Page No. 1 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
Fair copy
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT GADWAL
Thursday the 26 th day of May, 2022
Present: Sri.S.Shiva Kumar,
III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal.
S.C.No.86 OF 2020
(On committal by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Atmakur by Committal Order dated 01-10-2020 in PRC.No.07/2020 in Crime No.176/2019 of Police Station, Devarakadra).
Name of Complainant:The Circle Inspector of Police, Bhoothpur.
Name of accused:1. Yerukali Srinu S/o Yerukali Sailu, 42 Yrs, Occ: Coolie,
2. Yerukali Salamma W/o Yerukali Srinu, 38 Yrs, Occ: House Servant Both R/o: Gundeed Village of Balanagar Mandal, present at Shiva Shakthinagar, Mahabubnagar. Nature of Offence:U/Secs.302, 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Court:A1 found guilty and A2 found not oguilty Sentence / Order:In the result the Accused No.1 is found guilty of offences under Section 302 and Section 379 IPC and convicted U/s 235 (2) and the Accused No. 2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 411 IPC accordingly she is acquitted u/s 235 (1) of Cr.PC. The accused No.1 is found guilty for the offences U/s 302 and 379 IPC and he is convicted u/s 235(2) Cr.PC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand
Page No. 2 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. MO-1 to 5 are ordered to be returned to PW-2/Son of deceased on expiry of appeal time. MO-6 to 11 shall be destroyed U/s 452 of CrPC after the expiry of the appeal time. MO12 and 13 are ordered to be returned to A-1 if claimed after the expiry of the appeal time. Counsel for the :Sri A.Chandra Sekhar, Addl. Public ProsecutionProsecutor. Counsel for defence :Sri Poojari Sreedhar, Counsel for the Accused No.1 & 2.
This Sessions case is coming on before me for final hearing on 21- 04-2021 in the presence of Sri A.Chandra Sekhar, incharge Additional
Public Prosecutor, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and of Sri Poojari
Sreedhar, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a case of Murder for gain occurred on 16.12.2019 of one
Smt. Chittti Alivelamma (deceased) allegedly committed by the accused
No.1.
2.The State represented through the Circle Inspector of Police,
Bhoothpur Circle filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 302, 379, 75 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and against accused No.2 for the offence under Section 411 of IPC.
Page No. 3 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
3.The brief case of the Prosecution as disclosed from the charge sheet is that on 17-12-2019 at 18:00 hours, the PW-1 MD.Azeemuddin,
V.R.O. of Dokur Village lodged a Ex.P-1 before the Police Station,
Devarkadra alleging that on 17-12-2019 during evening hours, while he was at Grampanchayat Office, Dokur Village, he came to know that one unknown female dead body was lying near Tapowan School at Koilsagar
Canal and immediately he rushed to the spot and found the dead body of unknown female aged about 45 to 50 years was killed by throttling her neck with the hem of saree and the deceased was wearing black colour blouse, white colour saree with black colour flower design and that the deceased had a round face with sallow colour, wore silver anklets on both the legs and she seemed to be widow and sought for necessary action.
4.Based on the above report of PW-1, the PW-18/SI of Police,
Deverkadra registered Ex.P-21/Crime No.176 of 2019 for the offence u/s 302 of I.P.C. and took up the investigation and express FIR was sent to
Hon’ble Court and concerned officers. On receiving Ex.P-21/FIR, PW-19/
CI of Police, Bhoothpur, took up investigation on same day i.e 17.12.2019 as the case is grave in nature and visited the spot situated in the limits of Dokur village, near Tapovan School and found the dead body of unknown female aged about 40 to 45 years, photographed the
Page No. 4 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 dead body of the deceased and scene in different angles. Since it was dusk, he shifted the dead body of the deceased to the Govt. General
Hospital, Mahabubnagar for further investigation and to get the identity of the deceased and deputed the police men to protect the scene of offence and further flashed the photograph of the deceased in all daily news paper for getting the identity of deceased.
5.During the course of investigation, on 18-12-2019, in the morning hours, PW-2/Chitte Beeraiah son of deceased, PW-3/Chitte Manjula daughter-in-law of deceased, PW-4/Chitte Venkataiah and PW-5/Chitte
Buchanna, who are the relatives and circumstantial witnesses came to the Govt. General Hospital, Mahabubnagar, visited the mortuary and identified the deceased as Smt. Chitte Alivelamma W/o. late Anjilaiah, aged 53 years, caste Kurva, Occupation Coolie, R/o. Kuchoor Village of
Nawabpeta Mandal (hereinafter referred to “deceased”). The PWs-2 to 5 further disclosed that the deceased is native of Kuchur Village of
Nawabpet Mandal and eking livelihood by doing coolie work and on 16- 12-2019 at 08:30 hours, the deceased left the house and boarded a bus in their village to visit Dargah near Mahboobnagar and later to proceed
Polkampally Village for meeting her relatives and on 18-12-2019, in the morning hours, after reading the news paper, they noticed that Smt.
Chitte Alivelamma has been killed by some unknown persons in the
Page No. 5 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 outskirts of Dokur Village. The PW-19 secured the presence of two mediators namely Pittela Ravinder (PW-9) and Smt.Parumati Boramma (LW-10) and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and during the inquest, PW-19 examined and recorded the statements of
PWs-2 to 5, wherein they stated that the deceased was having gold and silver ornaments on her body, on seeing them, some unknown offenders killed the deceased and committed theft of the above said ornaments from her, further, the dead body of deceased was subjected to
Postmortem examination and thereafter the dead body of deceased was handed over to her relatives.
6.Later PW-19 secured the presence of two mediators
PW-10/B.Balakrishna and LW-12/K.Krishnaiah and examined the scene of crime in their presence, further PW-19 secured the presence of
PW-17/Sri Rajender Prasad, SI of Police, Fingerprint Bureau,
Mahabubnagar District, at scene of offence, where PW-17 collected the chance prints from the O.C. quarter bottle and PW-19 seized one O.C.
quarter bottle (MO-11), one empty plastic bottle of one liter capacity (MO-10), one pair of chappal and one R.C. book of motor cycle bearing
Reg.No.AP-22-K-6451 (MO-12) from the scene of offence besides drawn rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of said mediators.
