IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT : S. SHIVA KUMAR, Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
TUESDAY, THIS THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX
SESSIONS CASE No.413 of 2021
Name of the Complainant: P.S. Karimnagar Rural
Name of the Accused:1. Myakala Dharmarajam S/o Hanmaiah, age: 60 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
2. Myakala Ramulu S/o Hanmaiah, age: 56 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
3. Myakala Pochaiah @ Pochamallu S/o Rayalingu, age: 42 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
4. Myakala Komuraiah S/o Rayalingu, age: 58 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
5. Myakala Anjaneyulu @ Anjaiah S/o Venkatrajam, age: 36 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
6. Myakala Venkatesham S/o Mallaiah, age: 50 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
7. Myakala Naveen S/o Dharamrajam, age: 35 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
8. Myakala Praveen S/o Dharmarajam, age: 38 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
9. Myakala Srinivas @ Srinu S/o Komuraiah, age: 34 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
Page 2 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
10. Myakala Srinivas @ Srinu S/o Ramulu, age: 27 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
11. Myakala Sampath S/o Lachaiah, age: 27 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
12. Myakala Lachaiah S/o Rayalingu, age: 50 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
13. Myakala Sathaiah S/o Rayalingu, age: 40 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
14. Myakala Srinivas S/o Venkatesham, age: 29 years, Tenugu, occ: Fertilizer Shop worker, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
15. Myakala Venkatrajam S/o Rayalingu, age: 60 years, Tenugu, occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chamanapalli V/o Karimnagar Rural Mandal.
Charges: Under Sec.148, 120-B, 302 r/w 149 of IPC
Plea of the Accused: “Not guilty”
Finding of the Court: “A1 to A15 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.148, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.302 r/w 149 of IPC and they are convicted under Sec.235 (2) of Cr. PC.”
Sentence or Order: Accused No.1 to 15 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of TWO YEARS each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH each for the offence punishable under Sec.148 of IPC.
Accused No.1 to 15 are further sentenced to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of TWO MONTHS each for the offence punishable under Sec.120-B r/w 149 of IPC.
Page 3 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
Accused No.1 to 15 are further sentenced to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of TWO MONTHS each for the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w 149 of IPC.
All the sentences imposed against accused No.1 to 15 shall run concurrently.
Total fine Rs.37,500/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand five hundred only).
Prosecution conducted by: Sri M. Prathap, Public Prosecutor, Prl. Sessions Court, Karimnagar.
Accused defended by: Sri E. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate
PRC No. and Crime No.: PRC No.39/2019 and Cr.No.155/2019 of P.S. Karimnagar Rural
Case committed by: II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1stClass, Karimnagar
This Sessions Case having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri E. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for the accused, upon perusal of material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
-: J U D G M E N T :-
1.This is a case of forming into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object armed with deadly weapons, criminal conspiracy and committing murder of deceased (Bojja Thirupathi) committed by Accused No. 1 to 15 along with JCL.
2. The State represented by Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural filed Charge
Sheet against the Accused No.1 to 15 for committing the offence punishable under
Section 148, 120-B, 302 r/w 149 of IPC.
Page 4 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
3.On 19.04.2019 at 21:00 hours, defacto-complainant PW1/Bojja Samatha @
Vijaya W/o Thiruapthi lodged a complaint alleging that her husband Bojja
Thirupathi is the President of Fisheries Co-operative Society of Chamanapalli
Village and there are two tanks i.e., Rajasamudram and Appannapalli tanks within the limits of the said Society and since 15 years there were quarrels between their caste people who are having surnames as “Bojja” and “Myakala” regarding catching of fishes, but the society members only fishing in the tanks, due to quarrels, her husband obtained orders from the Hon’ble High Court and with the permission of
Fisheries Department he was fishing in two tanks and the “Myakala” surname members were removed from the Society by canceling their membership and at about three years back, they i.e., “Myakala” surname members were attacked on her husband at Grampanchayath Office with an intention to kill her husband and a case is pending before the Hon’ble Court besides other cases regarding catching of fishes.
