house, meantime her husband doused kerosene on her person and set ablaze, resulting which she received burns and immediately she removed her saree and thrown aside, then the accused thrown bontha (chaddar) on her after that he took her gold pusthelathadu and fled away, she made hue and cries due to unable to bare burns, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. Lw22 recorded the statement of the victim. Thereafter, on requisition by the police Lw19 recorded the statement (dying declaration) of the victim at 02.45 AM of 22­3­2012. 

3.On receipt of the statement of the victim recorded by Lw22, Lw23 registered a case in Cr.No.71/2012 U/Sec.498­A, 307 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation Lw23 examined the victim and recorded her statement U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. The Lw23 visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of Lw13 & 14 and conducted scene of offence, observed the scene and drew rough sketch of scene and photographed the scene of offence and seized Bontha(Chadar or blanket), wearing apparels of the victim i.e., burnt saree and petticoat, match box (joker) with 10 sticks, emptied plastic kerosene tin capacity of 2 liters with half tin kerosene under cover of panchanama in the presence of Lw13 and 

Lw14. On 22­3­2012 at 3.00 hours received death intimation of victim Smt. 

Saritha who was succumbed to burns while under going treatment in Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad at 11.30 hrs.,

4.Based on the death intimation, Lw23 altered the Section of law From 

Sec.498­A, 307 IPC to 498­A, 302 IPC as the deceased murdered by her husband. Lw20 held inquest on the corpse of the deceased in the presence 4 of Lw15 and Lw16. Lw21 attended PME on corpse of the deceased and opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is due to Neurogenic shock due to extensive burns.

5.Lw23 secured the presence of Lw2 to 5 examined and recorded their detailed individual statements U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Lw12 photographed the dead body of the deceased and he was examined by LW23. On the same day based on the evidence of Lw2 to 5, Lw23 added the Section of law Sec.304 B of IPC as the deceased subjected to cruelty for want of additional dowry and death caused within seven years of her marital life.

6.On receipt of alteration memo Lw24 visited the scene of offence and observed the scene of offence and made enquiry and secured the presence of 

Lw2 to 11 recorded their statements. 

7.On 3­4­2012 the accused was arrested , was remanded to judicial custody after recording his confession in the presence of LW17 & 18. During course of investigation one Pusthelathadu was seized from the possession of accused. As the investigation reveals that victim was subjected to harassment physically and mentally and also for want of additional dowry from her parents to buy a car and when she failed to fulfil the same on 21­3­ 2012 at bout 23.30 hours the accused doused kerosene on her and the set ablaze and done her to death. Thus, the deceased died of burns within 7 years of her marriage (married on 24­9­2006 and died on 22­3­2012) and just prior to the death she was subjected to cruelty for additional dowry by the accused ,thus, the acts of the accused construed an offence punishable 

U/Sec.302, 304 B of IPC. 

5

8.The learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar has taken cognizance of the case for the offence under Sections 302, 304­B of 

IPC against the accused and numbered as PRC No. 25/2012 and committed the case to the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, RR 

District. The case was taken on file as SC No. 8 of 2013 by the Metropolitan 

Sessions Judge for the offence under Sections 302, 304­B IPC and the same 

was made over to the Court of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, 

R.R.District for disposal as per procedure. 

9.On appearance of accused and on due consideration, the then 

Presiding Officer framed the charges under Sections 302, 304­B IPC and read over and explained to accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the trial has commenced.

10.In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has got examined Pw1 to Pw18. Pw1 – N. Bagavanth Reddy, Pw2 – N. Bhagyamma, 

Pw3 –D. Manjula, Pw4 – Anji Reddy, Pw5 – K. Vimalamma, Pw6 – K. Mallesh, 

Pw7 – Raji Reddy, Pw8 – B. Srinivas, Pw9 – V. Jayaram, Pw10­ B. Suresh, 

Pw11 – A. Anuradha, Pw12 – Md. Nizamuddin, Pw13 – Dharma, Pw14 – V. 

Lachi Reddy, Pw15 – M. Srisailam Goud, Pw16­ Ch. Lakshman Rao, Pw17­T. 

Manohar Reddy, Pw18­ Radha Krishna Rao. Ex.P1 to P12 are marked. Ex.P1 –Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 – Rough Sketch, Ex.P3 – 

Inquest panchanama, Ex.P4 – Requisition given by P.S Nacharam, Ex.P5 – 

Dying Declaration proceedings, Ex.P6 – Relevant admissible portion in confessional panchanama of accused dt. 3­4­2012, Ex.P7 – Statement of D. 

Saritha recorded by Pw15, Ex.P8 – Postmortem Examination Report dt. 22­3­ 2012, Ex.P9 – Original FIR, Ex.P10 – Death summary dt. 22­3­2012 issued by Gandhi hospital, Ex.P11 – Memo for alteration of Section of law into 302 

IPC, Ex.P12 – Memo for alteration of Section of law from 302 IPC to 304­B 6

IPC and also Ex.D1 to D5 also marked and MOs.1 to 8 are marked. MO1­

Burnt Saree, MO2­ Bontha, MO3­ Burned under ware (Langa), MO4: Bed 

Sheet, MO5: Chedar, MO6­ Match box, MO7­ Five liter capacity kerosene tin with tow liters kerosene, MO8­ Pusthelathadu.

11.The Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lw10/K. 

Ravi Kumar, Lw12/Sk. Areef Hussain, Lw13/R. Shanker, Lw16/D. Malla 

Reddy, Lw18/G. Madhusudhan Reddy respectively. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, confronting the particulars of incriminating material made against him for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

12.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appear on behalf of accused and also the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution filed written arguments also. 

13.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the offences charged against him beyond all reasonable doubt”?

14.POINT:­

It is the case of the prosecution that deceased is the youngest daughter to Pw1 & 2. they performed her first marriage in the year 2004 with one Anji 

Reddy of Thirumalapuram of Nalgonda District, she stayed with her 1st husband about 6 months and after that she discarded him as Anjireddy is a patient and suffering with “Bodakalu”. The accused Mahipal Reddy also performed his first marriage with one Gatla Swapna R/o. Ganeshnagar, 

Uppal in the year 2002, due to some family differences his first wife filed a case at Bachannapet P.S of Warangal District. The accused and his first wife for the mutual understanding, the Hon'ble Senior Civl Judge, Jangon, 7 granted decree of divorce, 21­12­2005. On 24­9­2006, the marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused Mahipal Reddy at Sri Lakshmi 

Narsimha Swami temple Yadagirigutta before the elders, the couple lead enjoy life about 3 years, due to their conjugal life the deceased blessed with two children Rakesh aged about 4 years and Ramya aged about 3 years. 

After the birth of female child the accused started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally to get the additional dowry from her parents. 

Due to which the parents of the deceased gave one acre of agricultural land in Sy.No.86/AA at Burgupally of Nalgonda District and pleased to him not to harass the deceased. The deceased is a driver by profession he purchased 

TATA Ace vehicle bearing No.AP 24 X 7108 on the installment basis due to financial trouble, he sold away the vehicle with the consultation of the financial authorities, the vehicle was seized about one month ago. The deceased is doing private job in Deepthi Company situated at Mallapur since last 8 months and looking after family needs. The accused who addicted to alcohol is not doing any work after selling the vehicle and also he failed to pay the installments of the above vehicle properly due to addict to the alcohol and continuously harassing the deceased to get additional dowry from her parents to buy a car. On 21­3­2012, at about 1030 hours the accused came to the house in fully drunken condition and demanded her about not giving money for his lavish expenses and also questioned her that so far where she had gone, on which the deceased stated that she went to her parents house who are residing in the Mallapur area, on which he became angry and when she slept in th house, meantime the accused doused her with kerosene and set ablaze, resulting which she received burns immediately, when she made hue and cries, hearing the cry Pw8 who is the co­tenant rushed to the room and knocked the door, the accused opened the door and PW8 found flames on the person of the deceased. At that time accused thrown Bontha (MO2) on 8 the deceased in order to put off flames and PW8 fetched water and both PW8 and accused poured the water on the deceased in order to save her from the flames, in meantime the accused took the pusthelathadu (MO8) from the deceased and fled from the scene, her parents reached to the scene of offence, she was shifted to Gandhi hospital for treatment through 108 ambulance, Pw15 recorded the statement of victim marked under Ex.P7, at 2.15 hours thereafter on requisition under Ex.P4, Pw12 recorded the statement of victim at 3.00 hours, thereafter she succumbed to burns while undergoing treatment on the next day at 11.30 hours.

15.On the other hand the accused denied the entire version of the prosecution. The tenor of the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses by the accused shows that accused is an auto driver. He sold his auto trolley and he wanted the sale proceeds of auto trolley for purchase of a car to run taxi but the deceased Saritha wanted the said money for construction of a house and in that context there were quarrel between them and the deceased was in the habit of threatening the accused that she would commit suicide if her demand is not obliged by the accused and she was done the same when they were residing at Vinayaknagar once on that the owners of the house of Vinayaknagar asked them to shift the house on that the couple were shifted to Mallapur from Vinayaknagar, when they were residing in 

Mallapur also the deceased continued her behaviour insisting the accused to use the above said money for construction of house otherwise she will commit suicide and as the accused did not oblige her she poured kerosene on her person and set fire herself and when she sustained burn injuries she raised hue and cries on that accused woke up and tried to put off the flames by throwing Bontha/ bed sheet/chaddar/ (MO2, 4 & 5) with the help of neighbour (PW8) he poured water on the deceased to save her from the flames and in 9 that context the accused also sustained burn injuries to his hand.

16. In the present case going through the oral and documentary evidence of prosecution and also the defence shows that death of the deceased is caused to burn injuries. The evidence of PW14 who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panch witness i.e., PW11 also remained undisputed that the deceased died due to the burn injuries and to that effect PW14 drafted inquest panchanama marked under Ex.P3. 