Page No. 6 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
7.Basing on the above said statements, PW-19 added Section 379 of
IPC to the existing Section 302 of IPC.
8.During the course of investigation on 19-12-2019, PW-17/Finger print expert issued the finger print report opining that chance print marked as “A” is identical with the right index finger impression marked as “S1” belongs to Accused No.1/Erukali Srinu, S/o. Sailu. Later PW-19 formed special teams to get the clues through the R.C. of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.AP-22-K-6451, belongs to Accused No.2/Erukali
Salamma, which was seized from the scene of offence. Later on 27-12- 2019 at about 07:30 hours, at Indian Petrol Bunk near Mahabubnagar
District Jail, PW-19 along with his special team apprehended the Accused
No.1 and interrogated him and at that time, the Accused No.1 expressed to confess the offence, hence PW-19 secured the presence of two mediators PW-11/J.Yadaiah and LW-14/Khaja Rahimuddin Khan and on interrogation, the Accused No.1 confessed to have committed this offence besides 17 similar and that earlier he was convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment.
9.In the confessional statement, the Accused No.1 confessed that about 20 years back his marriage was solemnized with Accused No.2 and they had two sons and he ekes out his livelihood by doing coolie work and his wife works as home servant and he got addicted to bad
Page No. 7 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 vices and no money to lead lavish life and started targeting the lonely women who came to toddy shops alone by wearing gold and silver ornaments for consuming toddy and decided to kill them to commit theft of gold and silver ornaments from them and further confessed that he had committed similar offences at different places i.e Shadnagar,
Balanagar and in Shamshabad areas and he was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment in case of brother Balaswamy’s murder case and after completion of punishment period he was released from jail on 07.08.2018 and the jail officials hired him on jail petrol pump by giving a salary as part of reformation program and he is living at Shiva Shakti
Nagar along with family members on rent in the house of Chakali
Ramesh and due to his lavish way of life the mount which was earning from petrol pump was not enough to maintain the family needs so he decided to commit the similar offences again to gain money easily and to live a luxurious life and according to his plan in this case, on 16-12- 2019 evening at about 17:00 hours, he went to toddy compound situated at Tirumaldev Gate, Mahabubnagar, where he chitchatted with the deceased Smt. Chitti Alivelamma who was already consuming toddy there and by creating a story that one person of Devarakadra had taken an amount of Rs.20,000/- as loan from him and not paying repaying the said amount and the Accused No.1 he asked the deceased to help him in recovering/collecting the said amount and in return, he offered to give
Page No. 8 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 an amount of Rs.4,000/- and by taking advantage of her innocence he made up the story to convince her and believing the same the deceased agreed and went along with him on his motor cycle and the deceased boarded on the Accused No.1 motor cycle in order to proceed
Devarkadra and he took the deceased to the scene of offence by taking halts in the middle, and that while the deceased was in a state of intoxicated condition, he gave punch blows on the chest of the deceased and hit her head to the ground and further circled her saree hem around the neck and killed by strangulating and thereafter committed theft of gold and silver ornaments from her and dragged her to some distance and thrown away the plastic bag of deceased and empty whisky bottles and thereafter the Accused No.1 went to his house on his motor cycle and informed the same to his wife/Accused No.2, and accordingly both
Accused No.1 and 2 hidden the stolen property in their house with an intention to sell them subsequently and the Accused No.1 noticed that the R.C. of his motor cycle was missing from his pocket.
10.After recording the confessional statement of Accused No.1, the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.AP-22-K-6451 (MO-13), which was used in commission of this offence, was seized from the possession of Accused
No.1 in the presence of same mediators and thereafter the Accused No.1 being led by the Police team with woman staff and the above said mediators, proceeded to his house at Shivashakthi Nagar,
Page No. 9 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
Mahabubnagar where the Accused No.1 went in to his house and at that time the Accused No.2 was also present in the house and accordingly the Accused No.1 brought the stolen property from his house and kept
before PW-19/CI of Police, Boothpur in the presence of two mediators
PW-11/J.Yadaiah and LW-14/Khajarahimuddin Khan and accordingly the said stolen property viz. MOs-1 to 5 seized in the presence of same medaitors under the cover of Ex.P-6/seizure panchanama. On further interrogation of Accused No.2 admitted her guilt and brought the stolen property and kept the same before PW-19/CI of Police, Boothpur in the presence of same mediators and accordingly the said stolen property pertaining to other cases and seized by PW-19 under the cover of confessional-cum-seizure panchanama from Accused No.2 before the same mediators. Later, PW-19 effected the arrest of Accused No.1 and 2 and produced them before the concerned court for judicial custody.
11.During the course of investigation, PW-19 visited the Indian Oil
Petrol Pump being maintained by the Prisons Department, at District Jail,
Mahabubnagar, where he examined and recorded the statement of PW- 8/Beesi Reddy, District Jail Warden and collected attested copies of attendance and salary particulars of Accused No.1.
12.During the course of further investigation, on 06-01-2020,
PW-15/Smt.N.Jyothi, Tahsildar, Devarakadra held Property Test
Identification Parade in the presence of PW-13 and LW-18/Gunamoni
Page No. 10 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
Sailu and later on 25-01-2020 PW-16/Smt.Indira, JFCM, Wanaparthy, conducted Test Identification Parade of Accused No.1 at District Jail,
Mahabubnagar where PW-6/Anjilamma and PW-7/Pogula Tirupataiah identified the Accused No.1 as the suspect.
13.During the course of investigation, PW-14/Dr.K.Parvathy, Professor and H.O.D., Dept. of Forensic Medicine, Govt. Medical College,
Mahabubnagar, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued final opinion about the cause of death of deceased is due to head injury associated with blunt injury to chest.
14.After conclusion of entire investigation, the PW-19/CI of Police,
Bhoothpur filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Sec.302, 379 and 75 of IPC against the Accused No.1 and the offence under Sec. 411 of
IPC against the Accused No.2.
