1
THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE(FTC), AT
SIDDIPET
PRESENT: SMT. S.SARITA,
IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Siddipet
Thursday this the 10th day of December,2020
SESSIONS CASE No. 45 OF 2018
Name of Complainant PS Gajwel Crime No01/2017 Name of accusedA1- Yekkaldev Yadaiah, S/o Pedda Ilaiah, age 58 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: Rickshaw puller, R/o Pregnapur village of Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District.
A2 Jangili Nagalaxmi W/o.Kumar, aged 26 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: Housewife, R/o Pregnapur village of Gajwel Mandal,Siddipet District.
A3- Yekkaldev Pochavva, w/o Yadaiah, age 53 years, Caste: Golla,Occ: Housewife, R/o Pregnapur village of Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District.
Charge U/Section 302 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC Plea of AccusedNot Guilty Finding of the CourtFound not guilty Sentence / Order IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Section 302 IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled if any and the non-valuable case property MO1 to MO13 shall be destroyed after expiry of Appeal or appeal time is over. Prosecution Conducted bySri Venkat Lingam Yasala, Addl.Public Prosecutor Defence Conducted bySri M.Venkateswar Rao, Advocate P.R.C No. & Cr. No.PRC.No. 24 of 2017,Cr.No.01 of 2017 Case Committed bySri E. Sucharitha, Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Gajwel.
This Sessions Case having come before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri Venkat Lingam Yasala, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Venkateshwar
Rao, Advocate for accused, upon perusal of material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:- 2
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This Sessions Case arose out of PRC No.24/2017 on the file of Addl. Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel in Cr.No.01/2017 of P.S.Gajwel Police Station for the offence
punishable u/Sec. 302 of IPC r/w. Sec.34 of IPC which has been committed to the court of
Sessions by virtue of an order dated 06.02.2018.
2.The grave-men of charge against the Accused No.1 to 3 is that on 01.01.2017 at about 2.30 am A1 to A3 being the in-laws and wife of deceased Kumar with a common intention committed the murder of their son-in-law Kumar by tying his hands and legs and by beating him with sticks indiscriminately over head and other parts of body due to family disputes. Thus the acts of accused constitute the offence punishable u/Sec. 302 of IPC r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
3This is a case of Murder of Jangali Kumar which occurred on 01.01.2017 at about 2.30 am hours in the house of A1 at Pregnapur village wherein A1 and A3 who are in-laws and A2 wife of deceased Kumar murdered him by tying his hands and legs and by beating him with sticks indiscriminately over head and other parts of body due to family disputes.
3.1On 01-01-2017 at 1000 hours complainant Katu Yadagiri/LW1 who is VRA of
Pregnapur Village lodged a report before Gajwel P.S stating that his villager namely
Yekkaladev Yadaiah performed the marriage of her daughter Nagalaxmi/A2 with Jangili
Kumar/deceased, later some disputes arose between Nagalaxmi and Kumar and case was also registered in the year 2013, since then Nagalaxmi is residing with A1 and A3 and Kumar/deceased was residing in Hyderabad. While so, on the intervening night of 31-12-2016/01-01-2017 at 2 am when Nagalaxmi/A2 and her parents/A1 and A3 were sleeping in their house, at that time Kumar/deceased came to their house in an inebriated condition and knocked the door, on hearing sounds, A2, A1 and A3 woke-up and picked up a quarrel with Kumar wherein A1 attacked on Kumar with available stick over Kumar’s head whereas A2 and A3 have tied the hands and legs of Kumar with a 3 rope and beat him with sticks indiscriminately over his head and other parts of body, in the said quarrel A1 received head injury and A2 received injuries on hands, whereas
Kumar sustained bleeding injuries over his head, mouth and hands and became unconscious. Coming to know about the matter, police has reached the spot and shifted the injured Kumar in ambulance to Government Hospital, Gajwel for treatment and from there shifted to Gandhi Hospital for better treatment and while the deceased was being shifted to Gandhi Hospital, he took his last breath and succumbed to injuries and the incident took place when deceased went to the house of A1 in connection with marriage disputes and finally LW1 requested to take necessary action.
3.2On receipt of report from LW1, LW20/B.Kamalakar/S.I of Police, Gajwel P.S registered a case in Crime No.01/2017 for the offence u/Sec. 302 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of
IPC issued express FIRs to all concerned, later examined and recorded the statement of LW1 at police station and informed the same to LW21/K.Satish, Circle Inspector of
Police, Gajwel P.S. as the case is grave in nature. On receipt of FIR, LW21 took up further investigation of the case wherein he re-examined LW1 who spoke the same facts which he stated before LW20, hence his statement was not recorded. Thereafter,
LW21 visited the scene of offence along with LW1 and examined the same minutely and got photographed through LW4/A.Yadagiri, Local Photographer and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch map in the presence of mediators LW13 and LW14 namely: Y.Mallesham, K.Mahender and LW21 seized blood stained rope of 11 feet in length, blood stained wooden stick, blood stained Y shape firewood stick of 3 feet, one blood stained Yeltha stick /Bamboo stick of 60cm length and 3 inches width, controlled earth, blood stained earth, blood stained brick which are lying in the scene of offence under cover of panchanama in the presence of same mediators.
Later, LW21 examined and recorded the statements of eyewitnesses LW2 and LW3 namely: K.Sampath Kumar and K.Durga Prasad and also LW4. Thereafter, LW21 visited the mortuary room at Gandhi hospital wherein he conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body deceased in the presence of mediators LW15 and 4
LW16 namely: B.Anjaneyulu, M.Chiranjeevi. He also examined and recorded the statements of relatives deceased LW5 to LW8 namely Jangili Narsamma,Jangili
Chandru, B.Sunitha and Smt. B.Yellavva. Thereafter, LW19/Laxaman Rao, Asst.
Professor, Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad held autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued Postmortem Examination report opining that the death of the deceased was due to Head Injury. Thereafter, LW21 seized wearing apparels of the deceased in the presence of LW15 and LW16, later handed over the dead body to LW5 for funerals of deceased.
3.3While so on 01.01.2017, LW21 apprehended A1 to A3 at their house in
Pregnapur and interrogated them and when they are in mood to confession of offence, he recorded the confessional statement of A1 in the presence of mediators LW17 and
LW18 namely: P. Narsimulu and P. Srinivas, VRAs of Pregnapur wherein he revealed the facts as in stated in his confession statement and A1 produced one blood stained pestle used in commission of offence which was seized under cover of panchanama.