The Asst. Professor who is examined as Pw16 testifies that the death of the deceased in this case is due to burn injuries sustained to her. The evidence of Pw16 is remained undisputed as to the nature of death of the deceased that was caused due to burn injuries to the deceased on account of use of kerosene. Ex.P8 is issued by Pw16 to that effect opining that death of the deceased was due to Neurogenic shock due to extensive burns. Neither the oral evidence of Pw16 nor the document marked under Ex.P8 issued by 

PW16 is disputed by the defence. The rest of the prosecution witnesses evidence is also not disputed by the defence that Smt. Saritha died because of burn injuries on account of kerosene. Hence, it can be conclude that the death of the deceased was caused due to burn injuries on account of kerosene on her person. 

17.Now it is to be seen that whether the prosecution could able to prove that accused caused the death of his wife Saritha by pouring kerosene on the person of deceased and lit fire by using match box (MO6) to her. 

Admittedly, there is no eye witness to state that someone saw while the accused was pouring kerosene on the person of the deceased and lit fire and thereby caused the death of the deceased. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of Pw1 to 9 and statement of victim marked under Ex.P7 and dying 10 declaration of the deceased marked under Ex.P5.

18.The evidence of Pw1 to 9 is corroborating in toto with the prosecution version since they have deposed that that accused committed the death of the deceased by pouring kerosene on her person and lit fire by using match box (MO6). Even after cross examination of Pw1 to 9 no elicitation come out from their evidence falsifying the version of prosecution. In the present case, except the evidence of Pw8 the other witnesses examined as Pw1 to 7 and 9 are the witnesses who came to know about the incident and the manner of the commission of offence committed by the accused through Pw8. Here, the evidence of Pw8 assumes much importance since he is the only witness who immediately have knowledge about the impugned incident. Pw8 categorically deposed that on relevant day and time there was a quarrel between the deceased and accused and he saw flames under the door, on seeing that he came out of the room and knocked the door of the deceased and accused, after 5 minutes the accused opened the door and he found the deceased with flames and accused was trying to put off the flames with clothes Bontha/ bed sheet/chaddar/ (MO2, 4 & 5)), then he fetch water and poured on the deceased in order to put off the flames . His further evidence is that accused gave him a phone number of his relation, accordingly, he contacted the said person and some body spoke to him and told them that the deceased is in flames and while he was trying to call the police accused pulled Pusthelathadu (MO8) from the deceased and ran away from the scene of offence Ex.P1 on that deceased came out with burn injuries then Pw8 called the ambulance in the meanwhile relations of deceased also came there, then the deceased was shifted to Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad in the ambulance. It is required to observe that evidence of PW8 in chief is remained intact even after cross examination.

11

19. Further the evidence of PW9 who is the owner of the house where the deceased and accused family lives remained intact. The Ex.P2 rough sketch of the scene of offence remained undisputed that the house of PW9 contain three portions in ground floor wherein in one portion accused and deceased reside and in the middle portion PW8 resides. PW8 is the co­tenant of the deceased and the accused who resides abutting the room where the deceased and accused family live in the house of PW9. PW8 explicitly deposed that at relevant time there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused there is only one wall separating from his room to the room of the deceased and accused and as he saw the flames under the door, he came out and knocked the door of the deceased and accused, then after 5 minutes the accused opened the door and PW8 saw the deceased with flames. Here the defence took contention that PW8 categorically deposed that when the accused opened the door he saw the accused was trying to put off the flames of the deceased with clothes i.e. Bontha. Therefore, submits that, it is clear that as the deceased attempted to commit suicide for not obliged her demand on that the accused tried to save her from the flames by throwing clothes on her body.

20.But the prosecution vehemently argues that though Pw8 deposed that he saw the accused while he throwing the clothes on the person of the deceased to put of flames but Pw8 never deposed that he saw the deceased poured kerosene on her and lit fire and as she was burning with flames and raise hue and cry and by hearing that accused woke up and tried to put off the flames as in the manner suggested by defence. Further prosecution strongly rely upon the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the 

PW12. Here it is required to observe the version of prosecution that soon 12 after the flames the deceased was admitted into hospital and her statement was recorded under Ex.P5 by Pw12 and Ex.P5 clinchingly discloses the manner in which the deceased was harassed by the accused and poured kerosene on her and lit fire and caused the death of the deceased. The evidence of Pw12 as well as Ex.P5 corroborating with the prosecution version. On careful perusal of Ex.P5 it shows that the deceased categorically deposed while her statement was recorded by Pw12 stating that as usual she returned the house from work at 07.50 PM on relevant day and by the time the accused was not in the house on that she made a phone call to him at 9.15 PM on that the accused abused in filthy language over phone stating that he will go where ever he wish and he returned to the house at 10.00 pm and there was a quarrel between them as she asked him where he was gone on that he replied in the same manner that he will go where ever he wish and hither to this he already visited the central jail and if again was sent , he will kill the family members of the deceased after he returns and by stating that he poured kerosene on her person and lit fire with match stick then, she removed her saree on that in order to make her burnt he thrown blanket/ Chaddarlu and as flames were not reach to her head he burnt her head.

21.With the above referred evidence on record the case of the prosecution is that deceased died out of burn injuries within seven years of marriage alleged to have committed by the accused. As per the dying declaration of the deceased and marked under Ex.P5 recorded by PW12 the deceased made phone call to the accused at about asking his whereabouts in which the accused scolded her and did not revealed his location. Later, the accused came to the house and on query of the deceased as to where he was gone, accused picked up quarrel and threatened her family members with dire 13 consequences by stating already he visited the central prison once. As the quarrel became big accused poured kerosene over the body of the deceased and set fire to her. The deceased in order to escape herself unfurled her saree (MO1) where accused make sure that the deceased get caught with in the fire put Bontha/ bed sheet/chaddar/ (MO2, 4 & 5) on her body and also poured kerosene over her head as it was not lit properly. In the statement of deceased there appears no elicitation of tutoring being given to her. Further the evidence of PW12 shows that recording of dying declaration is in accordance with procedure contemplated under Rule 33 of Criminal Rules of 

Practice not giving scope to disbelieve the evidence of PW12 in recording the statement of PW12. Adding to the evidence of PW12 coupled with Ex.P5, there is evidence of PW8 who is tenant in the same house where the accused and the deceased used to reside. It is the evidence of PW8 that on relevant date he heard hue and cry from the portion of the deceased and the accused at about 10.30 pm. As such he knocked the door of the accused and deceased wherein the accused opened the door on that PW8 found flames on the body of the deceased. At that time accused put chaddar on the body of the deceased where as PW8 brought water to throw over the body of the deceased for saving her live. Later, accused escaped the scene on information over phone by PW8 to the police and parents of the deceased. It is the evidence of PW1 and 2 that on their visit to the deceased at her house, PW1 and 2 were told about the incident where under the accused poured kerosene and lit fire to her. The defence of the accused stand on the basis of the cross examination of PW8 and contradiction elicited under Ex.D1 to D3 in prosecution witnesses PW1 , Pw3 and Pw4 that the accused thrown the 

Bontha/ bed sheet/chaddar/ (MO2, 4 & 5) over the deceased to put of flames. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that if the accused poured kerosene over the deceased and lit and ablazed her there was 14 no need for the accused to put blanket over the body of the deceased. It is the version of counsel for the accused that the accused sold his auto and intended to purchase four wheeler whereas the deceased insisted him to buy a house out of the sale proceeds of the auto trolley and on this issue quarrel took place and the deceased threatened the accused to commit suicide and poured herself kerosene on her body and lit fire to her body. On that accused thrown the blanket on the body of the deceased to save her life. Therefore with the elicitation in the cross examination of PW8 contradictions marked under Ex.D1 to D3 it is the defence of the accused that accused intended to save the life of the deceased after she poured kerosene and lit herself. 

Therefore, prayed to acquit the accused. In order to answer the contention took by the defence counsel it is required to be observe that as per evidence of PW8 he came to the house of the accused and knocked the door and only after knocking the door the accused opened door. At the time PW8 saw that deceased was in flames. Had the accused carried the intention of saving the life of the deceased he could have reached out for help by opening the door. 

But such is not the condition. Adding to the above reason, it is seen in the dying declaration marked under Ex.P5 the deceased stated that accused put 

Bontha/ bed sheet/chaddar/ (MO2, 4 & 5) over her with an intention to see that she get more fire as deceased unfurled her saree (MO1) to save herself. 

Therefore, the action of the accused he put blanket/chaddar over the body of the deceased which was witnessed by PW8 is required to be understood as action of the accused to see that the deceased died of burn injuries but not to save her. Therefore, the elicitation in the cross examination of PW8 stating that he witnessed the accused putting clothe/blanket over the deceased is required to be see in the manner stated by the deceased under Ex.P5 which shows that the action of the accused to see the end of the deceased but not to save her. Therefore, the contradictions Ex.D1 to D3 does not assumes any 15 importance. Further, the contradiction under Ex.D4 is signigicance since the evidence of Pw6 is hearsay evidence which is no value in the eye of law. It is also evidence of PW8 that when he made phone call to parents of the deceased and police intimating about the incident accused ran away from the place of offence by taking pusthelathadu which is marked as MO8 from the deceased. The recovery of MO8 from the possession of the accused is done under Ex.P6 . The evidence of investigation officer who is examined as Pw18 and who verified the investigation done by PW17 ( who registered the case under Ex.P9) testify the fact that he recovered MO8 from the possession of the accused in the presence of panch witnesses examined as Pw13. The evidence of panch witnesses PW13 is also corroborating with the evidence of investigation officer examined as Pw18 by deposing that MO8 was recovered from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama marked under Ex.P6. Therefore, reading of the evidence of PW8, Pw18, Pw13 coupled with panchanama Ex.P6 it can be held that the prosecution is able to establish the fact that after information was furnished to the police and the parents of the deceased the accused fled away from the scene by snatching the MO8 from the possession of the deceased. The subsequent conduct of the accused is significant since had the accused carried bonafide intention there was no reason for fled away from the scene of offence by snatching MO8.