15.On filing and verification of the said charge sheet, the learned
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Atmakur had taken cognizance of the case for the offence U/Sec. 302, 379 against Accused No.1 and U/s 411 of
I.P.C. against the Accused 2 and furnished the copies of case documents to the accused as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case to the court of Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar,
U/Sec. 209 of Cr.P.C. vide PRC No. 07 of 2020, since the matter is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar and the Hon’ble
Page No. 11 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
Principal District and Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar made over the case
to this court to dispose of the case in accordance with law vide SC No.86 of 2020.
16.On production of the Accused No.1 and 2 from the Prison, the charges for the offences U/Secs. 302 and 379 of I.P.C. against the
Accused No.1 and the charges for the offence U/Sec.411 of I.P.C. against
Accused No.2 were framed and the contents were read over and explained to the respective Accused No.1 and 2 in their vernacular languages, for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
17.In order to prove the case, the Prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 19 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-27 apart from MOs-1 to 13 on its behalf.
PW-1 is the de-facto complainant and VRO of Dokuru Village, who lodged
Ex.P-1 report, PWs-2 is son, PW-3 is daughter-in-law, PW-4 is the brother- in-law of deceased respectively, PWs-5 to 8 are the circumstantial witnesses, PW-9 is the first mediator for Ex.P-4/inquest panchanama,
PW-10 is the first mediator for Ex.P-5/scene of offence panchanama, PW- 11 is the first mediator for confession-cum-recovery panchanama of
Accused No.1 and 2, PW-12 is the mediator for re-construction of scene of offence, PW-13 is the mediator for panchanama of Test Identification
Parade of property. PW-14 is the Professor and H.O.D., Dept. of Forensic
Page No. 12 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
Medicine, Govt. Medical College, Mahabubnagar who conducted postmortem examination and issued final opinion, PW-15 is the
Tahsildar, Devarakadra, who conducted Test Identification Parade of property, PW-16 is the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, who conducted Test Identification Parade of Accused No.1, PW-17 is the
S.I. of Police in Finger Print Bureau, Mahabubnagar District, who collected the chance prints of Accused No.1 from the scene of offence and issued opinion, PW-18 is the S.I. of Police, Devarakadra who registered FIR and PW-19 is the C.I. of Police, Bhoothpur and the
Investigating Officer who laid the charge-sheet.
18.During the course of cross examination of PW-6 and PW-7, Exs.D-1 and D-2portions of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statements were marked in support of defense side and after closure of the Prosecution evidence, the
Accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C by placing before them the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of
Prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no evidence in support of their defense.
19.Heard the arguments of both sides and both the parties filed their written submissions and perused the record.
20.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the present case is of “murder for gain” that occurred on 16.12.2019 and the
Page No. 13 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
Accused No.1 targeted the ladies who comes to toddy shop alone by wearing gold and silver ornaments and the Accused No.1 taken the deceased on motor cycle and killed by blowing punches on her chest, hitting her head to the ground violently and after confirmation of death he committed theft of gold and silver ornaments and submitted that PW- 1 to PW-19 were examined on behalf of the prosecution and marked
Ex.P-1 to P-27 and Mos. No. 1 to 13 to prove the guilt of accused No.1 & 2 beyond reasonable doubt and finally prayed to convict the Accused in accordance with law and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in C. Muniappan & others vs. State of Tamilnadu dated 30.08.2010 and also Dhanraj Singh vs. State of Punjab in Appeal (Crl)
No. 941 of 2003 dated 10.03.2004 contending that in case of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence and it is not right in acquitting the accused solely on account of the defect to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if investigation is resignedly defective. Further contended that when the direct testimony of eye-witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence fully establishes the prosecution version failure or omission of negligence on the part of investigating officer cannot affect credibility of the prosecution version.
21.The learned legal aid counsel for the Accused No.1 and 2 submitted that the prosecution utterly failed to prove their case beyond
Page No. 14 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 reasonable doubt and submitted that the seizure of MO-1 to 5 is not in accordance with the procedure and if the articles are seized from the possession of Accused No.1 & 2 presumption u/s 114(a) can only drawn that are either receivers of stolen property or were persons who committed the theft and it does not indicate theft and murder took place at one and the same course of transaction and further submitted that conviction u/s 302 cannot be imposed unless there were additional incriminating circumstances pointing out the facts that the accused in concerned with murder and further submitted that no statement was made by the accused leading to discovery of stolen property u/s 27 of
Indian Evidence Act and the recoveries made by PW-19 is not done beyond reasonable doubt which is doubtful and not explained recovery of articles from the house of accused necessarily indicating theft and murders took place at one and the same course of action and further submitted that the identification of properties shall be held in the court of magistrate as per Rule 35 of Criminal Rules of Practice and the same is not done in the present case and further the procedure for conducting
TIP is also not followed as contemplated under Rule 34 of Criminal Rules of Practice and further submitted that P-W-6 had seen A-1 before conducting TIP as the investigating officer has produced A-1 at tea stall to identify A-1 during TIP and there is unreasonable delay in conducting
TIP and the PW-14 doctor stated that she did not traced any alcohol
Page No. 15 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 substance from the body of deceased nor any toxic substance that leads to causing unconscious and the MO-11 quarter bottle has a label which shows manufacturing date as 03.08.2020 and further submitted that no inquest report had submitted by the I/o to executive magistrate and further submitted that the finger prints on MO-10 and 11 cannot be relied and the report given by the forensic science lab cannot be relied and finally prayed to acquit the Accused No. 1 & 2.
22.The learned counsel further relied upon the judgments i.e., i. State vs. Akbar dated 27.4.2018 of Delhi District Court ii. Sanwat Khan and another vs. State of Rajasthan dated 9.12.1952 of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
iii. Rangappa Goundan vs. Emperor dated 3.12.1935 of Hon’ble Madras
High Court iv. Sheikh Hasib Alias Tabarak vs. State of Bihar dated 23.08.1971 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
v. Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed and another vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh dated 27.8.2002 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vi. Rajesh Govind Jagesha vs. State of Maharashtra dated 2.11.1999 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vii. Balu @ Balamurugan vs. state dated 04.02.2013 of Hon’ble Madras
High Court
Page No. 16 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 viii. Before Madurai Bench of Madras vs. The District Superintendant of
Police dated 17.09.2018 of Hon’ble Madras High Court
23.Basing on the contentions of both sides, now the points for consideration are:
1. Whether the death of deceased is homicidal?
2. Whether the deceased was killed by the accused
No.1 for gain and committed the theft of MO-1 to 5 from the deceased?