Later, LW21 also interrogated and recorded the confessional statements of A2 and A3 in the presence of same mediators wherein A2 and A3 corroborated the version of A1.
Thereafter, LW21 brought A1 to A3 to Gajwel P.S and effected their arrest on 01.01.2017 at 1800 hours and sent them to judicial remand. Later, He also examined and recorded the statements of LW9 to LW11 namely: K. Srinivas, ASI, D.Swamy,
PC2429, M.Murali,PC2057. On 02.01.2017, LW21 again visited the scene of offence wherein he examined and recorded the statement of Lw12/M.Satyanarayana /Circumstantial Witness. Later, he collected FSL report and all other relevant material record and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet against A1 to
A3 for the offence u/Sec. 302 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC.
4.Learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Gajwel took cognizance for the offence punishable u/Sec. 302 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 to 3 and after furnishing copies of relevant documents to the accused u/S.207 Cr.P.C. the said Magistrate committed the case u/S.209(a) Cr.P.C. to Hon'ble Principal Court of 5
Session, Sessions Division Medak at Sangareddy as mentioned in the first para of
Judgment.
5.Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy registered the case and made over the same to VI Addl. Sessions court, Sangareddy vide orders dated 15.03.2018 and later this case was transferred to this court from VI Addl. Sessions
Court, Siddipet vide proceedings of Principal District Court Proceedings No.5821/2019
dated 13.12.2019 for disposal according to law.
6.After appearance of the accused and after hearing both sides on 05.06.2018 the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Siddipet framed charge for the offence punishable u/Sec. 302 IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC against the accused read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.In support of prosecution case P.W 1 to PW14 were got examined and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and got marked MO1 to MO13.
8.After completion of prosecution evidence accused was examined u/S.313 Cr.P.C.
explaining the incriminating circumstances appeared in the prosecution case, for which they denied. On being given an opportunity to adduce defence evidence. Ex.D1 was marked in the cross examination of PW1 on behalf of defence side.
9.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) made an endeavour to impress upon the court that the accused No.1 to 3 committed the murder of deceased on 31/12/2016/1-1-2017 at about 2.00 am, by beating him with sticks and pestle by tying his hands and legs with a plastic rope when the deceased picked up a quarrel with
Accused No.1 to 3 in drunken condition in connection with martial disputes between deceased and A2 and deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the alleged incident. He further contended that the evidence of PW1 is consistent and clearly reveals that a quarrel took place between the deceased and A1 to A3 wherein 6 deceased died and he deposed his evidence on the same lines. It is further contention of learned A.P.P that the PW2 and PW3 are eyewitnesses and their evidence is also consistent and trustworthy and their evidence is crystal clear that on the date of alleged incident they noticed that a quarrel took place between the Accused No.1 to 3 and deceased wherein Accused No.1 to 3 beat the deceased indiscriminately with sticks and deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the said quarrel. PW4 who is brother of deceased also clearly deposed that there are marital disputes between deceased and A2 with regard to illicit affair between A2 and another person who is a tenant in the house of A1 and his brother died due to injuries sustained by him in the quarrel that took place on the date of alleged incident. The evidence of PW1 to
PW4 corroborated by the evidence of PW5 and PW6 who are police officials with regard to quarrel that took place between deceased and A1 to A3 wherein the deceased was beaten indiscriminately by Accused 1 to 3 and that deceased died due to injuries sustained on the date of alleged incident. The learned APP further contended that PW8 mediator for scene of offence panchanama in his evidence clearly deposed about the scene of offence and seizure of material objects used in commission of offence in his presence PW9 mediator for inquest panchanama also supported the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW10 clearly supporting the case of prosecution wherein he deposed that A1 to A3 confessed the offence in his presence. The learned
APP further contended that the evidence of PW12 Medical Officer clearly reveals that the cause of death was due to head injury which caused by blunt object and Ex.P9
PME Report supports the same. The evidence of PW13 and PW14 investigation reveal the investigation done by them and supports the case of prosecution. The learned APP argued that there is overwhelming evidence on record which proves the guilt of
Accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to punish the accused
No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC.
11.The learned counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3 contended that the evidence of
PW1 is not at all useful to the case of prosecution as he is not an eyewitness to the 7 alleged incident and his role limited to only lodging of report under Ex.P1 on coming to know about the incident. Moreover, he stated different versions before the police and
before the court with regard to going to the scene of offence and witnessing the injured
on the date of alleged incident and Ex.D1 clearly goes to show that he is not an eyewitness to the incident and that he witnessed the injured on the date of alleged incident as stated by him his evidence and before police. Hence, the evidence of PW1 is not useful to the case of prosecution.
11.1The learned defence counsel vehemently contended that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 who were cited as eyewitnesses as per prosecution cannot be taken into consideration as there are glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of
PW2 and PW3. While submitting his arguments the defence counsel contended that when PW2 and Pw3 claims to have seen the alleged incident the evidence of both PW2 and PW3 shall corroborate with each other on all most all aspects. But PW2 deposed
before the court that he and PW3 witnessed A1 to A3 beating the deceased with stick on
the date of alleged incident, but PW3 who was another eyewitness and present along with PW2 at the time of alleged incident, deposed before the court that he and PW2 witnessed A1 was beating the deceased, hence, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is totally contradictory with each other on the said aspect. If really, PW2 and PW3 were present at the time of alleged incident they both should have spoken the similar version which they have seen, but their evidence is totally contradictory with each other with regard to who actually beat the deceased on the said date. These two different versions spoken by PW2 and PW3 before this court are totally inconsistent and contradictory with each other which raises a doubt about their presence at the scene of offence on the date of alleged incident.