22.At this stage it is relevant to observe the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused who draw the attention of the court to the evidence of PW1. In the cross examination of PW1 it is deposed that he was informed by the police that MO8 was to the blanket/chaddar. With this elicitation in cross examination of PW1 the learned counsel for the accused intend to dispute the recovery of MO8 from the possession of the accused and deny the 16 subsequent conduct of the accused from fleeing away from the scene of offence upon information given to parents of the deceased and to the police. 

In order to answer the contention of the accused it is required to be observed that witness gives the statement under the emotions and under various circumstances and naturally there are exaggerations and embellishments by way of improvements, omissions and contradictions to their versions.

23.The duty of the Court is to separate the grain from the chaff by observing the core case is spoken by the relevant witness. The irrelevant statement of witnesses unconnected with fact is required to be ignore by the court. In the present case there is glaring evidence coming from the mouth of 

PW8 who spoke the subsequent conduct of the accused stating that accused ran away from the scene of offence by taking MO8 upon the information to parents of the deceased and to the police. This particular statement of PW8 is corroborating with the evidence of investigation officer examined as Pw.18 and panch witness examined as Pw13 coupled with seizure panchanama relevant portion marked under Ex.P6. For proving the subsequent conduct of the accused the relevant witness Pw18, Pw13 maintaining corroboration with PW8. Therefore, the presence of accused is able to establish for recovery of MO8 from the possession of the accused which form part of length of chain in the circumstances of event that transpired in the present case resulting in the death of the deceased. The elicitation in cross examination of 

PW1 stating that he was informed by police about presence of MO8 to the blanket /chaddar is directly hit by Sec.60 of Indian Evidence Act since it is hearsay evidence. Further PW1 is not relevant witness to speak about the recovery of MO8 or the relevant witness to speak about subsequent conduct of the accused since he is not eye witness to the subsequent conduct of the accused. Therefore, such partly elicitation in the cross examination of PW1 17 does not in any way contradicting the evidence of Pw18 and panch witness 

Pw13 coupled with Ex.P6.

24.The learned counsel for the accused suggested that Central Nerve system consist of only brain and spinal card and if the brain system is damaged due to shock there should be memory loss and loss of consciousness and patient who sustained 95% burn injuries would not be in a position to speak as such in the present case the deceased have sustained 95% burn injuries she was not in a position to speak. But the said suggestions are denied by PW16. Except the bear suggestions the learned counsel failed to bring any record to substantiate his version that the patient who sustained 95% burn injuries cannot speak. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW16 denying said suggestions is required to be taken into consideration since PW16 is the competent person to speak about the capacity of the patient who sustained 95% burn injuries. Further, it is brought elicited through PW16 that no sedatives were administered to the deceased. Hence, the evidence of PW16 coupled with the evidence of PW12 along with documentary evidence under Ex.P5 the suggestions putforth 

before PW16 does not assume any importance. 

25.Further, the learned counsel for the accused contended that when there are two statements which are contradicting with each other such statements are required to be discarded without looking into. The learned counsel for the accused contends that in the present case there are two dying declarations recorded i.e., one is under Ex.P7 by Head Constable who is examined as PW15 and second one is under Ex.P5 recorded by Principal Jr. 

Civil Judge, Manchiryala who is examined as PW12. In these two statements 

there is material contradiction as to the reason for quarrel between the 18 accused and the deceased. As per the statement recorded by Pw15 it was the accused who questioned the deceased as to her whereabouts and quarrel followed subsequently. Whereas, as per the dying declaration marked under 

Ex.P5 recorded by Pw12 it is the deceased who questioned whereabouts of the accused leading to quarrel between them. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the two statements given by the deceased are materially contradicting with each other therefore the two statements marked under Ex.P7 and Ex.P5 are required to be discorded in view of ratio laid down by apex Court reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3218 between State of 

Gujarat Vs. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu and benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the accused.

26.In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused containing inconsistency in the statements of the deceased under 

Ex.P7 and P5 it is required to note the legal possession of the dying declaration rendered in the above cited Apex Court decision. The relevant observations are extracted here under for ready reference: 

“ The Court below have to be extremely careful when they deal with a dying declaration as the maker thereof is not available for the cross examination which poses a great difficulty to the accused person. A mechanical approach in relying upon a dying declaration just because it is there is extremely dangerous. The court has to examine a dying declaration scrupulously with a microscopic eye to find out whether the dying declaration is voluntary, truthful, made in a conscious state of mind and without being influenced by the relatives present or by the investigating agency who may be interested in the success of investigation or which may be negligent while recording the dying declaration”.

19 “The court has to weigh all the attendant circumstances and come to the independent finding whether the dying declaration was properly recorded and whether it was voluntary and truthful. Once the court is convinced that the dying declaration is so recorded, it may be acted upon and can be made a basis of conviction. The courts must bear in mind that each criminal trial is an individual aspect. It may differ from the other trials in some or the other respect and, therefore, a mechanical approach to the law of dying declaration has to be shunned”.

27.With the understanding of legal position covering the dying declaration and applying the ration in the cited case for appreciation of deceased statement to the present case, it is seen that the statement given by the deceased is voluntary in nature without any element of tutoring and her statement is truthful inspiring the full confidence of the Court. As to the inconsistency in the statements marked under Ex.P7 which is referred by the counsel for the accused it is observed that such statement is not material in fact since in both statements what is observed is that quarrel took place between deceased and the accused and thereafter the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and later lit fire over her. Further, the dying declaration recorded by the Prl. Jr. Civil Judge (PW12), which is subsequent to the point of time without any procedural infirmities is required to be considered by the court. The earlier statement of the deceased given to the 

Pw15 under Ex.P7 is in full conformity with all material facts being spoken by the deceased with that of subsequent statement under Ex.P5. The insignificance inconsistency in statements between Ex.P7 and Ex.P5 in any away affects subsequent statement of the deceased stating that the cause of her death was action of the accused. Therefore, there appear no prudent 20 reason to disbelieve the statement of the deceased marked under Ex.P5 and 

Ex.P7 as the statement of the deceased is voluntary, truthful and without element of any tutoring. Adding to the statements of the deceased marked under Ex.P7 and P5 there is circumstantial/eye witness who is examined as 

PW8 which is mainly corroborating with the evidence of other witnesses in all proving the fact that it is the accused who caused the death of the deceased. 

There appear no doubt much less reasonable doubt to disbelieve the case of prosecution. Thus, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

28.In the cited case two dying declarations were recorded. One was by the 

Executive Magistrate and the second one was by Police Official and in both statements the victim consistently stated that she was not subjected to harassment in the hands of her in­laws and her husband and she consistently stated before two officers who recorded her statements that while her in­laws was sleeping outside of the house during that time one unknown person came near to her and he woke up her and told her to wake up and he came to take her and by saying so he took her in kitchen and poured kerosene on her and kindled match and the unknown outsider went away. As such the Apex Court was pleased to discard the oral dying declaration made to the father of the deceased by stating that the evidence of father of the deceased that deceased told her that her in­laws harassed her through out the night and in the early morning hours they poured kerosene on her and lit fire to her and as they threatened her if she reveal the same they would kill her only brother as such she did not reveal the same before the officers (Executive Magistrate & Police officials) who recorded her statements. This piece of evidence of father of deceased was appreciated by 

Lordships as an after thought of the father of the deceased on account of two consistent statements not incriminating the inlaws and husband of the 21 deceased. But in the present case no such circumstances that appear in the cited case and on the other hand the two statements of the victim in the present case recorded under Ex.P7 and P5 clinchingly discloses the culpability of the accused in pouring the kerosene her body and setting fire to her body. Hence, the cited case is distinguishable with the the case at hand on factual basis.

29.In the present case, with the evidence on record it is seen that divorce was not effect legally to the deceased from her from her first husband as it has come on record there was divorce between the deceased and her first husband namely Anjireddy before the elders. There is no record brought on record that the deceased is exempted from Hindu Marriage Act and obtained divorce according to customary practice. In the absence of such evidence led by the prosecution it is required to be held that the marriage between the deceased and the accused is not in accordance with the law. Therefore, the marriage stated to be between the deceased and the accused is not a valid marriage for the evidence led in. Hence, the charge U/Sec. 304­B of IPC is not proved by the prosecution for not establishing the valid marriage between the accused and the deceased. Hence for the charge under Sec. 304­B IPC the accused is entitled to be acquittal.

30.Therefore, for the aforementioned discussion it is held that, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Sections 302 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C, 

Partly dictated to stenographer and partly typed to my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of November, 2019

IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

22

Question regarding Quantum of Sentence

The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The accused states that he is the only son to his parents as no body to look after the welfare of his parents. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, who submitted that a lenient view may be taken in awarding the sentence.

After hearing the submissions of the accused on quantum of 

Sentence, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case on hand, I am of the considered view that this is not the rarest of rare case to impose death penalty. Therefore, death penalty cannot be imposed. 

Therefore, the accused is sentenced to to undergo rigorous 

Imprisonment for Life and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/­ for

the offence under Section 302 of IPC. In default of payment of fine to 

undergo simple Imprisonment for Three Months . 

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under

Sections 302 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C

and sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for Life and also

sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/­ for the offence under Section 302 of

IPC. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple Imprisonment for

Three Months and accused found not guilty for the offence under Section

304­B of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

The accused is in judicial custody from 3­4­2012 to 14­6­2012. 

The accused is represented by learned advocate and he is appraised of his right to prefer appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and he is further appraised that he can have legal aid facility through Hon'ble High Court 

Legal Services Committee if requires.