3. Whether the Accused No.2 dishonestly received or retained MOs 1 to 5 knowing that they are the stolen property?
4. Whether the Prosecution has made out the case against the Accused No.1 for the offences U/s 302, 379 of IPC and for the offence u/s 411 of IPC against Accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt ? “
24. POINT No.1
In order to prove its case the death of the deceased as homicidal,
Prosecution examined PW-1 who lodged the Ex.P-1 report deposed that on 17.12.2019 he came to know through villagers of Dokuru about the dead body of the deceased at Tapovan School near to the canal of
Koilsagar and on such information, he went there and found that she she
Page No. 17 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 was killed by throttling her neck with the hem of saree and observed some bleeding injuries on the hands and face of the deceased.
25.Based on Ex.P-1 report PW-18/SI of Police registered Ex.P-21/FIR and investigation was conducted by PW-19/CI of police and prosecution examined PW-9 who is one of the panch for inquest over the dead body of the deceased and he deposed that the Police have conducted panchanama before him and he identified the dead body of deceased in the mortuary room and on observation he noticed that the deceased appears to have killed by strangulation with the hem of her saree and also found some injuries around the neck measuring 8 to 9 inches and deposed the features of the dead body and further deposed that he came to know that the deceased was killed for want of gold and silver ornaments worn by her and after knowing the contents of
Ex.P-4/panchanama he along with LW-10/Paruamti Boramma signed on it.
26.PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 are deposed that they went to the Govt.
Hospital, Mahboobnagar and identified the dead body and on observed that she was killed by strangulation with the hem of her saree and found bleeding injuries on the hands, legs and neck of the deceased.
27.The prosecution examined PW-14/Professor & HOD, Govt. Hospital,
Mahboobnagar and she deposed that on 18.12.2019 at 2.30 PM she received requisition from SHO of PS Devarakadra to conduct the post
Page No. 18 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 mortem examination over the dead body of deceased and the dead body was identified by escort PC and she conducted autopsy over the dead body and opined that the approximate time of death of deceased is about 36 to 60 hours prior to postmortem examination and she deposed that the cause of the death was head injury associated with blunt injury to chest and the evidence spoken by her is supported by Ex. P12 Post
Mortem Examination Report and Ex.P-13 final opinion dated 21.7.2020.
28.Nothing is elicited to doubt the evidence spoken by PW-1, PW-2,
PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-10 and 14 and the observations mentioned in the
Ex.P-4/inquest proceedings and Ex.P-12/ postmortem examination report and basing on the findings given by PW-14 who conducted autopsy over dead body of deceased and the prima facie evidence proved that the death of deceased which occurred obviously on account of strangulation.
Primarily the burden lies on the Prosecution to prove that the death of the deceased is homicidal by duly placing cogent evidence.
29. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-10 and 14 coupled with Ex.P-1, P-2, P-4, P-12 and P-13 shows that the death of the accused was due to head injury associated with blunt injuries to chest and shows that the death of the deceased was due to strangulation which is homicidal in nature and the Prosecution in the present case on hand proved that the death of deceased is neither suicidal nor accidental
Page No. 19 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 but it was homicidal . Hence the point is answered in favour of
Prosecution.
30. POINT No.2
The learned counsel for the defence submitted that the prosecution solely relying upon the Ex.P20 which was marked by
PW17/SI of Police, Finger Print unit and the same cannot be relied upon and conviction cannot be based upon the same. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution is not solely relying upon the Ex.P.20 and there is sufficient circumstantial ev5idence is available against the accused No.1 and 2.
31. The prosecution mainly relied upon the following circumstances to establish the nexus of accused with the occurrence in which the deceased was killed. Firstly, last seen alive theory, Secondly, disappearance of accused from his ordinary place of working and lastly recoveries of MOs 1 to 5 from the possession of accused No.1 & 2 and at the instance of Accused No.1 and in pursuance of the confessions made admitting his guilt. To prove the involvement of Accused No.1 for committing murder of deceased and for conducting theft of MOs 1 to 5 the prosecution has examined PW-6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 19. Admittedly there are no eye witnesses in this case on hand and the entire case of the Prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
Page No. 20 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
32.PW-6 and 7 testified as circumstantial witnesses and deposed that they have seen the accused No. 1 along the deceased and both together came to their tea shed at Rampur on the motor cycle of Accused No.1 and asked for whiskey and purchased the same which was stored for their consumption and the accused No1 filled in a water bottle (MO-10) and the Accused No.1 stated that they came from Mahbubnagar and were proceeding towards Koilkonda.
33.PW-16 deposed that on the requisition of PS, Devarakadra of
Boothpur Police circle conducted Ex.P-16 Test Identification Parade proceedings on 25.01.2020 by following due procedure, wherein, PW-6 & 7 identified the Accused No.1 as the suspect correctly. The PW-6 and 7 identified the Accused No.1 in the court hall also and further deposed that the Accused No.2 who is standing behind Accused No.1 in the court hall is not the same female person who accompanied the Accused No.1 on the day of offence.
34.During the course of investigation the accused No.1 under Ex. P-9 confessed that he decided to target and kill the lonely women wearing gold and silver ornaments to snatch their valuables and as per the plan he brought the deceased from Mahboobnagar on his motor cycle and consumed the liquor and when she went into unconscious state the
Accused No. 1 fisted blows on her chest and strangulated her with the hem of saree and dragged her to some distance and snatched silver
Page No. 21 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 anklets, silver leg chains, gold ear buds, bridal chain with gold rounds from the dead body of deceased and handed over the stolen booty to his wife at his house and basing on the information provided by the accused
No.1 the PW-19 recovered the MO-1 to 5 from the possession of Accused
No.1 and 2 in pursuant to his confession statement.