11.2. The learned defence counsel further contended that PW3 deposed before the court that he informed about the incident to their street people but no one responded and then he called the police on 100, but PW2 nowhere stated about the said fact
before this court. It was also contended by defence counsel that PW2 and PW3 did not
8 reveal or explain how they came to know about the family disputes in between deceased and A2 and they never stated before police whether they have any prior acquaintance with the deceased and accused to know about the family disputes in between the deceased and A2. Further it is contended by the learned defence counsel that both PW2 and PW3 stated in their evidence before the court that they stood near the gate of the house of A1 and saw the incident but in the cross examination of PW2 stated that the house of A1 is surrounded with compound wall which is partially made of stones and on one side and partially compound wall on the side of toilet and the said compound wall is having gate, but PW3 while in cross examination contradicted that the house of A1 is surrounded with compound wall on four sides and has gate attaching to the compound wall, whereas PW5 police constable stated that the compound wall has no gate and compound wall. PW7 stated that that there is compound wall made of bricks with 1 1/2 feet height and there is gate attached to the house of A1 and that wall at the gate is about 6 feet in height which is totally contradictory to the version of PW5 and versions of PW2 and PW3. PW3 in his cross examination stated that he along with PW2 and his two friends were present at the scene of offence till arrival of police ambulance but either PW2 and PW3 did not speak a single word in their chief evidence or in their statements before police about the presence of other person and PW3 also could not say whether police personnel came in police uniform or not and these contradictory versions of PW2, PW3 PW5 and PW7 makes their evidence unreliable. PW8 mediator for scene of offence panchanama failed to give any descriptive particulars of the scene of offence and measurements of the objects seized from the scene of offence. Hence, his evidence is also not reliable one and the location of portions in the house of A1 is contrary to the scene of offence panchanama.
11.3. The learned counsel contended that evidence of inquest panchanama is not at all useful to the case of prosecution in view of inconsistent evidence of other prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel for the defence further contended that as per the 9 prosecution story the deceased was in drunken condition at the time of alleged incident, but PW12 Medical Officer in his evidence stated that as per PME report under
Ex.P9 no alcohol contents were present in the stomach of deceased and this itself falsifies the prosecution story. According to PW10 mediator for confession panchanama the deceased came to the house of A1 in the early morning on 01.01.2017 in drunken condition and this version of PW10 is falsified by the evidence of PW12 Medical Officer.
11.4. The learned counsel for the defence further contended that the alleged incident occurred on 01.01.2017 at 2.30 am and the FIR was registered on the same day at 10 am, but the prosecution failed explain a delay of 8 hours in registering the FIR when the scene of offence is only 3 km away from the police station and also failed to give any reason why failed to secure the scene of offence till the time of conducting of scene of offence panchanama at 10.00am when the scene of offence is only 3km away from the police station. The investigation officer also not examined any tenants of the house of
A1. When the main allegation against A2 is that she developed illegal intimacy with a tenant in the house of A1, not examining said person shows the faulty investigation done by prosecution. The prosecution did not seize or recovered any mobile, wallet or any identity cards of deceased from the scene of offence and this raises a doubt about the investigation done by prosecution. Finally, the learned counsel prayed to acquit the accused 1 to 3 in view of the glaring inconsistencies appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and as there are several lapses, lacunae appearing in the investigation done by investigation officer which clearly shows a false case was foisted against the accused.
12.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 302 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. POINT:-
This is a case of murder of deceased by name Jangali Kumar. It is the case of prosecution that in the intervening night of 31/12/2016/01/01-2017 at about 2.00 am, 10
Accused No.2 with her parents (A1 and A3) were sleeping in their house and at that time, the deceased came to their house in drunken condition and knocked the doors, on hearing the sounds A1 to A3 woke-up and picked up a quarrel with the deceased and A1 attacked the deceased with a stick on his head and A2 and A3 tied the hands and legs of the deceased with a rope and beat him with sticks indiscriminately over the person of the deceased and in the quarrel A1 and A2 also received injuries on head and hands and deceased received bleeding injuries over his head, mouth, hands and he fell unconscious. On receipt of the information about the incident, police reached scene of offence and shifted the deceased in 108 Ambulance for the treatment and the deceased died on the way to Gandhi Hospital. It is also case of the prosecution that there are marital disputes in between deceased and A2 and in that connection deceased went to the house of A1.
14.The prosecution in support of its case examined PW1 to PW14. PW1/K.Yadagiri,
VRA, Pregnapur village and he is the de facto complainant and he lodged the report with the police stating that he came to know through the villagers of Pregnapur that 3 years back on new year's day deceased Kumar and A1 to A3 quarreled with each other and that deceased was taken to Government hospital at Gajwel and from there to a hospital at Hyderabad and that deceased died on the way to hospital and on the same day he gave report to the police after knowing the death of deceased. Ex.P1 is the report given by PW1 to the Police.
15.Perused Ex.P1 and it was registered by Gajwel Police on 01.01.2017 at 10.00 am. The evidence of PW1 that he came to know about the incident through the villagers and that he lodged report to that effect is substantiated by Ex.P1 report given to the police. PW1being the de-facto complainant is the only mover of criminal law into motion by lodging the report with the police and except this he has no other role whatsoever in this case. PW1 is not an eyewitness nor circumstantial witness and his evidence is considerable only to the extent of lodging of report under Ex.P1 with the police. There is no dispute that PW1 lodged report with the police and same is evident from Ex.P1.
11
16.In the cross examination of PW1 it was elicited wherein PW1 stated that he does not know the name of the person who scribed Ex-P1, and he denied the suggestion put by defence that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1. From the cross examination of
PW1 it can be seen that PW1 did not scribe the report under Ex.P1 and that it was scribed by another person whose name PW1 failed to give before this court in his cross examination. Furthermore, PW1 stated in his cross examination that he did not state to the police as in Ex.D1. Ex.D1 is the relevant portion of the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C of PW1 which goes to show that PW1 stated to police that " on coming to know that A1 sustained injuries over head and A2 sustained injuries on hands he went and saw and he also stated that the hands and legs of deceased were tied with a rope and he was in unconscious state with severe bleeding injuries". When PW1 denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.D1 and from this denial it is evident that he is not a direct witness to the alleged incident and also that he did not see A1 and A2 and the deceased with injuries as stated by him in his statement given to the police under section 161Cr.P.C and specifically under Ex.D1. The oral evidence of PW1 is very insignificant except giving report and much cannot be expected from his evidence.
17.According to the case of prosecution, PW2/K.Srinivas and PW3/K.Durga Prasad witnessed the alleged incident that took place on 01.01.2017 at 2.30 am. The evidence of PW2 is that on 01.01.2017 at 2.30 am he along with PW3 were passing through the house of A1 and at that time he heard big noises coming from the house of A1 and he saw by standing near the gate of A1 that A1 to A3 were beating the deceased with sticks and on seeing the incident PW3 telephoned to the police and informed about the incident and after some time police arrived at the house of A1 and took the deceased to hospital in Ambulance and the deceased was taken to Gajwel hospital from there he was shifted to Gandhi hospital. PW2 further stated that the deceased sustained injuries on his head, face and chin and the deceased died at Gandhi hospital. PW2 attributed the motive behind the incident as family disputes in between the deceased and A2.