Partly dictated to stenographer and partly typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of November, 2019.

IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

23

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Pw1 – N. Bagavanth Reddy

Pw2 – N. Bhagyamma

Pw3 –D. Manjula 

Pw4 – Anji Reddy

Pw5 – K. Vimalamma

Pw6 – K. Mallesh

Pw7 – Raji Reddy

Pw8 – B. Srinivas

Pw9 – V. Jayaram

Pw10­ B. Suresh

Pw11 – A. Anuradha

Pw12 – Md. Nizamuddin

Pw13 – Dharma

Pw14 – V. Lachi Reddy

Pw15 – M. Sr Scene of offence isailam Goud

Pw16­ Ch. Lakshman Rao Pw17­T. Manohar Reddy Pw18­ Radha Krishna Rao

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

−Nil ­

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

ExP1 –Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama

ExP2 – Rough Sketch

ExP3 – Inquest panchanama

ExP4 – Requisition given by P.S Nacharam

ExP5 – Dying Declaration proceedings

ExP6 – Relevant admissible portion in confessional panchanama of accused 

dt. 3­4­2012

ExP7 – Statement of D. Saritha recorded by Pw15

ExP8 – Postmortem Examination Report dt. 22­3­2012

ExP9 – Original FIR

ExP10 – Death summary dt. 22­3­2012 issued by Gandhi hospital

ExP11 – Memo for alteration of Section of law into 302 IPC

ExP12 – Memo for alteration of Section of law from 302 IPC to 304­B IPC 24

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Ex.D1:some portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1 marked through Pw1

Ex.D2:some portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3 marked through Pw3

Ex.D3:some portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4 marked through Pw4

Ex.D4:some portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw6 marked through Pw6

Ex.D5:some portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw9 marked through Pw9

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Nil 

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

1. MO1:Burnt Saree

2. MO2: Bontha

3. MO3: Burned under ware (Langa)

4. MO4: Bed Sheet

5. MO5: Chaddar

6. MO6: Match box

7. MO7: Five liter capacity kerosene tin with tow liters kerosene.

8. MO8: Pusthelathadu

IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS 

JUDGE, AT L.B.NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. S. Premavathi

IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar

This the 22 nd day of October, 2019

SC No. 594 of 2014

1.Name of the complainant: The State of Telangana through Inspector of Police, Police Station Moinabad

2.Name of the Accused1.Maskula Goutham Kumar, S/o. Vinod Kumar, Age: 26 years, Occ: Driver, :R/o. Flat No.G1 Emerald Enclave Radha Nagar, sun City, Bandlaguda, Rajendra Nagar, R.R.district.

2.Rayudu Kanakadurga Devi @ Devi, W/o. Somu Raju, Age: 23 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Sri Sai Avenue Appt, PanchavaticolonyManikonda, R.R.District.

3.Thuppudu Gopal, S/o. Narsappa, Age: 50 years, Occ: Labour, R/o.Jyothi Nagar, Langarhouse, Hyderabad.

3.Offence under Section: U/s. 302, 120­B r/w 109 IPC.

4.Cr. No. and Name of P.S: 213 of 2013 of PS Moinabad. 

5.P.R.C. No.: 68 of 2014

6.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

7.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty for the offence under Section 302, 120­B r/w 109 IPC

8.Sentence of Order:In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120­B read with 109 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The bail bond of A1 to A3 shall be in force for further period of Six (6) Months as per Sec.437­A of Cr.P.C. The marked and unmarked non valuable property is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked valuable property if any is ordered to be given to its claimants after 2 expiry of appeal time. The property given on interim custody if any is here by made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The property given on safe custody is ordered to be given to the claimants after expiry of appeal time.

9Prosecution conducted by: Sri K. Krishna Reddy

Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

10. Defence conducted by: Sri.G. Chandra Shekar Reddy Advocate for A1 & A2 Sri. K. Ravi Kishore Advocate of A3

11. Case committed by: VIIIMetropolitanMagistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar, R.R. District.

This case coming on 17.10.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Krishna Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G. Chandra Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the Accused No.1 & 2, and of Sri. K. Ravi Kishore Counsel for A3; and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T 

The Inspector of Police, PS Moinabad filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 302,120­B IPC in Cr.No. 

213/2013 of Moinabad Police Station.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 02­092013 at 15.30 hours on receipt of credible information about laying of unknown dead body of a male person at near Jalagam Prasad Rao farm house Surangal village outskirts, the Lw­17/S. Ravi Chandra, Inspector of Police, PS Moinabad along with supporting staff visited the scene of crime and found the information true. The Lw17 camped at scene of crime and received a Telugu written complaint from Lw1/Soma Mohan Reddy in which he stated that on 02­09­2013 at about 15.00 hours when he was proceeding to Bakaram side from Murthujaguda village, meanwhile near Jalagam 3 prasad Rao farm house he went to attend nature call and noticed one unknown male dead body., aged 30­35 years was found laying in the land of 

Hanumanth Rao situated adjacent to Jalagam Prasad Rao's farm house. 

Further, he stated that some unknown persons might have killed the deceased hitting over the head using boulder and dragged the body to a distance of about 30 feet from the place of killing, he found head injury on the head of deceased.

3.On receiving the complaint from LW­1, the Lw17 endorsed the petition and sent the Lw16/SHO Syed Kadher to registered the case and send the CD file to scene of crime. Accordingly, Lw16 registered the case in 

Cr.No.213/2013 U/Sec.302 IPC and issued FIR and sent the CD file to Lw17.

 4.During the course of investigation, Lw17 recorded the statement of witnesses Lws.1 to 3 and summoned two local panchas Lw10 & 11 Bonala 

Prabhakar, Vadla Narsimha chary and conducted a scene of offence panchanama and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of crime, took the photographs of the scene of crime as well as dead body in the presence of same panchas. He seized blood stained stones, one liquor bottle, two glasses, one polythene cover, water pocket, and control earth and blood stained earth has been seized from the scene in the presence of mediators. Then shifted the dead body of the deceased to OGH Mortuary where the Lw12/Dr. K. 

Janardhan Asst. Professor, OMC, Hyderabad conducted autopsy over the dead body and pending the report, preserved the body at Mortuary and disseminated the information to all police stations and local area. 

5.While the investigation was under progress, on 04­09­2013 the Lw4 to 

Lw8 came to police station by seeing the photographs of the deceased and 4 identified the deceased as Rayudu Somaraju, S/o. Nageshwar Rao. As such 

Lw17 taken them to Mortuary OGH Hyderabad and on seeing the dead body they identified it as their son Soma Raju. Then the dead body was handed over to Lw4/Rayudu Nageshwar Rao who is father of deceased for performing final/funeral rites. 

6.The learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar has taken cognizance of the case for the offence under Sections 302, 120­B of the IPC against the accused No.1 to 3 and numbered as PRC No. 68/2014 and committed the case to the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, 

Cyberabad, RR District. The case was taken on file as SC No. 594 of 2014 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the offence under Sections 302, 120­B 

IPC and the same was made over to the Court of IV Addl. District and 

Sessions Judge, R.R.District for disposal as per procedure. 

7.On appearance of A1 to A3 and on due consideration, the then 

Presiding Officer framed the charges under Sections 302, 120­B IPC are framed, read over and explained to A1 to A3, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the trial has commenced.

8.In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has got examined Pw1 to Pw15. Pw1 – S. Mohan Reddy, Pw2 – Srinivas Rao, Pw3 – 

Krishna Reddy, Pw4 – Nageshwar Rao, Pw5 – Chandramma, Pw6 – K. 

Govindhu, Pw7 – Sanjeeva, Pw8 – Rayudu Srinivas, Pw9 – R. Nagabushanam, 

Pw10­ V. Narishimha Chary, Pw11 – B. Prabhakar, Pw12 – Dr. K. Janardhan, 

Pw13 – Shahi Kanth, Pw14 – S. Nagesh, Pw15 – S. Ravichandra were examined. ExP1 – Signature on Report, ExP2 – Sec.161 statement of Pw1, 

ExP3 ­ Sec.161 statement of Pw6, ExP4 – Sec.161 statement of Pw7, ExP5 – 

Signature of Pw10 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama, ExP6 – 5

Signature of Pw10 on the rough sketch, ExP7 – Signature of Pw10 on the inquest Panchanama, ExP8 – Signature of Pw11 on scene of offence cum seizure Panchanama, ExP9 ­Signature of Pw.11 on rough sketch, ExP10 – 

Signature of Pw11 on the inquest Panchanama , ExP11 – P.M.E. Report, 

ExP12 – Signature of Pw13 on confession Panchanama of A1, ExP13 – 

Signature of Pw13 on confession Panchanama of A2, ExP14 – Signature of 

Pw13 on confession Panchanama of A3, ExP15– Signature of Pw13 on seizure report of A1, ExP16 – Signature of Pw13 on seizure Report of A3, ExP17 – 

Signature of PW14 of confession Panchanama of A1, ExP18 – Signature of 

Pw14 confession Panchanama of A2, ExP19 – Signature of Pw14 confession 

Panchanama of A3, ExP20 – Signature of Pw14 on seizure report of A3, 

ExP21 – Signature of Pw14 on seizure report of A1, ExP22 – Complaint, 

EXP23 – Original F.I.R, ExP24 – Scene observation Panchanama dt. 2­9­ 2013, ExP25 – rough sketch of scene of offence, ExP26 to ExP29 – 

Photographs of the dead body of the deceased, ExP30 ­ Inquest report, 

EXP31 – Seizure report of Honda Activa bike (bearing No. AP 09 VR TR 5146), 

ExP32 – Seizure report of Honda Passion Plus bearing No. AP 13L8613, 

ExP33 & 34 – Photographs of Honda Activa bike (bearing No. AP 09 VR TR 5146, ExP35 –& 36 ­Photographs of Honda Passion Plus bearing No. AP 13L8613 and MOs.1 to 8 are marked. 