35.The Prosecution examined PW-11 who is panch witness for confession statement and he deposed that he has taken the accused
No.1 to some distance and enquired his name and the reason for his custody in the police and the Accused No1 disclosed that he committed murders at Shadnagar, Balanagar, Shamshabad, Kothur and Keshampet and involved in the Police cases and went to prison and released from the prison and further confessed that as the earnings from the petrol bunk were not sufficient, Accused No.1 decided to target and kill lonely woman who come to toddy shop wearing gold and silver ornaments and snatch their gold and silver ornaments and further confessed with them that Accused No.1 went to toddy shop at T.D.Gutta of Mahabubnagar to consume toddy and got acquaintance with the deceased who also came to the toddy shop to consume toddy, at that time Accused No.1 requested the deceased to recover an amount of Rs.20,000/- from a person from Devarakadra who took loan from the Accused No.1 and offered to give an amount of Rs.4,000/- to the deceased, for which the
Page No. 22 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 deceased accepted the proposal of Accused No.1 and thereafter
Accused No.1 along with the deceased consumed toddy and thereafter
Accused No.1 took the deceased along with him on his motor cycle and purchased two quarter bottles of liquor and proceeded towards
Devarakadra and in the middle of journey Accused No.1 along with the deceased consumed the said two liquor quarter bottles and further deposed that Accused No.1 confessed before them that later Accused
No.1 along with the deceased proceeded from that place to Devarakadra and in the middle of journey at Manyamkonda, Accused No.1 along with the deceased purchased two quarter liquor bottles from a shop wherein there were one male person and one female persons were in the shop as vendors who asked the particulars of Accused No.1 and the deceased as to where they were going for which Accused No.1 replied to those two vendors that they were going towards Koilkonda. He further deposed that Accused No.1 further confessed before them that after purchasing the said two quarter bottles from the shop, he poured the said liquor in a water bottle and thereafter Accused No.1 along with the deceased went to a Koneru at Manyamkonda and both, consumed some liquor and at that time it was nearly 07:30 PM and when the deceased was in drunken state Accused No.1 got boarded the deceased on the motor cycle and after crossing Manyamkonda Village, Accused No.1 proceeded to the open place near a canal and consumed the remaining liquor from the
Page No. 23 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 bottle and when the deceased fell unconscious, at about 10:00 PM, on seeing the condition of the deceased, Accused No.1 punched on the chest of the deceased and thereafter hit the head of the deceased to the ground with an intention to kill her and later Accused No.1 committed theft of gold and silver ornaments from the body of the deceased and thereafter Accused No.1 confessed that he strangulated the deceased with the hem of her saree and dragged the deceased to a distance of 10 meters resulting to the death of deceased and further deposed that after committing the murder of deceased, Accused No.1 left the empty quarter liquor bottles and one empty water bottle at that place and thereafter Accused No.1 returned to the house on his motor cycle and narrated the entire incident to the wife of Accused No.1 and handed over the stolen property to hide the same in order to sell the same afterwards and further confessed before them that the hidden stolen booty will be shown to them if they come to the house of Accused No.1 and 2 at Shivashakti Nagar, Mahabubnagar and also disclosed that he lost the registration certificate of the motor cycle at the scene of offence and based on the confession statement thePolice recovered
MO-13/Hero Honda Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing Reg.No:AP-22-K- 6451, which was used in the commission of offence, and seized the said motor cycle under the cover of Ex.P-6/confession and seizure panchanama and further proceeded to the house of Accused No.1 and 2
Page No. 24 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 at Shivashakti Nagar, Mahabubnagar Town and at that time Accused
No.1 went into the house and brought one tied cloth (moota) and placed
before him and on opening the said cloth moota, they noticed
MO-2/black breedal chain with gold rounds weighing about half tula, MO- 5/one pair of rolled gold ear tips weighing about 3 grams, MO-1/one pair of gold ear matis weighing about 3 grams, MO-3/one pair of silver anklets weighing about 50 grams, MO-4/one pair of silver leg chains weighing about 10 tulas and Accused No.1 further confessed that the above said gold and silver ornaments were stolen from the body of deceased Alivelamma, accordingly, the Police have seized the above said five gold and silver ornaments under cover of Ex.P-7/seizure panchanama and further deposed that on 27-12-2019, while conducting above said Ex.P-7/confession and seizure panchanama, Accused No.2 was present in the house and further disclosed that her name is
Salamma and marriage of Accused No.2 with Accused No.1 was performed about 20 years ago and confessed that Accused No.1 used to commit theft of gold and silver ornaments from the lonely women by killing them and used to hand over the stolen property to the Accused
No.2 to hide in the house and recovered the stolen booty from the possession of Accused No.1 and 2.
Page No. 25 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
36.The Prosecution has examined the PW-8/Jail warden and he deposed that the Accused No.1 who was previously convicted prisoner was engaged to work in the petrol pump to enable to help him in eak out livelihood and as per the working days of the persons engaged in the petrol pump, their eligible salary amount will be credited to their respective bank accounts and further deposed that the salary of the
Accused No.1 also disbursed into his bank account and further deposed that the Accused No.1 used to absent to his duty on most of the working days and further deposed that since 16.12.2019 the Accused No.1 has been absent to his duties at petrol pump.
37.The Prosecution marked Ex.P-23 is the attested copy of attendance register of working staff members in the petrol pump of
Prisoners Department, Dist. Jail, Mahboobnagar, from the month of April, 2019 to December, 2019 to prove that Accused No.1 used to absent to his duty on most of the working days. As seen from the attendance register for the month of December, 2019 the Accused No. 1 is absent from 16.12.2019 on-wards. During the cross-examination of PW-8 nothing is elicited by the defense and the Accused No.1 did not disputed nor denied that he did not worked in the petrol pump Prisoners
Department, Dist. Jail, Mahboobnagar, and the bank account does not belongs to him. From the evidence of PW-8, it is crystal clear that the
Page No. 26 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 accused No.1 is absent from his duty from 16.12.2019 and attendance register also is not denied. In view of the above it is crystal clear the accuse No.1 was not attended to his duty which is one of chain of circumstances disappearance of Accused No.1 from the ordinary place of his working and admittedly no suggestion has been made by the
Accused No.1 that he applied any leave by going to somewhere else.