18.PW3 who is another eyewitness to the alleged incident stated before this court 12 that he and PW2 were returning home after attending new year celebrations with their friends on the night of 31.12.2016 and on 01.01.2017 at 2.30 am when they reached near the house of A1 and at that time they heard big noises coming from the house of
A1 and on hearing they went near the gate of the house of A1 and saw A1 beating the deceased and on seeing A1 beating the deceased they got frightened and informed about the incident to their street people but no one responded then he called the police on 100 and also telephoned to Assistant Commissioner of Police Office, Gajwel.
PW3 further testified that after 20 minutes police arrived at scene of offence and after some time Ambulance also arrived at the scene of offence and the deceased was shifted to hospital in Ambulance. PW3 stated that he came to know that deceased died at
Gandhi hospital. PW3 also attributed that the deceased used to come to the house of A1 in drunken condition and used to quarrel with A2. PW2 and PW3 are cited as eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and they both have deposed before the court as eyewitnesses.
19.The case of the prosecution totally revolves around the evidence of these two witnesses. When PW2 and PW3 claims to have seen the alleged incident then their evidence is expected to be on same lines on all material aspects. But PW2 in his oral evidence before this court stated that he and PW3 saw A1 to A3 beating the deceased with stick on the date of alleged incident. Whereas, PW3 who was also present along with PW2 at the time of alleged incident, in his oral evidence before the court stated that he and PW2 saw A1 beating the deceased.
20.Here, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is totally contradictory with each other on the said aspect. If at all, PW2 and PW3 were present at the time of alleged incident they both should have narrated manner of incident on same lines which they have seen, but their evidence is totally contradictory with each other as to who actually beat the deceased on the said date. If really, PW3 saw the alleged incident he would have spoken that A1 to A3 together beat the deceased but he failed to speak the said fact, he only stated that A1 beat the deceased. Similarly if at all, PW2 was present at the scene 13 of offence on the alleged date of incident and when he says he saw the incident then he would have spoken on the same lines with that of evidence of PW3 that A1 only beat the deceased with stick and PW2 would not have spoken that A1 to A3 together beat the deceased on the date of alleged incident. These two versions deposed by PW2 and
PW3 before this court are not only totally contradictory with each other but it is also totally inconsistent and unconvincing which creates a doubt in the mind of this court to believe their presence at the scene of offence on the date of alleged incident.
21. From the evidence of PW2 it is evident that there was role of A1 to A3 as spoken to by PW2. PW2 and PW3 have spoken two different versions. On one hand,
PW2 says he saw A1 to A3 beating the deceased and on the other hand PW3 says that he and PW2 saw A1 bearing the deceased. As such two different testimonies of PW2 and PW3 makes their evidence suspicious and in that case it becomes very difficult to believe the testimonies of PW2 and PW3.
22.PW3 has not spoken about the presence of A2 and A3 at the time of alleged incident at scene of offence. These versions of PW2 and PW3 appears to be suspicious and doubtful about the presence of PW2 and PW3 at the scene of offence and that they witnessed the alleged incident. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 is not inspiring the confidence of this court to believe their evidence that they were present at the scene of offence on the date of alleged incident and that they saw deceased being beaten by A1 to A3 as alleged by the prosecution.
23.Another strong point to disbelieve the evidence of PW3 is that according to him he informed about the incident to their street people but no one responded and then he called the police on 100. If at all, there was any truth in the evidence of PW3 that they informed about the incident to their street people then the same fact would have been stated by PW2 before this court in his oral evidence. But PW2 nowhere stated about the said fact before this court. PW2 and PW3 did not give any plausible reasons or explanation as to how they came to know that there were family disputes in between deceased and A2 and also that the deceased used to come to the house of A1 14 in drunken condition and that he used to quarrel with A2. Nothing is revealed or stated by PW2 and PW3 in their statements to the police under section 161Cr.P.C whether they got any prior acquaintance with the deceased and A1 to A3 to know about the family disputes in between the deceased and A2 or that the deceased used to come in drunken state to the house of A1 and used to quarrel with A2. No such circumstances can be seen from the statements of PW2 and PW3 under section 161 Cr.P.C of PW2 and PW3 and so also from their evidence before the court.
24.There is no plausible explanation offered by the prosecution as to how PW2 and
PW3 came to know about the family disputes in between the deceased and A2 and also that the deceased used to come to the house of A1 in drunken condition and used to pickup quarrel with A2. Both PW2 and PW3 stated in their evidence before the court that they stood near the gate of the house of A1 and saw the incident but in the cross examination of PW2 he stated that the house of A1 is surrounded with compound wall which is partially made of stones on one side and partially compound wall on the side of toilet and the said compound wall is having gate. Whereas, PW3 denied that the house of A1 is surrounded with compound wall on four sides and has gate attached to the compound wall. Furthermore, it could be elicited by the defence from the cross examination of PW3 wherein he stated that he along with PW2 and PW3 and two other friends were present near the scene of offence till the time the police and Ambulance arrived there but the said fact was not at all stated by PW2 and PW3 in their oral evidence before the court. PW2 did not utter a single word about the presence of another person along with them on the date of alleged incident at scene of offence.
25.Another factor to disbelieve the presence of PW3 at scene of offence on the date of alleged incident is that he failed to say in his cross examination that whether the police came at the scene of offence on the date of alleged incident in Police uniform or Civil uniform. According to PW3, he was present at the scene of offence along with
PW2 till police arrived at the scene but he says that he does not know whether police who arrived at the scene of offence were wearing police uniform or wearing civil 15 uniform. If PW3 does not remember whether police who came to the scene of offence were wearing police uniform or civil uniform, it is expected from PW3 to explain the circumstances as to how he identified that the persons who came to the scene of offence were police. Moreover, any person witnessing the crime and who called the police and was present at the scene of offence till police arrived and the role played by such person is a major role, in such circumstances it is expected from the such person or witness to speak precisely whether the police who came to the scene were in police uniform or not. It is not a matter to be forgotten whether the police were there in uniform or not. The evidence of PW3 on the said aspect appears to be evading and also appears to be suspicious. In general circumstances, it will be very difficult for a person to remember the uniform of any person working in other departments, but in case of police personnel any person who called the police and gave information about the incident and such person who was present at the scene till arrival of police and who helped the police in such a way, in such case the said person not remembering uniform of police official is very surprising and suspicious.