9.The Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of 

Lw13/Dr. GV. Jagadamba, Joint Director APFSL, Lw16/Syed Khadar, Sub­

Inspector of Police, Moinabad. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, confronting the particulars of incriminating material made against them for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6

10.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appear on behalf of A1 to 

A3 and also the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution.

11.Now the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1 to A3 for the charged offence beyond all reasonable doubt.

12.POINT:­

It is the case of the prosecution that A2 and the deceased are wife and husband. There is illegal intimacy between A2 and A1 it is came to know by the deceased, on that, deceased was harassing A1 and A2. So, in order to eliminate the deceased as he became hindrance for the illegal intimacy of A1 and A2, A1 contacted with A3 and hatched a plan. In furtherance of their conspiracy on 1­9­2013 A1 taken deceased on Honda 

Activa bearing No.AP 09 VR TR 5146 (Ex.33) to A3 at ring road, Langer house and went towards Amdapur Road and from there took Rayudu Somaraju to 

Bakaram road, where they consumed liquor with the deceased and while the deceased was in drunken state A1 pushed him on the ground and hit on his head with a boulder, A3 also picked up a boulder and hit on the head of the deceased. Due to that the deceased sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. After confirmation of death of Somaraju Rayudu, the A1 informed the matter of A2. Then, the accused No.1 to 3 have caused the offence punishable under Section 302, 120­B r/w 109 of IPC. Hence, the charge sheet is being filed against A1 to A3 for committing murder of the deceased. 

13.It is the evidence of Pw15 who is the Investigating Officer, that on 02­ 09­2013 at 3­30 hrs he received information that one unknown dead body was lying at the outskirts of Surangal Village near Jalagam Prasad Rao farm 7 house on that he along with staff proceeded to the scene of offense and found the unknown dead body and there he received written complaint (ExP22 marked through Pw15) from Pw1 stating that Pw1 has seen the dead body near Jalagam Prasad Rao fields and having seen the dead body and came to know that said person was killed by beating with boulder on that he gave Ex.P22to Pw15. So having not known the identity particulars of the dead body Pw15 caused wide publication with the photograph of the dead body, on that, Pw4 and Pw5 came to see the said photographs,they could identified the impugned dead body is that of their son Somaraju. According to autopsy done by Pw12 there were antimortem 5 injuries and the death was caused due to head injury and to that effect Pw12 issued report marked as Ex.P11. The evidence of Pw12 coupled with Ex.P11 is not disputed by the accused. 

14.Here, from the evidence of Pw2, Pw3, Pw4, Pw5, Pw8, Pw12, it can be held that prosecution is able to prove that dead body of the deceased is the son of Pw4 & 5 and it is homicidal death. 

15.Now it is required to see whether the prosecution is able to prove that 

A1 to A3 have committed the murder of the deceased. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to state that they have witnessed while A1 & A3 have beaten the deceased much less with MO.1.From the evidence of Pw4, Pw5 who are parents of the deceased and also going through the evidence of Pw8 & Pw9 who are brothers of the deceased it shows that they are suspecting illegal intimacy between A1 & A2 (who is their daughter­in­law and wife of the deceased), so in order to eliminate the deceased, A1 killed the deceased. But, except expressing suspicion that A1 killed the deceased, they are failed to depose anything connecting the A1 with the death of the deceased. 

8

16.Here it is required to be observed the evidence of Pw15 who says that 

A1 to A3 have confessed the commission of offence in the presence of Pw13 & 

Pw14. But, there is no support from Pw13 & 14 to the evidence of Pw15 as to the confession stating that there is illegal relation between A1 & A2 and that they have hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased and with the help of 

A3, A1 & A3 have taken the deceased on Ex.P33 to the Bakaram road there they consumed alchol and while the deceased was in drunken condition A1, 

A3 beat on the head of the deceased with MO1 and thereby caused spot death.

17. Here it is required to state that Pw13 though deposed that three persons i.e., two male and one female are confessed that they have killed the deceased herein and that police prepared panchanama said to have of A1 to 

A3 respectively. But pleaded ignorance as to the identification of A1 to A3 in the present case. Further, Pw13 categorically pleaded ignorance as to the contents of said panchanama and deposed that at the instance of police he signed under Ex.P12 to P14 on alleged confession cum seizure panchanama 

dt. 11­10­2013. On the other side PW14 who is another panch witness to 

the alleged confession categorically deposed that alleged panchanamas are already written by the time he reached to police station and only at the request of Pw13 he signed alleged panchanama as under Ex.P17 to P19. 

Therefore, the version of prosecution that A1 to A3 have confessed the guilt 

before the police in the presence of Pw13 & Pw14 remained not proved. 

18.Further, the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of Ex.P33 & Ex.P35 positive photographs of motor vehicle i.e., Honda Activa bike bearing No. AP 09 VR TR 5146 and Honda Passion Plus bearing No.AP 13 L 8613 said to be 9 seized from the possession of A1 & A3, and also Nokia cell phone since 

Pw13 & 14, during the cross examination categorically denied the suggestion that police have seized the Ex.P33 & P35 at the instance of A1 & A3. In fact nothing has come out from the mouth of Pw13 & Pw14 as to the seizure of 

Ex.P33 & P35 from the possession of A1 & A3 respectively to support the evidence of Pw15. Generally seizure panchanama of the property is said to be proved when the independent panch witness to the seizure panchanama extend the support to the evidence police officials. But, in the present case expect the evidence of Pw15 as to the seizure ofEx.33 & 35 there remain no other evidence available on record much less support by Pw13 and Pw14 witnesses for seizure panchanama. Be that as it may.

19.In the present case, Pw11 & Pw10 said to be acted as panch witness for Ex.P24 & P25 (marked through Pw15) havealso not supported the version of Pw15. They have deposed that they were called by the police to the police station and as the police asked them to sign on some papers and nothing will happen to them. On such assurance given by the police they signed some papers (Ex.P5, P6, P8 & P9) without knowing the contents in it. Hence, 

Ex.P24 & P25 remained not proved by prosecution. Even inquest panchanama also remained not supported by Pw11. Pw1 also did not support the prosecution version & evidence of Pw15 and he explicitly deposed that he never lodged Ex.P22 by incorporating such contents and he only signed Ex.P22 under Ex.P1 as the police asked him to sign and without knowing the contents in Ex.P22. Further, going through the evidence of PW6 to Pw11 as to the panchanama conducted at the place where the dead body of the deceased is said to have noticed by the police on reliable information is also not supported by the independent witnesses Pw1, Pw10, Pw11 and also the evidence of Pw15 remained not supported by panch witness to the seizure 10 of Mos.1 to Mos.8 said to be seized from the place where the dead body was found lying. In these circumstances, for the discussion taken above as to the evidence of prosecution witnesses itself which is not supporting the version of 

Pw15 evidence as well as entire prosecution version mere basing on the evidence of Pw15 who is said to be investigating officer of the case at hand, it cannot be said that seizure of MO1 and Ex.33, 35are proved to state that such evidence is one of the circumstances that can connect the accused with the offences charged. 

20.It is settled principle that mere suspicion never takes the place of evidence. Here in the present case, the evidence of Pw4 & 5; though they have deposed explicitly in the open court against A1 that he committed murder of their son Somaraju but as already stated supra there is nothing on the record supporting their evidence that A1 killed the deceased. In catena of decision Apex Court held that mere basing on the investigating officer evidence without having corroboration conviction cannot be given. Therefore, going through entire evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses there appears nothing on record connecting the accused with the charged offence. 

When there is nothing on record connecting the accused with the charged offence, this Court is required to acquit the accused from the charged offences. Thus, the point is answered against the prosecution. 

21.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120­B read with 109 of IPC and they are acquitted under 

Section 235 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The bail bond of A1 to A3 shall be in force for further period of Six (6) Months as per Sec.437­A of Cr.P.C.

The marked and unmarked non valuable property is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked valuable property if any 11 is ordered to be given to its claimants after expiry of appeal time. The property given on interim custody if any is here by made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The property given on safe custody is ordered to be given to the claimants after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by her, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22 nd day of October, 2019.

IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Pw1 – S. Mohan Reddy

Pw2 – Srinivas Rao

Pw3 – Krishna Reddy

Pw4 – Nageshwar Rao

Pw5 – Chandramma

Pw6 – K. Govindhu

Pw7 – Sanjeeva

Pw8 – Rayudu Srinivas

Pw9 – R. Nagabushanam

Pw10­ V. Narishimha Chary

Pw11 – B. Prabhakar

Pw12 – Dr. K. Janardhan

Pw13 – Shahi Kanth

Pw14 – S. Nagesh

Pw15 – S. Ravichandra

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

−Nil ­

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

ExP1 – Signature on Report

ExP2 – Sec.161 statement of Pw1

ExP3 ­ Sec.161 statement of Pw6

ExP4 – Sec.161 statement of Pw7

ExP5 – Signature of Pw10 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama

ExP6 – Signature of Pw10 on the rough sketch 12

ExP7 – Signature of Pw10 on the inquest Panchanama

ExP8 – Signature of Pw11 on scene of offence cum seizure Panchanama

ExP9 ­Signature of Pw.11 on rough sketch 

ExP10 – Signature of Pw11 on the inquest Panchanama 

ExP11 – P.M.E. Report

ExP12 – Signature of Pw13 on confession Panchanama of A1 

ExP13 – Signature of Pw13 on confession Panchanama of A2

ExP14 – Signature of Pw13 on confession Panchanama of A3

ExP15– Signature of Pw13 on seizure report of A1

ExP16 – Signature of Pw13 on seizure Report of A3 

ExP17 – Signature of PW14 of confession Panchanama of A1

ExP18 – Signature of Pw14 confession Panchanama of A2

ExP19 – Signature of Pw14 confession Panchanama of A3

ExP20 – Signature of Pw14 on seizure report of A3

ExP21 – Signature of Pw14 on seizure report of A1

ExP22 – Complaint 

EXP23 – Original F.I.R

ExP24 – Scene observation Panchanama dt. 2­9­2013

ExP25 – rough sketch of scene of offence

ExP26 to ExP29 – Photographs of the dead body of the deceased

ExP30 ­ Inquest report 

EXP31 – Seizure report of Honda Activa bike (bearing No. AP 09 VR TR 5146)

ExP32 – Seizure report of Honda Passion Plus bearing No. AP 13L8613

ExP33 & 34 – Photographs of Honda Activa bike (bearing No. AP 09 VR TR 5146.