38.The prosecution marked Ex. P-24 attested copy of Cheque bearing
No. 954249 and Ex.P-25 attested copy of statement of account of
Accused No.1 which shows that the Ex.P-24 cheque was deposited into the account of Accused No.1. The prosecution marked Ex.P-26 attested copy of Annexure-I i.e., list of beneficiaries for their individual accounts to prove that the accused No.1 is working in the petrol pump and receiving the salary
39.The counsel for the accused contended that the recovery of MO
No. 1 to 5 are doubtful and mere recovery MO No.1 to 5 raises a presumption u/s 114 of Indian Evidence Act, that either they are receivers of stolen property or were the persons who committed theft but it does not necessarily indicate that the theft and the murder took place at one and the same course of action. Further relied upon the judgments in State vs. Akbar dated 27.04.2018 which is rendered by the learned Delhi District Court and Sanwant Khan and another vs. State of
Page No. 27 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
Rajasthan reported in AIR 1956 SC 54 and Rangappa Goundan vs.
Emperor contending that there is no statement made by the accused leading to discovery of stolen articles and there is suspicion.
40.The learned counsel for accused submitted that the PW-2 and 3 have not produced any ownership bills of MO No. 1 to 5 as they belongs to them and the non-production of purchase bills is not a fatal to the prosecution case. PW-2 and 3 consistently stated that the deceased used to wore those articles as a daily wearing apparel and they are no other persons claiming except PW-2 and 3 and no rival claim is made out by third parties nor the accused No.1 & 2.
41.It is true that simply on the recovery of stolen articles, no inference can be drawn that a person in possession of stolen articles is guilty of the offence of murder. But the culpability for the aforesaid offences will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence adduced.
42.In the present case on hand the MO No. 1 to 5 were found in the possession of the Accused No.1 soon after the murder of deceased and the and the evidence adduced by the prosecution proves that the accused committed the offence and the Accused No.1 also did not tender any evidence as to why he is possession of MOs1 to 5. Though
Page No. 28 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 accused have right to silence and when there is plenty of evidence pointing out the involvement of accused then the accused is duty bound to answer as to why he is in possession of MOs 1 to 5 at his house which belongs to the deceased. This is one of the crucial circumstances which supports the prosecution case to prove the involvement of Accused
No.1.
43.The prosecution has examined PW-2 & 3 who are the son and daughter in law of the deceased and they identified the MO No. 1 to 5 belongs to their mother. The learned counsel for the Accused submitted that the identification of the property is not conducted by the judicial
magistrate and it is conducted by PW-13 and the procedure is not
followed. In the present case on hand immediately after identifying the dead body of the deceased the PW-2 & 3 who are the son and daughter- in-law complained that the deceased wore the gold and silver jewellery and they were missing on the dead body and when the MO No. 1 to 5 were shown they identified the same as they belongs to their deceased mother and except the PW-2 & 3 no other persons claimed the MO No. 1 to 5 nor the Accused No.1 & 2 also claimed the said articles and the PW- 2 & 3 are the correct persons who can identify their mother’s jewellery hence the contention of the accused is hereby rejected.
Page No. 29 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
44.Section 27 of the Indian evidence act is an exception to section 24 to 26. Admissibility of section 27 is relatable to the information pertaining to a fact discovered. This provision merely facilitates proof of a fact discovered in consequence of information received from a person in custody i.e accused of an offence. Thus, it incorporates the theory of “confirmation by subsequent facts” facilitating a link to the chain of events it is for the prosecution to prove the information received from the accused is relatable to the fact discovered. The object is to utilise it for the purpose of recovery as it ultimately touches upon the issue pertaining to the discovery of a new fact through the information furnished by the accused. In several cases it has reiterated the aforesaid principles under section 27 of the Indian evidence act and only utilised section 27 limited aspect concerning recovery.
45.It is well established cardinal principle that “whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence following features to be complied with as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdichand
Sarda vs. state of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC page 116 in which the cardinal principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been postulated.
a.the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely may be fully established.
Page No. 30 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 b.The facts show established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilt.
c.The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency d.They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and
5.There must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable grounds for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.
The above cardinal principles are time and again followed by the
Courts in catena of decisions and remained undisturbed till date.
46.All the circumstances coupled with proved confession of accused
No.1 that led to recovery of valuables of deceased from the possession of the Accused No.1 & 2 at his instance, medical evidence correlated with time of death and the manner of death and further the oral evidence let in by the prosecution unerringly pointed out complicity of accused in causing homicidal death of deceased. In the circumstances from which conclusion is required to be drawn against he accused No. 1 have been fully established by the prosecution so as to connect him to the homicidal death of the deceased and the prosecution case that no one other than the accused caused the said crime has been rightly
Page No. 31 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 proved, despite certain circumstances could not be proved by the prosecution and there is some scope to believe that the prosecution was not to the expectations. There is no material missing link in the prosecution case. It is well settled that it is not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced and some of the links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. In drawing these inferences the court must have regard to the common course of natural events and to human conduct and their relation to the facts of the particular case.
47.In the aforesaid circumstances it can be safely concluded that it is accused killed the deceased by strangulation and the conduct of the accused more particularly his absence before, during and after the incident from his ordinary place of his work and from the petrol pump where he is ordinarily working and proof of his attendance register strengthened the case of prosecution to prove his disappearance in the place of work. Thus the prosecution on whom the burden lies to establish the nexus of accused with the occurrence in which the deceased was killed and identity of deceased has duly proved the nexus of accused with the occurrence by establishing all the circumstances on which prosecution relied. Hence this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused No.1.
Page No. 32 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
48.The evidence of PW-6 & 7 is crystal clear that they saw Accused
No.1 in the company of deceased at their tea shed and further stated that after taking liquor taken the deceased on his motor cycle before the occurrence of the offence.
49.Under section 101 of Indian evidence act, whoever desires any court to give a judgment as to a liability defendant on the existence of facts, he must prove that those facts exist. Therefore, the burden is always on the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Section 106 of Indian evidence act, constitutes an exception to section 101 and section 106 will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable interference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference.
50.When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian evidence act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. However, in a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be published by the prosecution is
Page No. 33 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under section 106 of Indian evidence act is not relevant at all.