26.In the cross-examination of PW2 and PW3, it was elicited that the deceased, A1 and A2 sustained bleeding injuries on the date of alleged incident and all of them were shifted to hospital by the police and PW2 observed A2 with bleeding injuries to her hands and according to PW3 he saw the deceased and A2 with bleeding injuries on the date of alleged incident. No supporting documents i.e., medical reports are filed by the prosecution to say that A1 to A3 or A2 suffered any injuries on the date of alleged incident. The charge sheet filed by the investigation officer also reveals that in the alleged incident A1 and A2 also received head injuries and hand injuries but said allegation of the prosecution as mentioned in the charge sheet is not supported by any evidence and medical proof to substantiate said allegations of the prosecution. When it is the allegation of the prosecution that A1 and A2 sustained injuries in the said alleged incident, it is for the prosecution to substantiate their allegation with the help of medical evidence, but in this case said allegations are not substantiated by any medical proof.
16
Therefore, the allegation of the prosecution that A1 and A2 sustained bleeding injuries in the course of alleged incident is not established by the prosecution and is not supported by any medical evidence. Therefore, there is no strength in the allegations of the prosecution to believe that A1 and A2 or A1 to A3 sustained bleeding injuries on the date of alleged incident.
27.PW4/J.Chandu is brother of the deceased. He has narrated about the manner of alleged incident and how the deceased was subjected to cruelty by A1 to A3 and according to him A2 was having illicit affair with one person who was residing in another portion of the house of A1 as tenant and he came to know about their affair through the deceased and the deceased informed the elders of Pregnapur village about the illicit affair of A2 and a panchayath was called in that regard and A2 was admonished by the elders in panchayath and was advised to live happily with the deceased and after some time the deceased and A2 used to quarrel frequently and A2 left the house of the deceased and went to the house of her parents. It is further testified by PW4 that A2 filed criminal case for dowry harassment against him, deceased and his sisters and that about four years back at 10 am he came to know from the police that deceased was in serious condition and he was admitted in Gandhi hospital and he immediately went there and saw the deceased with injuries on his jaw, back side of head, chin, hands and legs and swelling of chest and came to know that A1 to A3 beat the deceased and due to that deceased sustained injuries and died due to the said injuries. From the evidence of PW4 it is evident that he is not a direct eyewitness to the alleged incident and that he was not present at the scene of offence on the date of alleged incident.
According to the evidence of PW4 it is evident that there were family disputes in between the deceased and A2 and they were not living together. It is an admitted fact that A2 filed dowry harassment case against PW4, deceased and his sisters in the year 2013 and the case is still pending against them. PW4 denied in the cross examination the suggestion of defence that the relationship between the deceased and A2 was strained since 2013. PW4 admitted in his cross examination that A2 was staying with her parents 17 2013 after she filed the criminal case against the deceased and others. So from the cross examination of PW4, it is evident and crystal clear that A2 filed criminal case against PW4, deceased and their sisters in the year 2013 and since the year 2013, deceased and A2 were residing separately and A2 was residing with her parents.
Nothing elicited from the evidence of PW4 which could directly or indirectly connect the
A1 to A3 with the murder of deceased.
28.PW5/D.Swamy is the police constable who was on patrolling duty on 31.12.2016 at Pregnapur area along with LW9/ASI/K.Srinivas and LW11/PC/A.Murali and he deposed that at 2.30 hours on 01.01.2017 LW9 received information that the deceased was being beaten with hands and legs near UPS school, Pregnapur and immediately he along with LW9, LW11 went to the scene in their patrolling van near UPS school,
Pregnapur, they saw the deceased lying on the ground in front of the house of A1 and that they saw deceased with bleeding injuries and LW9 gave information to SI of Police
Gajwel thereafter they untied the legs of deceased and taken him to Gajwel
Government hospital in 108 ambulance. PW5 further testified that the deceased was shifted to Gandhi hospital in ambulance accompanied by LW11 and they received information that on 01.01.2017 the deceased died at Gandhi hospital. PW5 also stated that they came to know about the family disputes in between deceased and his wife A2 and that the deceased went to the house of A1 on 31.12.2016 in the night time and knocked the doors and disturbing A1 and his family members and for that reason hands and legs of deceased were tied with ropes and the deceased died due to injuries stained by him.
29.In the cross-examination of PW5 a specific question was put to PW5 whether the deceased was brought on to road by the police officials through gate of Compound Wall of the house or that the deceased was picked up from the road in to the Ambulance?
and to this question PW5 answered that there is no compound wall or gate to the house of A1 and that the deceased was brought by the police officials from the front yard of the house of A1 and shifted into Ambulance.
18
30.Another specific question was put to PW5 by the defence that whether to enter to the house of A1 one has to go through the gate or there is another way to enter the house of A1. To this question PW5 answered that there is open place in front of the house of A1 and from there they need to go to the house of A1.
31. The learned counsel for the defence vehemently argued that the evidence of
PW2 and PW3 that they saw A1 to A3 beating the deceased with sticks by standing near the gate of the house of A1 is highly unbelievable as according to the evidence of
PW5 there is no gate or compound wall to the house of A1 which is categorically admitted by PW5. This contention of the learned counsel for defence is substantiated categorically and this piece of evidence that is elicited from the cross examination of
PW5 wherein he categorically stated that the house of A1 has no compound wall and gate and that there is open land in front of the house of A1. When PW5 says that there is no compound wall, gate to the house of A1 in such case, the evidence of PW2 and
PW3 that they saw A1 to A3 beating the deceased with sticks on the date of alleged incident by standing near the gate of house of A1 is highly unbelievable and untrustworthy.
32.PW6/M. Satyanarayana did not support the case of prosecution and he resiled from his earlier statement given to police as in Ex.P2. Nothing material was elicited from the mouth of PW6 which is favourable to the case of prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of PW6 is not at all useful to the case of prosecution.