ExP35 –& 36 ­Photographs of Honda Passion Plus bearing No. AP 13L8613

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Nil 

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

1. MO1: Two blood stone boulders

2. MO2: Mansion house quarter bottle

3. MO3: Two plastic glasses

4. MO4: One ploy thine covers

5. MO5: water packet

6. MO6: One pair of chappal

7. MO7: Blood stained Maroon color full shirt

8. MO8: One blood stained torn color terry cotton pant

IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1 Crl.R.P. No. 15 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, AT

L.B.NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present : Smt. S. Premavathi, IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar

Dated this the 8 th day of November, 2019

Criminal Revision Petition No.15 of 2019

Between:

A-1: M/s. 4G Identity Solutions Pvt. Ltd Rep. By its Chairman Dr. Tripuraneni Sreeni aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

A-2: Dr. Tripuraneni Sreeni aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

A-3: D. Venkatratnam aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

...Petitioner

AND

M/s. S.R.K. Industries, rep. By its Chief Executive Officer, A.V. Prasad, S/o. Late Rama Rao, Admin.No.4-9-61/B/160/A

HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-76. ...Respondent

Revision Orders passed by the I Special Magistrate, R.R. District,

against: Hastinapuram in Crl.M.P No. 2173/2018 in C.C No.185/2016

dated 24.12.2018

Between:

A-1: M/s. 4G Identity Solutions Pvt. Ltd Rep. By its Chairman Dr. Tripuraneni Sreeni aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

A-2: Dr. Tripuraneni Sreeni aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

A-3: D. Venkatratnam aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

...Petitioner

AND

2 Crl.R.P. No. 15 of 2019

M/s. S.R.K. Industries, rep. By its Chief Executive Officer, A.V. Prasad, S/o. Late Rama Rao, Admin.No.4-9-61/B/160/A HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-76.

...Respondent

This Criminal Revision Petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Ramesh, counsel for petitioner and of Sri. S. Bhaskaran counsel for respondent upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following order;

O R D E R

This criminal revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/accused under Section 397 of Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the order dt. 24-12-2018 passed in

Crl. MP No.2173/2018 in CC. No.185/2016 by the learned I Special Magistrate,

Ranga Reddy District at Hasthinapuram.

2. The revision petitioner has raised the following grounds, which are reproduced as they are mentioned in the petition, viz.,.

1. That the order of the court below is contrary of law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. That the order of the court below is erroneous and is not based on proper appreciation of law and facts.

3. It is submitted that admittedly, cross examination of Pw2 was completed on 8-10-2018.

4. In less than two months from the date of reporting closure of prosecution evidence, the petitioner herein had filed the Crl.

MP.No.2173/2018 in which the court below has passed the impugned order erroneously. The time lapse if any is not 10 months as wrongly contended by the respondent in its counter.

5. It is submitted that the court below erred in concluding that “ there is nothing left for questioning involving the points in issue and further 3 Crl.R.P. No. 15 of 2019 to prove” at page 3 para 8 of the order. The petitioner herein volunteered to submit in sealed cover, the proposed questions sought to be put to Pw1. However, even without giving a fair chance to the petitioner herein, the court below has erroneously dismissed the

Crl.MP.No.2173/2018.

6. It is submitted that the court below erred in not properly considering petitioner’s genuine apprehensions in not disclosing the specific questions as it would make the very purpose of seeking to recall Pw1 for further cross examination a futile exercise.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner herein had even undertaken that given an opportunity to cross examine the Pw1, needful shall be done on just one date of hearing at para 5 of the petition.

8. It is submitted that the court below failed to exercise due diligence by passing the impugned order dismissing the Crl.MP which was filed for discovery, vindication and establishment of truth.

9. It is submitted that if this revision application is not allowed by setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner will suffer immense loss and injury. Whereas the respondent would not suffer any loss if

Pw1 is recalled for further cross examination in the interest of justice.

10. The other ground may be urged at the time of hearing of this criminal revision application.

3. Perused the entire record.Heard the learned counsel appear on both sides

4.It is submitted that Respondent/complainant filed complaint against him

U/Sec.138 of NI Act which is pending before the I Special Magistrate, R.R.District at

Hastinapuram. Wherein the revision petitioner/accused had filed

Crl.MP.No.2173/2018 U/Sec.311 Cr.P.C to recall Pw1 for further cross examination.

4 Crl.R.P. No. 15 of 2019

But, unfortunately, I Special Magistrate, R.R.District at Hastinapuram has dismissed it by an order dt. 24-12-2018.

5.It is submitted that inadvertently a couple of crucial questions which are very necessary for discovery, vindiction and establishment of the truth were not elicited during the course of trial particularly in the cross examination of Pw1, as such revision petitioner/accused wants to further cross examine Pw1 on the crucial aspect of identity of the complainant and authority to file the complaint.

Further, it is submitted that he is ready to submit in a sealed cover containing the actual questions which he want to put to the Pw1 during further cross examination since disclosing the specific questions would make the very purpose of further cross examination redundant.

6.But the trial court instead of allowing the petition providing an opportunity to further cross examine Pw1 erroneously dismissed the petition concluding that ‘there is nothing left for questioning involving the points in issue and further to prove’ though the revision petitioner/accused volunteered to submit the proposed questions in sealed cover depriving fair opportunity to the revision petitioner/accused. The learned counsel for petitioner would place reliance in decision reported in Rajendra prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell through its officer (SC

1999 July), 2) Sunder Las Vs Urmila Thakur on 16-03-2018, 3) Venu Madhava K

& Anr Vs. The State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr on 1-12-2017.

7.On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended and submitted that no acceptable reasons given for non-cross examination or suggestions given to Pw1 and oversight/inadvertance on the part of the revision petitioner/accused are counsel for the petitioner/accused if any committed either by the petitioner or by the counsel for the petitioner while 5 Crl.R.P. No. 15 of 2019 prosecuting the case is not at all a ground to recall the witness and the petition for recalling Pw1 is filed almost 10 months after the date of completing the evidence of Pw1 is an after thought and in order to cover up the lacunas in the evidence of

Pw1 the petition was came to be filed with a sole motive to drag on the proceedings. The learned counsel of the respondent/complainant would further submit that the Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the impugned order dt.24-12-2018 since impugned order is a nature of interlocutory order. The learned counsel for respondent would place reliance in decision reported in 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC) dt. 28-3-2018 between Asian

Resurfacing of road agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation.

8.No oral or documentary evidence adduced on both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration are:

1. Whether the revision petitioner is allowed to cross examine Pw1 in the circumstances mentioned in the petition?

2. Whether the revision petition is maintainable ?

10. Points No.1 & 2: It is a matter of record that respondent/complainant filed the above CC.No.185/2016 against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act before the trial court. It is an admitted fact that

before the trial court has commenced and respondent/complainant side evidence

is completed and matter is posted for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Going through the rival contentions of both sides referred above it is seen that the respondent/complainant (Pw1) lead his evidence by examining himself as Pw1 and one person as PW2 and thereafter matter was posted for examination of revision petitioner/accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C at that stage, the petition U/Sec.311 Cr.P.C came to be filed before the trial court by the Revision 6 Crl.R.P. No. 15 of 2019 petitioner/accused and the same was came to be dismissed by the trial court observing that Pw1 already cross examined on all the facts of touching the case and there is nothing left for questioning involving the points in issue and further to prove and no merits in the petition. It is observed that the revision petitioner/accused failed to state the factor/reason for not conducting the cross examination on the material points. It is not the case of revision petitioner/accused that after cross examination of Pw1 new facts came to the knowledge of petitioner which are required to be confronted to Pw1. This observation is already made by the trial court in its order Dt.24.12.2018. The

Revision petitioner/accused failed to show the grounds for recalling the evidence of Pw1 as such recalling the evidence of Pw1 for mere asking the Revision petitioner/accused cannot be considered by this court unless just and essential circumstances have been shown by the revision petitioner/accused to the court for invoking section 311 of Cr.P.C. Further, the respondent/complainant challenge the present petition on its maintainability by relying on the decision reported in

2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC) dt. 28-3-2018 between Asian Resurfacing of road

agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. On careful reading of the cited decision it is observed that the Hon’ble apex court interpreted

Sec.397 of Cr.P.C and held that the revision jurisdiction is not vested with Sessions

Court or Hon’ble High Courts in the matter relating to Interlocutory applications.

In the present case, the impugned order dt. 24-12-2018 passed by the trial court in

Crl.MP.No.2173/2018 in CC.No.185/2016 is being interlocutory in nature and the

impugned order is not a final order. Therefore, the present revision petition preferred against the order dt. 24-12-2018 passed by the trial court U/Sec.311

Cr.P.C is not maintainable before this court as per Sec.397 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, both on the factual and legal aspects the petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

7 Crl.R.P. No. 15 of 2019

11.The decisions reported in Rajendra prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell through its

officer (SC 1999 July), 2) Sunder Las Vs Urmila Thakur on 16-03-2018, 3) Venu

Madhava K & Anr Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr on 1-12-2017 relied upon by the Revision petitioner/accused relate to Sec.311 of Cr.P.C and power of the court to exercise such power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. In the present Revision petition this court is not concerned with exercise the power U/ Sec.311 Cr.P.C but to observe as to whether the order passed by the trial court is substantial in law and this court has no revisional jurisdiction to interfere with impugned order. With the discussion as stated above with reference to decision of apex court referred above reported in 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC) dt. 28-3-2018 between Asian

Resurfacing of road agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation relied upon by the respondent, this court cannot have revisional jurisdiction against the interlocutory application. Therefore the decisions relied upon by the revision petitioner/accused do not come to the aid of the Revision petitioner/accused. Therefore the present Revision petition is not maintainable and is accordingly liable to be dismissed.