51.And further the prosecution established the “last seen together” theory and once the theory of last seen together was established, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to under which circumstances, he had parted the company of the deceased. In the criminal jurisprudence, the entire burden of proving the guilt of the accused rests on the prosecution, none the less the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge in view of section 106 of Indian evidence act and such failure on the part of the accused may also provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances required to be proved against him. Of course, section 106 of Indian evidence act does not shift the burden of the prosecution on the accused, nor require the accused to furnish an explanation with regard to the facts which are especially losing his knowledge, none the less furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a crucial fact, when the theory of last seen together as a propounded by the prosecution is proved against the accused, to know as to how and when the accused parted the company of the deceased. If the accused offers no explanation, or furnishes wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence is available in the form of recovery or otherwise
Page No. 34 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypotheses of innocence, conviction can be based on the same.
52.In the present case, it was duly proved that the accused No.1 had taken the deceased with him on motor cycle and no explanation was offered by the accused No.1 in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC nor any concrete defence was taken during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses. It is pertinent to note that after the alleged incident, the accused was absent from the ordinary place of his work is and thereafter he was arrested and on the said conduct of the accused in absconding away and recovery of MO-1 to 5 also a circumstance duly proved by the prosecution against the accused No.1.
53.The prosecution had proved the close proximity of time when the deceased was last seen with the appellant and examined the eye witnesses who saw the accused No.1 with the company of the deceased.
Though the the accused have right of silence when the prosecution established all the chain of circumstances and plenty of evidence is adduced by the prosecution against him the burden lies on Accused No.1 u/s 106 to of Indian Evidence Act.
The learned counsel further relied upon the judgments i.e., i. State vs. Akbar dated 27.4.2018 of Delhi District Court
Page No. 35 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 ii. Sanwat Khan and another vs. State of Rajasthan dated 9.12.1952 of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
iii. Rangappa Goundan vs. Emperor dated 3.12.1935 of Hon’ble Madras High Court iv. Sheikh Hasib Alias Tabarak vs. State of Bihar dated 23.08.1971 of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
v. Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh dated 27.8.2002 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vi. Rajesh Govind Jagesha vs. State of Maharashtra dated 2.11.1999 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vii. Balu @ Balamurugan vs. state dated 04.02.2013 of Hon’ble Madras High Court viii. Before Madurai Bench of Madras vs. The District Superintendent of Police dated 17.09.2018 of Hon’ble Madras High Court
The above citations relied by the learned counsel for the defence are not applicable to the present facts of the case.
54.Further the learned counsel for the accused contended that there is inconsistency in the prosecution evidence and benefit of doubt to be extended to the Accused. The cardinal principal of criminal jurisprudence is that when there is a doubt about the involvement of accused, such benefit can be extended to the accused but whenever there is ample evidence to prove the involvement of accused the benefit of doubt cannot be extended to the accused. In the present case on hand the testimonies of witnesses are crystal clear of involvement of accused. In
Page No. 36 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 view of the above said circumstances it is not a fit case to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.
55. POINT NO:3:
The prosecution has examined PW-11 punch witness who deposed that basing on the confession statement made by the Accused No.1 he along with Accused No.1 proceeded to the house of accused No.1 & 2 and at that time the accused No.1 went into the house and brought one tied cloth (moota) containing MOs 1 to 5 and placed before them and further deposed that at the same time the accused No.2 was present in the house and further confessed that Accused No.1 used to commit theft of gold and silver ornaments and used to handover the stolen property to the accused No.2 to hide in the house and further she confesses that the accused No.1 killed the deceased and handed over the stolen property to her and she went into the house and brought tied cloth (moota) and placed it before him and and confession statement of
Accused No.2 is marked as Ex. P-7 and Ex.P-8.
56.Admittedly in the present case the Accused No.2 brought the stolen jewellery articles of other persons which were stolen by Accused
No.1 but the aggrieved persons were not examined and the said articles were not marked in this case since they are not relevant to the present
Page No. 37 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 case and also the prosecution also not examined any independent witnesses or aggrieved persons who claimed those articles to prove that the accused No.2 received the stolen property knowingly with dishonest intention and except the confession statement of the accused No.2 no other material has been placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused No.2. Hence the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused No.2.
57. POINT NO:4
To invoke Section 302 IPC prosecution has to establish that the death of human being has actually taken place. Secondly such death has been caused by, or consequences of, the act of accused and thirdly such act was done with the intention of causing bodily injury as (a) the accused knew it to be likely to cause death or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or that the accused caused death by doing an act know to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no nexus for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.
To invoke section 379 IPC the prosecution has to prove:
Page No. 38 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
1.that the property in question is movable.
2.that such property was in the possession of a person.
3.that the accused moved such property while in the possession of that person.
4.That he did so without the consent of that person.
5.That he did so in order to take the same out of the possession of that person.
6. That he did with intent to cause wrongful loss to that person or wrongful gain to himself.
58.In the fact and circumstances and evidence spoken by the prosecution witnesses coupled with recovery of MO-1 to 5 from the possession of Accused which is admissible under Section 27 of Indian
Evidence Act and last seen alive theory duly proved that the accused killed the deceased and the prosecution duly made out the case against the accused No.1 for the offences u/s 302 and 379 IPC beyond reasonable doubt with which he is charged by placing cogent evidence and it is a fit case to invoke Section 302 and 379 IPC against the
Accused No.1. In the result the Accused No.1 found guilty of offences under section 302 and 379 of IPC.
59.In the facts and circumstances of the case, since there is material to prove the guilt against the Accused No.2 and it is a fit case to acquit the Accused No.2.
Page No. 39 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
60.In the result the Accused No.1 is found guilty of offences under
Section 302 and Section 379 IPC and convicted U/s 235 (2) and the
Accused No. 2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 411 IPC accordingly she is acquitted u/s 235 (1) of Cr.PC.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of May,
2022.
III Additional District Judge, Gadwal.
61.On production of accused No.1 and 2 the judgment is pronounced in the open court on 16.05.2022 as accused No.1 found guilty for the offences U/s 302 and 379 IPC he examined u/s 235(2) Cr.PC and heard him having given opportunity with regard to the quantum of sentence explaining the punishment contemplated for the above charges.