4.It is further alleged that on 19.04.2019 in the afternoon as the water level of
Appannapalli tank was decreased, her husband left from Karimnagar to
Chamanapalli by saying that he will fill the water into the tank from the nearby agricultural wells by requesting the farmers concerned and at about 1700 hours, when her husband laying pipes to Appannapalli tank from the agricultural well of
Pabbathi Prathapa Reddy situated besides the tank, her villagers i.e., 1. Myakala
Dharmarajam, 2. Myakala Ramulu, 3. Myakala Pochaiah, 4. Myakala Komuraiah, 5.
Myakala Anjaiah, 6. Myakala Venkatesham, 7. Myakala Naveen, 8. Myakala Praveen, 9. Myakal Srinivas @ Srinu, S/o Komuraiah, 10. Myakala Srinivas @ Srinu, S/o
Page 5 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
Ramulu, 11. Myakala Sampath, 12. Myakala Lachaiah, 13. Myakala Sathaiah, 14.
Myakala Rakesh, 15. Myakala Srinivas, 16. Myakala Venkatrajam & others attacked on her husband with an intention to kill her husband and killed him by beating with stones on his head and also strangulated him with a towel.
5.It is further alleged by PW1 that when her younger brother-in-law Bojja Ravi (PW-2) informed her over phone, she rushed to the place of incident and found her husband was died with severe injuries over head and she came to know that the incident was witnessed by her caste persons Bojja Veeresham, Bojja Ravinder, Bojja
Lachaiah & others and she also alleged that by keeping the previous enmity in mind with the criminal conspiracy, the said persons killed her husband and she requested to take necessary action as per law.
6. Basing on the above complaint, PW-11/Inspector of Police, Karimnagar
Rural registered a case in Crime No.155/2019 under Section 148, 120-B, 302 r/w 149 of IPC., issued Express F.I.R. and sent copies of the same to all the Officers concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation,
PW11/Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of LW1 in detail at Police Station and he visited the scene of offence situated near to spillway of
Appannapalli tank at the outskirts of Chamanapalli Village and got photographed the scene of offence and dead body of the deceased by LW-7 and shifted the dead body to the Mortuary of District Head quarters Hospital, Karimnagar.
7.On 20.04.2019, PW-11 visited the Hospital, Karimnagar and secured the presence of two mediators i.e., PW7 and LW12/Gangaraveni Suresh and prepared the inquest, got photographed the deceased with the help of LW7/Photographer
Page 6 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar and seized blood stained cloths i.e., shirt, pant, banian, cut-drawer and one towel from the dead body of the deceased. PW-11/Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statements of witnesses LW2 to LW5 & LW7 and recorded their statements. PW11/Inspector of Police requested PW9/Civil Asst. Surgeon to conduct PME and accordingly, PW9/Civil Asst. Surgeon conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased, later PW11/Inspector of Police along with same mediators proceeded to the scene of offence and observed the scene minutely and incorporated the details of scene of offence in Crime Details Form (CDF) and seized blood stained and control earth, 5-blood stained stones from the scene of offence in their presence and examined and recorded the statement of PW-5.
8.On 21.04.2019, on reliable information at about 1300 hours,
PW11/Inspector of Police apprehended A1 to A15 & JCL near Gopikrishna function hall, Vavilalapalli Village and secured the presence of PW8 and PW10 and on interrogation, they voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence in order to take revenge against the deceased and in pursuance of their confession,
PW11/Inspector of Police along with accused persons went to their houses and seized five motorcycles bearing Nos. AP-15-BE-5261, AP-15-AX-6274, AP-15-BL- 4035, AP-15-AQ-4899 and TS-02-EA-9829 of the Accused No.2, 3, 8, 9 and 11 respectively and later said accused persons along with case property returned to police station and effected the arrest of accused No.1 to 15 and JCL by issuing arrest memos and sent them to Court for judicial remand.
9.PW11/Inspector of Police collected the PME report from PW9 and the cause of death of the deceased was due to “Head Injury” and later PW11 sent the seized
MOS to RFSL Karimnagar for examination & report and later collected the RFSL
Page 7 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar report. On a requisition of PW-11, the District Fisheries officer has submitted all the information vide Lr.No.217/C/2019 dt.13.06.2019. On requisition of
PW11/Inspector of Police, the Service providers of Airtel, Vodafone and Jio telecom companies furnished the customer application forms along with attested
CDRs and Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Later PW11 examined and recorded the statements of LW8/Avari Srikanth, LW9/Challa Venu
Kumar and LW10/Balla Sampath. After completion of investigation,
PW11/Inspector of Police filed Charge Sheet against Accused No. 1 to 15 for the offences punishable under Section 148, 120-B and 302 r/w 149 of IPC and separate
Charge Sheet is filed against the JCL.