12.For the above reasons, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and therefore this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. These points are answered accordingly. dismissed.

13. Point No.3 :In the result this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8 th day of November, 2019.

IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, L.B. NAGAR

1 Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, AT

L.B.NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present : Smt. S. Premavathi, IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar

Dated this the 8 th day of November, 2019

Criminal Revision Petition No.16 of 2019

Between:

A-1: M/s. 4G Identity Solutions Pvt. Ltd Rep. By its Chairman Dr. Tripuraneni Sreeni aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

A-2: Dr. Tripuraneni Sreeni aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

A-3: D. Venkatratnam aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

...Petitioners

AND

M/s. S.R.K. Industries, rep. By its Chief Executive Officer, A.V. Prasad, S/o. Late Rama Rao, Admin.No.4-9-61/B/160/A

HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-76. ...Respondent

Revision Orders passed by the I Special Magistrate, R.R. District,

against: Hastinapuram in Crl.M.P No. 2172/2018 in C.C No.184/2016

dated 24.12.2018

Between:

A-1: M/s. 4G Identity Solutions Pvt. Ltd Rep. By its Chairman Dr. Tripuraneni Sreeni aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

A-2: Dr. Tripuraneni Sreeni aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

A-3: D. Venkatratnam aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

...Petitioners

2 Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2019

AND

M/s. S.R.K. Industries, rep. By its Chief Executive Officer, A.V. Prasad, S/o. Late Rama Rao, Admin.No.4-9-61/B/160/A HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-76.

...Respondent

This Criminal Revision Petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Ramesh, counsel for petitioner and of Sri. S. Bhaskaran counsel for respondent upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following order;

O R D E R

This criminal revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/accused under Section 397 of Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the order dt. 24-12-2018 passed in

Crl. MP No.2172/2018 in CC. No.184/2016 by the learned I Special Magistrate,

Ranga Reddy District at Hasthinapuram.

2. The revision petitioner has raised the following grounds, which are reproduced as they are mentioned in the petition, viz.,.

1. That the order of the court below is contrary of law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. That the order of the court below is erroneous and is not based on proper appreciation of law and facts.

3. It is submitted that admittedly, cross examination of Pw2 was completed on 8-10-2018.

4. In less than two months from the date of reporting closure of prosecution evidence, the petitioner herein had filed the Crl.

MP.No.2172/2018 in which the court below has passed the impugned order erroneously. The time lapse if any is not 10 months as wrongly contended by the respondent in its counter.

5. It is submitted that the court below erred in concluding that “ there is nothing left for questioning involving the points in issue and further 3 Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2019 to prove” at page 3 para 8 of the order. The petitioner herein volunteered to submit in sealed cover, the proposed questions sought to be put to Pw1. However, even without giving a fair chance to the petitioner herein, the court below has erroneously dismissed the

Crl.MP.No.2172/2018.

6. It is submitted that the court below erred in not properly considering petitioner’s genuine apprehensions in not disclosing the specific questions as it would make the very purpose of seeking to recall Pw1 for further cross examination a futile exercise.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner herein had even undertaken that given an opportunity to cross examine the Pw1, needful shall be done on just one date of hearing at para 5 of the petition.

8. It is submitted that the court below failed to exercise due diligence by passing the impugned order dismissing the Crl.MP which was filed for discovery, vindication and establishment of truth.

9. It is submitted that if this revision application is not allowed by setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner will suffer immense loss and injury. Whereas the respondent would not suffer any loss if

Pw1 is recalled for further cross examination in the interest of justice.

10. The other ground may be urged at the time of hearing of this criminal revision application.

3. Perused the entire record.Heard the learned counsel appear on both sides

4.It is submitted that Respondent/complainant filed complaint against him

U/Sec.138 of NI Act which is pending before the I Special Magistrate, R.R.District at

Hastinapuram. Wherein the revision petitioner/accused had filed

Crl.MP.No.2172/2018 U/Sec.311 Cr.P.C to recall Pw1 for further cross examination.

4 Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2019

But, unfortunately, I Special Magistrate, R.R.District at Hastinapuram has dismissed it by an order dt. 24-12-2018.

5.It is submitted that inadvertently a couple of crucial questions which are very necessary for discovery, vindiction and establishment of the truth were not elicited during the course of trial particularly in the cross examination of Pw1, as such revision petitioner/accused wants to further cross examine Pw1 on the crucial aspect of identity of the complainant and authority to file the complaint.

Further, it is submitted that he is ready to submit in a sealed cover containing the actual questions which he want to put to the Pw1 during further cross examination since disclosing the specific questions would make the very purpose of further cross examination redundant.

6.But the trial court instead of allowing the petition providing an opportunity to further cross examine Pw1 erroneously dismissed the petition concluding that ‘there is nothing left for questioning involving the points in issue and further to prove’ though the revision petitioner/accused volunteered to submit the proposed questions in sealed cover depriving fair opportunity to the revision petitioner/accused. The learned counsel for petitioner would place reliance in decision reported in Rajendra prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell through its officer (SC

1999 July), 2) Sunder Las Vs Urmila Thakur on 16-03-2018, 3) Venu Madhava K

& Anr Vs. The State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr on 1-12-2017.

7.On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended and submitted that no acceptable reasons given for non-cross examination or suggestions given to Pw1 and oversight/inadvertance on the part of the revision petitioner/accused are counsel for the petitioner/accused if any committed either by the petitioner or by the counsel for the petitioner while 5 Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2019 prosecuting the case is not at all a ground to recall the witness and the petition for recalling Pw1 is filed almost 10 months after the date of completing the evidence of Pw1 is an after thought and in order to cover up the lacunas in the evidence of

Pw1 the petition was came to be filed with a sole motive to drag on the proceedings. The learned counsel of the respondent/complainant would further submit that the Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the impugned order dt.24-12-2018 since impugned order is a nature of interlocutory order. The learned counsel for respondent would place reliance in decision reported in 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC) dt. 28-3-2018 between Asian

Resurfacing of road agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation.

8.No oral or documentary evidence adduced on both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration are:

1. Whether the revision petitioner is allowed to cross examine Pw1 in the circumstances mentioned in the petition?

2. Whether the revision petition is maintainable ?

10. Points No.1 & 2: It is a matter of record that respondent/complainant filed the above CC.No.184/2016 against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act before the trial court. It is an admitted fact that

before the trial court has commenced and respondent/complainant side evidence

is completed and matter is posted for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Going through the rival contentions of both sides referred above it is seen that the respondent/complainant (Pw1) lead his evidence by examining himself as Pw1 and one person as PW2 and thereafter matter was posted for examination of revision petitioner/accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C at that stage, the petition U/Sec.311 Cr.P.C came to be filed before the trial court by the Revision 6 Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2019 petitioner/accused and the same was came to be dismissed by the trial court observing that Pw1 already cross examined on all the facts of touching the case and there is nothing left for questioning involving the points in issue and further to prove and no merits in the petition. It is observed that the revision petitioner/accused failed to state the factor/reason for not conducting the cross examination on the material points. It is not the case of revision petitioner/accused that after cross examination of Pw1 new facts came to the knowledge of petitioner which are required to be confronted to Pw1. This observation is already made by the trial court in its order Dt.24.12.2018. The

Revision petitioner/accused failed to show the grounds for recalling the evidence of Pw1 as such recalling the evidence of Pw1 for mere asking the Revision petitioner/accused cannot be considered by this court unless just and essential circumstances have been shown by the revision petitioner/accused to the court for invoking section 311 of Cr.P.C. Further, the respondent/complainant challenge the present petition on its maintainability by relying on the decision reported in

2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC) dt. 28-3-2018 between Asian Resurfacing of road

agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. On careful reading of the cited decision it is observed that the Hon’ble apex court interpreted

Sec.397 of Cr.P.C and held that the revision jurisdiction is not vested with Sessions

Court or Hon’ble High Courts in the matter relating to Interlocutory applications.

In the present case, the impugned order dt. 24-12-2018 passed by the trial court in

Crl.MP.No.2172/2018 in CC.No.184/2016 is being interlocutory in nature and the

impugned order is not a final order. Therefore, the present revision petition preferred against the order dt. 24-12-2018 passed by the trial court U/Sec.311

Cr.P.C is not maintainable before this court as per Sec.397 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, both on the factual and legal aspects the petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

7 Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2019

11.The decisions reported in Rajendra prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell through its

officer (SC 1999 July), 2) Sunder Las Vs Urmila Thakur on 16-03-2018, 3) Venu

Madhava K & Anr Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr on 1-12-2017 relied upon by the Revision petitioner/accused relate to Sec.311 of Cr.P.C and power of the court to exercise such power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. In the present Revision petition this court is not concerned with exercise the power U/ Sec.311 Cr.P.C but to observe as to whether the order passed by the trial court is substantial in law and this court has no revisional jurisdiction to interfere with impugned order. With the discussion as stated above with reference to decision of apex court referred above reported in 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC) dt. 28-3-2018 between Asian

Resurfacing of road agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation relied upon by the respondent, this court cannot have revisional jurisdiction against the interlocutory application. Therefore the decisions relied upon by the revision petitioner/accused do not come to the aid of the Revision petitioner/accused. Therefore the present Revision petition is not maintainable and is accordingly liable to be dismissed.