33.PW7/K.Srinivas, ASI and he deposed that on 31.12.2016 he along with PW5,
LW11 attending patrolling duty as per the instructions of LW20/Kamalakar, SI of Police, on the eve of new year and while they were conducting patrolling and reached near
Gajwel bus stand at about 2.30 am and at that time they received telephonic call from
LW20 who informed him that deceased was beaten near UPS school, pregnapur and instructed him to go the place of offence he along with,PW5, LW11 proceeded in patrolling vehicle and they reached place of offence he found five persons near the house of A1 and he was informed by them that the deceased was beaten at open 19 place in front of the house of A1, he along with LW5, LW11 went to the house of A1 and found the deceased in front of the house of A1 with his hands and legs tied, he gave information to LW20 about the deceased and after some time Ambulance arrived and they shifted the deceased to Government hospital, Gajwel and thereafter the deceased was shifted to Gandhi hospital, LW11 accompanied the deceased to Gandhi hospital.
34.It is further evidence of PW7 that he came to know from villagers that there were family disputes in between deceased and A2 since four years prior to the incident and
A2 was residing with her parents and also that A2 was having illicit affair with one person who was tenant in the house of A1 and that the deceased used to suspect A2 on the said ground. From the evidence of PW7 it can be gathered that PW5, PW7 along with LW11 were on patrolling duty on the said date and they visited the scene of offence after they got information from LW20 and they reached the scene of offence on the instructions of LW20 and found the deceased with his hands and legs tied with rope they were the persons who shifted the deceased to Gajwel Government hospital.
35. PW7 failed to give names of persons whom he found near the house of A1 on the date of alleged incident. In the cross examination of PW7 it was elicited that the house of A1 is having compound wall made of bricks which is 1 1/2 feet in height and there is gate attached to the compound wall and also that they brought the deceased out from the gate of the house of A1. It was also elicited from the cross examination of
PW7 that the house of A1 can be entered from the gate and also by crossing over the compound wall of the house made with bricks which is 1 1/2 feet in height and that gate affixed to the compound wall of the house of A1 and wall of the gate is about 6 feet in height,. The evidence of PW5 and PW7 with regard to existing of compound wall and gate to the house of A1 is totally contradictory and inconsistent and according to the evidence of PW5 there is no compound wall or gate to the house of A1. Whereas
PW7 says that there is compound wall made of bricks with 1 1/2 feet height and there is gate attached to the house of A1 and that wall at the gate is about 6 feet in height is totally contradictory and unbelievable. When PW5 and PW7 and LW11 went to the 20 scene of offence after receiving of the information about the alleged incident then it is expected from PW5 and PW7 and LW11 to have seen the house of A1 and it is expected from them to speak on same lines in that regard. If at all there is compound wall and gate there is nothing for PW5 who is another police official to speak that there was no gate and compound wall to the house of A1. On the whole, the evidence of PW5 and PW7 is totally contradictory with each other and is not inspiring the confidence of this court to believe their evidence and their contradictory evidence on the existence of compound wall and gate is one of the important factors to brush aside their evidence.
36. Now, coming to the evidence of PW8/K.Mahender the mediator for scene of offence he deposed about the conducting of scene of offence panchanama by the police and seizure of material objects and drawing of rough sketch to the scene of offence panchanama. The scene of offence panchanama is marked as Ex.P3, the rough sketch to the scene of offence panchanama is marked as Ex.P4. MO1 is Plastic rope, MO2 is burnt wood fire stick, MO3 is bamboo stick. PW8 simply deposed about conducting of scene of offence panchanama but he failed to give any descriptive particulars of material objects that were seized. In the cross examination the defence could elicit from the mouth of PW8 that there is compound wall made of stones to house of A1 and also a gate fixed to the said compound wall, and this version of PW8 contradicting with version of PW2 PW3, PW5 and PW7 and this creates a doubt in the mind of court to believe his presence at the time of preparing of scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P3 and rough sketch map under Ex.P4. Thus, the evidence of
PW8 cannot be taken into consideration as he failed to give any descriptive particulars of scene of offence panchanama and of material objects under MO1 to MO3 that were seized from scene of offence and he also a stated a different version with regard to existing of compound wall and gate.
37.PW9/M. Chiranjeevi is the mediator for inquest panchanama and he deposed about the conducting of inquest panchanama by police in his presence and in the presence of LW15 at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad wherein he deposed that he 21 noticed the deceased with injuries on his head, mouth, forehead, eyes and swelling on face and blood injuries all over the body of deceased and he opined that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him. Ex.P5 is inquest panchanama. Ex.P6 is clothes seizure panchanama. MO5 is yellow colour shirt, MO6 is blue colour sweater, MO7 white brief, MO8 Dark color pant. The evidence of PW9 is only helpful to the extent that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him but his evidence is no way helpful to connect the accused 1 to 3 with the alleged offence.
38. PW10/P.Srinivas is one of the mediator who was present at the time of confession of A1. According to his evidence, A1 confessed that on 01.01.2017 in the early morning hours deceased came to the house of A1 in drunken condition and knocked the doors of the house of A1 and A1 opened the doors and there was a small altercation in between A1 and deceased and on hearing the same A2 and A3 woke up and A1 out of anger took a stick and gave hit on the head of deceased and in turn deceased snatched the stick from the hands of A1 and beat A1 to A3 with stick. Further,
A1 also confessed that A2, A3 brought a rope and tied the hands and legs of deceased and A1 took pestle stone and gave a hit on the head of deceased and A2 beat deceased with a stick on the his mouth. So, the evidence of PW10 is very crucial because according to prosecution, A1 made confession before PW10 by confessing the guilt.
According to PW10, deceased came to the house of A1 in the early morning on 01.01.2017 in drunken condition. This piece of evidence from the mouth of PW10 is falsified from the evidence of Medical officer who conducted Postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased.
39. At this stage, it is relevant to go through the evidence of PW12 who is the
Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and who issued Postmortem examination report. PW12 deposed that on 1-1-2017 on the requisition of of SHO Gajwel PS he conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased/Jangiti Kumar between 3-30 PM to 4-30 PM and during of autopsy he found the following ante mortem injuries; 22
1) Multiple laceration each about 3x1x1 cms, 2x1x1 cms, 3x2x1 cms, 2x1x1 cms, 3x1.5x1 cms present over posterior of half scalp. On opening of scalp communized fracture of occipital bone of skull with surrounding contusion seen. On opening of skull subarochnoid and subdural heamorrhage present all over cerebral hemisphere.