62.Accused pleaded not guilty and pleaded for mercy of court.
Accused represented that he and his wife and children are depending on him and there is no one to look after them except himself.
63.Considering all these circumstances , this court is of the view that it would ends of justice if the accused No.1 is convicted and sentenced
Page No. 40 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees
One Thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
64.In the result the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offences U/s 302 and 379 IPC and he is convicted u/s 235(2) Cr.PC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
MO-1 to 5 are ordered to be returned to PW-2/Son of deceased on expiry of appeal time. MO-6 to 11 shall be destroyed U/s 452 of CrPC after the expiry of the appeal time. MO12 and 13 are ordered to be returned to A- 1 if claimed after the expiry of the appeal time.
65.The accused No.1 is appraised about his right t6o prefer an appeal
before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad
and he is further informed that he will be provided Legal Aid Counsel if required and a free copy of Judgment is supplied to the accused No.1.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of May,
2022.
III Additional District Judge, Gadwal.
Page No. 41 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
-None- PW.1:Sri Md.Azeemuddin [defacto complainant] PW.2:Sri Chitte Veeraiah [son of deceased] PW.3:Sri Chitte Manjula [daughter-in-law of deceased] PW.4:Sri Chitte Venkataiah [brother-in-law of deceased] PW.5:Sri Chitte Buchanna [circumstantial witness] PW.6:Smt.Anjilamma [circumstantial witness]
PW.7:Sri Pogula Tirupataiah [circumstantial witness]
Sri Beesi Reddy PW.8: [circumstantial witness]
PW.9:Sri Pirttela Ravinder [1st mediator for Ex.P4 inquest panchanama ]
PW.10:Sri B.Balakrishna [1st mediator for Ex.P5 crime details form]
PW.11:Sri J.Yadaiah [1st mediator for Ex.P6 confession and seizure panchanama]
PW.12:Sri Ramachandraiah [1stmediatorforEx.P9 confessional panchanma]
Page No. 42 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
PW.13:Sri Cheruvumedi Balappa [1st mediator for Ex.P11 test identification parade of property]
PW.14:Dr.K.Parvathi [Ex.P12 postmortem examination report of deceased]
PW.15:N.Jyothi [conducted test identification parade of property]
PW.16:Smt.D.Indira, JMFC, Wanaparthy [conductedEx.P16test identification parade of A1]
PW.17:Sri Rajender Prasad, [SI of Police Finger Print Bureau, Mahabubnagar issued Ex.P19 final report]
PW.18:Sri A.Venkateshwarlu [S.I. of police, Deverkadra and InvestigatingOfficerissued Ex.P21 FIR] PW.19:Sri D.Kishan, [C.I. of Police, Bhoothpur and Investigating Officer]
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1:Original report of PW1
dated:17-12-2019
Ex.P2: Colorphotographsof deceased.
Ex.P3:Statement of witness, dated: 25-01-2020 recorded by JFCM, Wanaparthy at Dist. Jail,
Page No. 43 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
Mahabubnagar Ex.P4:Inquest panchanama,
dated:18-12-2019
Ex.P5:Crime details form, dated: 18- 12-2019 Ex.P6:Confessionalandseizure panchanama, dated: 27-12- 2019 at 8:30 hours Ex.P7:Seizure panchanama, dated: 27-12-2019 at 11:00 hours Ex.P8:Seizure panchanama, dated: 27-12-2019 at 12:00 hours Ex.P9:Confessional panchanama of A1, dated: 09-01-2020 at 10:00 hours Ex.P10:Seizure panchanama,
dated:09-01-2020 at 10:30
hours Ex.P11:Propertyidentification panchanama,dated:16-01- 2020 at 14:00 hours Ex.P12:Postmortemexamination report of deceased, dated:18- 12-2019 Ex.P13:Final opinion, dated: 21-07- 2020 Ex.P14:Requisition of CI of police,
dated: 17-01-2020
Ex.P15:Office copy of letter addressed to the I Addl. Dist. & Sessions
Judge, Mahabubnagar, dated:
17-01-2020 Ex.P16:Test identification parade proceedings, dated: 25-01- 2020 Ex.P17:Preliminary comparison report,
dated: 19-12-2019
Page No. 44 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
Ex.P18:Covering letter of Ex.P17 by PW17 Ex.P19:Final report, dated: 12-01-2020 alongwithseparate comparison chart. Ex.P20:Identical comparison chart,
dated: 12-01-2020
Ex.P21:Original FIR, dated: 17-12-2019
Ex.P22:Section alteration memo by PW19 Ex.P23:Attested copy of attendance Register of working staff members of Indian Oil Petrol pump of prisons department situatedatDist.Jail, Mahabubnagar for the months from April, 2019 to December, 2019, dated: 10-08-2020 Ex.P24:Attested copy of cheque bearing No.954249 of SBI, MahabubnagarbyPW19,
dated: 06-11-2019
Ex.P.25:Attested copy of statement of accountofDist.Jail, Mahabubnagar, dated: 07- 11-2019 Ex.P.26:Attested copy of Annexure-I,
dated: 10-08-2020
Ex.P.27:FSL report, dated: 03-06-2020
For Defence:
Ex.D1:Portionof161Cr.P.C. statement of PW6, dated: 30-12-2019 Portionof161Cr.P.C. Ex.D2: statement of PW7, dated: 30- 12-2019
Page No. 45 of total 45 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 86 of 2020
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO1 one pair of gold ear matilu weighing about three grams
MO2 one black breed chain with gold rounds weighing about ½ tula
MO3 one pair of silver anklets weighing about 50 tulas
MO4 one pair of silver leg chains weighing about 10 tulas
MO5 one pair of rolled gold ear tops
MO6 white color design saree
MO7 black color blouse
MO8 one white color cotton petty coat
MO9 one pair white color slippers
MO10 empty plastic water bottle of one liter capacity
MO11 one empty quarter bottle
MO12 one Registration certificate of two wheeler motor cycle Registration No.AP-22-K-6451.
MO13 Hero Honda Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP-22-K-6451
III Additional District Judge, Gadwal.