12.For the above reasons, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and therefore this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. These points are answered accordingly. dismissed.

13. Point No.3 :In the result this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8 th day of November, 2019.

IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, L.B. NAGAR

1 Crl.R.P. No. 17 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, AT

L.B.NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present : Smt. S. Premavathi, IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar

Dated this the 8 th day of November, 2019

Criminal Revision Petition No.17 of 2019

Between:

A-1: M/s. 4G Identity Solutions Pvt. Ltd Rep. By its Chairman Dr. Tripuraneni Sreeni aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

A-2: Dr. Tripuraneni Sreeni aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

A-3: D. Venkatratnam aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

...Petitioners

AND

M/s. S.R.K. Industries, rep. By its Chief Executive Officer, A.V. Prasad, S/o. Late Rama Rao, Admin.No.4-9-61/B/160/A

HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-76. ...Respondent

Revision Orders passed by the I Special Magistrate, R.R. District,

against: Hastinapuram in Crl.M.P No. 2174/2018 in C.C No.136/2017

dated 24.12.2018

Between:

A-1: M/s. 4G Identity Solutions Pvt. Ltd Rep. By its Chairman Dr. Tripuraneni Sreeni aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

A-2: Dr. Tripuraneni Sreeni aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

A-3: D. Venkatratnam aged: 45 years, Off: Plot No.330 & 331 Road No.79, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-34,

...Petitioners

2 Crl.R.P. No. 17 of 2019

AND

M/s. S.R.K. Industries, rep. By its Chief Executive Officer, A.V. Prasad, S/o. Late Rama Rao, Admin.No.4-9-61/B/160/A HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-76.

...Respondent

This Criminal Revision Petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Ramesh, counsel for petitioner and of Sri. S. Bhaskaran counsel for respondent upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following order;

O R D E R

This criminal revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/accused under Section 397 of Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the order dt. 24-12-2018 passed in

Crl. MP No.2174/2018 in CC. No.136/2017 by the learned I Special Magistrate,

Ranga Reddy District at Hasthinapuram.

2. The revision petitioner has raised the following grounds, which are reproduced as they are mentioned in the petition, viz.,.

1. That the order of the court below is contrary of law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. That the order of the court below is erroneous and is not based on proper appreciation of law and facts.

3. It is submitted that admittedly, cross examination of Pw2 was completed on 8-10-2018.

4. In less than two months from the date of reporting closure of prosecution evidence, the petitioner herein had filed the Crl.

MP.No.2174/2018 in which the court below has passed the impugned order erroneously. The time lapse if any is not 10 months as wrongly contended by the respondent in its counter.

5. It is submitted that the court below erred in concluding that “ there is nothing left for questioning involving the points in issue and further 3 Crl.R.P. No. 17 of 2019 to prove” at page 3 para 8 of the order. The petitioner herein volunteered to submit in sealed cover, the proposed questions sought to be put to Pw1. However, even without giving a fair chance to the petitioner herein, the court below has erroneously dismissed the

Crl.MP.No.2174/2018.

6. It is submitted that the court below erred in not properly considering petitioner’s genuine apprehensions in not disclosing the specific questions as it would make the very purpose of seeking to recall Pw1 for further cross examination a futile exercise.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner herein had even undertaken that given an opportunity to cross examine the Pw1, needful shall be done on just one date of hearing at para 5 of the petition.

8. It is submitted that the court below failed to exercise due diligence by passing the impugned order dismissing the Crl.MP which was filed for discovery, vindication and establishment of truth.

9. It is submitted that if this revision application is not allowed by setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner will suffer immense loss and injury. Whereas the respondent would not suffer any loss if

Pw1 is recalled for further cross examination in the interest of justice.

10. The other ground may be urged at the time of hearing of this criminal revision application.

3. Perused the entire record.Heard the learned counsel appear on both sides

4.It is submitted that Respondent/complainant filed complaint against him

U/Sec.138 of NI Act which is pending before the I Special Magistrate, R.R.District at

Hastinapuram. Wherein the revision petitioner/accused had filed

Crl.MP.No.2174/2018 U/Sec.311 Cr.P.C to recall Pw1 for further cross examination.

4 Crl.R.P. No. 17 of 2019

But, unfortunately, I Special Magistrate, R.R.District at Hastinapuram has dismissed it by an order dt. 24-12-2018.

5.It is submitted that inadvertently a couple of crucial questions which are very necessary for discovery, vindiction and establishment of the truth were not elicited during the course of trial particularly in the cross examination of Pw1, as such revision petitioner/accused wants to further cross examine Pw1 on the crucial aspect of identity of the complainant and authority to file the complaint.

Further, it is submitted that he is ready to submit in a sealed cover containing the actual questions which he want to put to the Pw1 during further cross examination since disclosing the specific questions would make the very purpose of further cross examination redundant.

6.But the trial court instead of allowing the petition providing an opportunity to further cross examine Pw1 erroneously dismissed the petition concluding that ‘there is nothing left for questioning involving the points in issue and further to prove’ though the revision petitioner/accused volunteered to submit the proposed questions in sealed cover depriving fair opportunity to the revision petitioner/accused. The learned counsel for petitioner would place reliance in decision reported in Rajendra prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell through its officer (SC

1999 July), 2) Sunder Las Vs Urmila Thakur on 16-03-2018, 3) Venu Madhava K

& Anr Vs. The State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr on 1-12-2017.

7.On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended and submitted that no acceptable reasons given for non-cross examination or suggestions given to Pw1 and oversight/inadvertance on the part of the revision petitioner/accused are counsel for the petitioner/accused if any committed either by the petitioner or by the counsel for the petitioner while 5 Crl.R.P. No. 17 of 2019 prosecuting the case is not at all a ground to recall the witness and the petition for recalling Pw1 is filed almost 10 months after the date of completing the evidence of Pw1 is an after thought and in order to cover up the lacunas in the evidence of

Pw1 the petition was came to be filed with a sole motive to drag on the proceedings. The learned counsel of the respondent/complainant would further submit that the Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the impugned order dt.24-12-2018 since impugned order is a nature of interlocutory order. The learned counsel for respondent would place reliance in decision reported in 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC) dt. 28-3-2018 between Asian

Resurfacing of road agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation.

8.No oral or documentary evidence adduced on both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration are:

1. Whether the revision petitioner is allowed to cross examine Pw1 in the circumstances mentioned in the petition?

2. Whether the revision petition is maintainable ?

10. Points No.1 & 2: It is a matter of record that respondent/complainant filed the above CC.No.136/2017 against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act before the trial court. It is an admitted fact that

before the trial court has commenced and respondent/complainant side evidence

is completed and matter is posted for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Going through the rival contentions of both sides referred above it is seen that the respondent/complainant (Pw1) lead his evidence by examining himself as Pw1 and one person as PW2 and thereafter matter was posted for examination of revision petitioner/accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C at that stage, the petition U/Sec.311 Cr.P.C came to be filed before the trial court by the Revision 6 Crl.R.P. No. 17 of 2019 petitioner/accused and the same was came to be dismissed by the trial court observing that Pw1 already cross examined on all the facts of touching the case and there is nothing left for questioning involving the points in issue and further to prove and no merits in the petition. It is observed that the revision petitioner/accused failed to state the factor/reason for not conducting the cross examination on the material points. It is not the case of revision petitioner/accused that after cross examination of Pw1 new facts came to the knowledge of petitioner which are required to be confronted to Pw1. This observation is already made by the trial court in its order Dt.24.12.2018. The

Revision petitioner/accused failed to show the grounds for recalling the evidence of Pw1 as such recalling the evidence of Pw1 for mere asking the Revision petitioner/accused cannot be considered by this court unless just and essential circumstances have been shown by the revision petitioner/accused to the court for invoking section 311 of Cr.P.C. Further, the respondent/complainant challenge the present petition on its maintainability by relying on the decision reported in

2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC) dt. 28-3-2018 between Asian Resurfacing of road

agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. On careful reading of the cited decision it is observed that the Hon’ble apex court interpreted

Sec.397 of Cr.P.C and held that the revision jurisdiction is not vested with Sessions

Court or Hon’ble High Courts in the matter relating to Interlocutory applications.

In the present case, the impugned order dt. 24-12-2018 passed by the trial court in

Crl.MP.No.2174/2018 in CC.No.136/2017 is being interlocutory in nature and the

impugned order is not a final order. Therefore, the present revision petition preferred against the order dt. 24-12-2018 passed by the trial court U/Sec.311

Cr.P.C is not maintainable before this court as per Sec.397 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, both on the factual and legal aspects the petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

7 Crl.R.P. No. 17 of 2019

11.The decisions reported in Rajendra prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell through its

officer (SC 1999 July), 2) Sunder Las Vs Urmila Thakur on 16-03-2018, 3) Venu

Madhava K & Anr Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr on 1-12-2017 relied upon by the Revision petitioner/accused relate to Sec.311 of Cr.P.C and power of the court to exercise such power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. In the present Revision petition this court is not concerned with exercise the power U/ Sec.311 Cr.P.C but to observe as to whether the order passed by the trial court is substantial in law and this court has no revisional jurisdiction to interfere with impugned order. With the discussion as stated above with reference to decision of apex court referred above reported in 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC) dt. 28-3-2018 between Asian

Resurfacing of road agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation relied upon by the respondent, this court cannot have revisional jurisdiction against the interlocutory application. Therefore the decisions relied upon by the revision petitioner/accused do not come to the aid of the Revision petitioner/accused. Therefore the present Revision petition is not maintainable and is accordingly liable to be dismissed.

12.For the above reasons, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and therefore this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. These points are answered accordingly. dismissed.

13. Point No.3 :In the result this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8 th day of November, 2019.

IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, L.B. NAGAR