2) Multiple fractures of both hand bones with surrounding contusions with lacerated injury 2x1x0.5 cms present over base of left index finger.
3) Multiple contused abrasions surrounding lips with loss of central incissor teeth seen.
4) Multiple contusions varying in size present above middle of both buttocks.
He opined that the cause of death was due to head injury and approximate time of death of deceased was about 6 to 12 hours prior to PME and he issued PME report under Ex-P9. He also stated that the injuries No.1 to 3 stated above might have been caused with blunt heavy object and injury No.4 might have been caused with blunt object.
40.In the cross examination PW12 denied that injury No.1 shown in Ex-P9 is caused with sharp edged weapon and the injuries No.1 to 4 shown in Ex-P9 are possible with single object or with multiple objects and he also stated that the injuries No.1 shown in
Ex-P9 is possible if a person falls on heap of stones and again stated that the injury
No.1 is possible only when the person falls on heap of stones with certain force. He also admitted that injury No.3 shown in Ex-P9 is possible if a person falls on heap of stones. He further stated that he did not notice presence of alcohol contents in the stomach of deceased and he has gone through the Inquest conducted over the dead body of deceased prior to conducting of PME and in this connection he was put a specific question that
Qn: Some of the injuries mentioned in column No.7 of Inquest Panchanama ( Ex-P5) are not referred in Ex-P9( PME report) to which he admitted as true.
41.From the evidence of PW12 it is clear that in Postmortem examination he did not mention about the presence of alcohol in the stomach of deceased and he also 23 categorically sated in his cross examination that he did not notice presence of alcohol contents in the stomach of deceased. If at all there is any truth in the alleged confession of A1 that the deceased came to his house in drunken condition then the presence of alcohol would have been traced and Medical Officer who conducted the
PME over the dead body of the deceased would have made note of the same in the
PME report but on perusal of the Ex.P9 PME report the same is lacking and there is no reference in PME report about the presence of alcohol in the body of the deceased.
Therefore, the evidence of PW10 who is one of the mediator who was present at the time of confession of A1 that deceased came to the house of A1 in drunken condition on 01.01.2017 appears to be doubtful.
42.PW11/A.Yadagiri is the Photographer and he deposed that on the call of PW14 he went to the scene of offence on 01.01.2017 and he took the photographs of scene of offence,later he went to Gandhi Hospital along with PW14 wherein he took the photographs of deceased. Ex.P8 are photographs(7Nos) and MO10 is CD.
43.In the cross-examination by learned counsel for the defence he stated that he took about 10 photographs of scene of offence in between 8 am to 9 am and he took the photographs of dead body at Gandhi hospital after 12 noon. From the evidence of
PW11 it is evident that he took the photographs of scene of offence as well as dead body of the deceased. Perused Ex.P8 and it contains of (7) photographs of deceased only and the prosecution did not file any photographs of scene of offence, as stated by
PW11. The evidence of PW11 who is photographer is not much helpful to the case of prosecution.
44.PW13/B. Kamalakar who is SI of police Gajwel PS at the relevant point of time deposed in his chief examination about lodging of report by PW1 and registering a case in Crime No. 01/2017 under Ex.P10. Perused Ex.P10 FIR wherein in column No.3 it is clearly mentioned that alleged date of incident as 01.01.2027 at 2.00 am and the scene of offence is only 3km away from the police station, and he came to know about the information at that time itself but he did not take any initiation to register FIR till filing of 24
Ex.P1 report by PW1 and there is a delay of 8 hours in lodging Ex.P1 report. There is no plausible explanation for the said delay. PW13 has spoken about role played by him in the course of conducting investigation.
45.In the cross examination PW13 clearly stated he did not know the scribe of
Ex.P1 wherein in charge sheet it is clearly mentioned that on receipt of Ex.P1 from
PW1 he registered the FIR, but he did not made any efforts to know the scribe of
Ex.P1 and in the cross examination it was also elicited that PW13 did not proceed to scene of offence immediately after coming to know about the incident from PW7 and not made any efforts to examine the deceased and he also not tried to examine the villagers who accompanied PW1 at the time of lodging Ex.P1 and he also failed to obtain the signature of PW1 at column No.14 of Ex.P10. All these facts elicited in the cross examination from the mouth of PW13 clearly goes to show the lack of efforts from the side of prosecution in conducting proper investigation. Hence, much weight cannot given to the evidence of PW13.
46.PW14/K.Satish, CI of Police of Gajwel Circle is the investigation officer in this case and he deposed about the investigation done by him after receipt of CD file from
PW13 i.e., about conducting of scene of offence panchanama, drawing rough sketch and seizure of material objects MO11 to MO13 from scene of offence and examining of
PW2,PW3,PW11, conducting of inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LW15/Bellam Anjaneyulu and PW9 and seizure of clothes of the deceased in the presence of mediators under the cover of Inquest panchanama Ex.P5 and examining of other witnesses at Gandhi hospital. He also deposed about giving requisition to PW12 to conduct PME over the dead body of deceased and for issuing of
Ex.P9 PME report by PW12 and arresting of A1 to A3 on 01-01-2017 in the evening hours at the residence of A1 at Pregnapur and recording the confessional statements of accused in the presence of mediators seizure of MO9 pestle from A1 and effecting the arrest of accused sending accused to judicial remand. He further deposed that he 25 forwarded the seized material objects i.e. MO-1 to 9 and MO-11 to 13 to FSL and after collecting PME report from PW12 and FSL report Ex-P11 and after collecting all material documents in this case he filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 302 R/w 34 IPC.
47.In the cross examination wherein he stated that on receipt of information about the alleged incident in the morning hours of 01-01-2017 from PW13, upon which he instructed PW13 to register FIR and also instruct to preserve the scene but surprisingly he admitted that the charge-sheet filed does not disclose the said fact. From this it is clear that no proper steps were taken to preserve the scene of offence. It is elicited from PW14 that PW5, PW7 and LW11 did not state to him specifically in their 161 statements that they received telephonic information about the alleged incident and admitted that in column No.3 of Ex-P10 there is no mention that PW7 received telephonic information about the alleged incident, this admission of PW14 creates an ambiguity from whom and who received the information about the alleged incident and
PW1 also stated that he does not know who scribed Ex.P1. It is not understood as to what made PW13 to wait for long time in registering the FIR when he received the information about the alleged incident through telephone message in the early hours of 01.01.2017. No plausible explanation is offered by prosecution as to why PW13 waited till lodging of report by PW1 when they already has information about the alleged incident.
48. Further, PW14 states that PW1 stated to him as in Ex.D1 whereas PW1 stated a quite contradictory version that he did not state to police as in Ex.D1 and the versions of PW1 and PW14 goes against each other. PW14 further stated that when he visited the scene of offence he found PW2 and PW3 and on examination he came to know that they are eyewitnesses, whereas PW2 and PW3 nowhere in their evidence or in their statements before Police stated that they were examined by PW14 at the scene of offence and charge sheet also does not reveal the said fact.
26
49.From the cross-examination of PW14, it was elicited that no efforts were put by
PW14 to examine the neighbours of deceased at Hyderabad or owner of the house of deceased where he resided as tenant to know the conduct of the deceased or the circumstances leading to the incident. From the cross examination it is also elicited that
Pw14 did not made any efforts to know prior circumstances that occurred on the date of alleged incident. The counsel for defence could elicit that the rough sketch is not correctly reflecting the scene as PW14 admitted that there are three rooms towards eastern side as referred in Ex.P3 is not reflecting from rough sketch map under Ex.P4.
This is also fatal to the case of prosecution.
50.The main allegation that lead to the alleged incident is that A2 is having illicit affair with a person by name Rambabu who was tenant in the house of A1 and due to that deceased used to suspect A2 and he used to quarrel with A2 frequently,
Furthermore, Investigation Officer did not made any efforts to examine the neighbouring house owners of A1 to substantiate the allegation of prosecution that deceased used to visit the house of A1 frequently or occasionally. No single witness were examined by
Investigation Officer who really had knowledge about the alleged illicit relationship of A2 with one Rambabu. Therefore, there is nothing on record to believe the allegations of prosecution that A2 had illicit relationship with one Rambabu.
51.On the whole, the evidence adduced by prosecution is not at all sufficient to establish the guilt of A1 to A3 and to connect them with the murder of deceased.
52.From the above discussion, this court is of the view that there are major inconsistencies and major contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with each other and it is inevitable to hold that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable u/Sec. 302 of IPC. r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and accordingly they are entitled to acquittal.
53.IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable
U/Section 302 IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 27 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled if any and the non- valuable case property MO1 to MO13 shall be destroyed after expiry of Appeal or appeal time is over.
( Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this Thursday, the 10 th Day of December, 2020.)
Sd/-
IV ADDITIONAL DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE(FTC),
SIDDIPET.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
witnesses examined for
PROSECUTION
PW1: K.Yadagiri/Complainant PW2: K.Sampath Kumar/Eyewitness PW3: K.Durga Prasad/Eyewitness PW4: J.Chandru/Brother of deceased PW5: D.Swamy/PC2429 PW6: M.Satyanarayana/Cir. Witness PW7: K.Srinivas/ASI who shifted injured in 108 Ambulance PW8: K.Mahender/Panch for scene of offence seizure of MO1 to MO4 PW9: M.Chiranjeevi/Panch for inquest panchanama PW10:P.Srinivas/Panch for confession panchanama of A1 to A3 PW11: A.Yadagiri/Photographed the scene of offence PW12: Dr. Ch.Laxman Rao/Asst. Professor/conducted autopsy over the dead body Of deceased and issued PME report. PW13: B.Kamalakar/SI of Police issued FIR PW14: K.Satish/C.I of Police who did the investigation and filed chargesheet
DEFENCE
-None-
Exhibits marked for prosecution:
Ex.P1:Report in Cr.No.01/2017 of P.S.Gajwel Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P3:Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4:Rough Sketch Ex.P5:Inquest panchanama Ex.P6:Seizure panchanama for clothes of deceased Ex.P7:Confessional panchanama of A1 to A3 Ex.P8:Photographs (7 in NO) along with CD Ex.P9:Postmortem Report Ex.P10:FIR Ex.P11:FSL Report
Exhibits marked for defence
Ex.D1:The Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Material Objects marked for prosecution:
MO1Plastic Rope MO2Burnt wood fire stick 28
MO3Bamboo Stick MO4Wooden stick MO5Yellow colour shirt MO6Blue colour Sweater MO7White brief MO8Darsh Ash colour pant MO9Wooden pestle MO10Compact Disc pertaining to Ex.P8 photographs MO11Brick MO12controlled earth MO13Blood stained earth
Sd/-
IV ADDITIONAL DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE(FTC),
SIDDIPET.
29
CALENDAR JUDGMENT
THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE(FTC),
AT SIDDIPET
PRESENT: SMT. S.SARITA,
IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Siddipet
Thursday this the 10th day of December,2020
SESSIONS CASE No. 45 OF 2018
Name of Complainant PS Gajwel Name of accusedA1- Yekkaldev Yadaiah, S/o Pedda Ilaiah, age 58 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: Rickshaw puller, R/o Pregnapur village of Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District.
A2 Jangili Nagalaxmi W/o.Kumar, aged 26 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: Housewife, R/o Pregnapur village of Gajwel Mandal,Siddipet District.
A3- Yekkaldev Pochavva, w/o Yadaiah, age 53 years, Caste: Golla,Occ: Housewife, R/o Pregnapur village of Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District.
Charge U/Section 302 of IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC Prosecution Conducted bySri Venkat Lingam Yasala, Addl.Public Prosecutor Defence Conducted bySri M.Venkateswar Rao, Advocate P.R.C No. & Cr. No.PRC.No. 24 of 2017,Cr.No.01 of 2017 Case Committed bySri E. Sucharitha, Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Gajwel.
Description of the Accused : As mentioned above.
Occurrence31-12-2016/01-01-2017 at about 2.30 am Complaint or Report01.01.2017 at 10.00 am Apprehension of A1 to A3 01.01.2017 Release of A1 to A318.02.2017 Commencement of Trial 20.01.2020 Closure of Trial 02.03.2020 Judgment on 10.12.2020 Plea of AccusedNot Guilty Finding of CourtFound not Guilty Sentence of the Order IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Section 302 IPC r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled if any and the non-valuable case property MO1 to MO13 shall be destroyed after expiry of Appeal or appeal time is over.
Sd/-
IV ADDITIONAL DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE(FTC),
SIDDIPET.
Copy to :- The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.