10. Cognizance of the case was taken by the Learned II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar for the offences punishable under Section 148, 120-B and 302 r/w 149 of IPC against A1 to A15 and the case was taken on file as
PRC.39/2019. As the offence under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by
Court of Sessions, learned II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
11. Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar took the case on file as SC No.413 of 2021 and made over the case to the Court of learned III-Addl. Sessions Judge,
Karimnagar for disposal according to law.
12.Subsequently, as per Proc. Order Dis. No.3181, dt.24.07.2024 of Sessions
Court, Karimnagar, the case was transferred to this Court.
13.After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, charges under Section 148, 120-B and 302 r/w 149 of IPC were framed
Page 8 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar against A1 to A15, read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
14. To prove the guilt of Accused No.1 to 15 for the offences punishable under
Section 148, 120-B and 302 r/w 149 of IPC, prosecution cited (16) witnesses and examined PW-1 to PW-11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P32 and MOs.1 to 13.
15. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A15 were examined under
Section 313 Cr.PC explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied all the incriminating circumstances and reported no defence on their behalf. However, they stated that due to previous enmity, they filed a false case against them with regard to catching fish in water tanks and that they are no way concerned with the death of “Bojja Thirupathi”.
16.No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of accused, which is relevant portion in Section 161 Cr. PC
Statement of PW3.
17. Heard the Learned Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for accused.
18.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are disputes between the deceased and the accused with regard to catching of fishes in two tanks i.e.,
Rajasamudram and Appannapalli tanks and since 15 years there were quarrels between their caste people who are having surnames as “Bojja” and “Myakala” and when the deceased went to Chamanapalli for laying pipes to Appannapalli tank from the agricultural well of Pabbathi Prathapa Reddy situated besides the tank, at that time, A1 to A15 along with JCL and others attacked on him with an intention
Page 9 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar to kill and killed him by beating with stones on his head and also strangulated with towel further submitted that the prosecution established the guilt of Accused by examining PW-1 to 11 and marked Ex.P-1 to 32, MO No.1 to 13 and prayed to convict the accused.
19.The learned counsel for the accused in his arguments submitted that the evidence of eye witnesses alleged by the prosecution is not trustworthy and they are related to deceased, prosecution held that 16 accused used stones, but recovered only 5 stones and out of which, the blood stains are found only on two stones, whether the offence occurred at 5 PM is in doubtful, plastic water pipe alleged by prosecution is not seized by the police during investigation, there is delay in lodging complaint, neighbours/locals were not acted as panch witness to the incident and there is no direct or indirect evidence against the accused to find them guilty for the offences with which they are charged pointing to the guilt of accused and further submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and sought to extend benefit of doubt and prayed to acquit the accused.
20.The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the followig Judgments:
Danakka Shankariah Vs. State of Telangana 2025 (3) Crl. Court Cases 187 (DB) contending that the complaint was not given by any of the eyewitnesses, allegedly present at the scene of offence and the complaint was filed with delay without any explanation.
Hon’ble High Court of AP in Chengala Venkata Rao Vs. State of AP in Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2017contending that mere presence of a person at the place offence does not incriminate him and the person will not liable for
Page 10 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar being a member of an unlawful assembly. The witnesses are related to deceased and their evidence has to be discarded.
Dibaker Nunia Vs. State of Assam 2022 (2) Acquittal 193 (SC) contending that in criminal cases, prosecution is expected to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense and when a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
Sudharkar @ Sudharasan Vs. State of Tamilnadu 2018 (2) Crl. Court Cases 581 (SC) contending that witnesses are related to deceased (interested witnesses) and their evidence has to be discarded and it cannot be considered.
Eknath Ganpat Aher Vs. State of Maharashtra (2010) 3 ALT(Crl) 253 (SC) contending that based on vague/omnibus statements from witnesses accused cannot be convicted and there must be specific evidence attributing definite roles to the accused.
Gopal vs. State of UP 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 35 (SC) contending that the person who stabbed the deceased liable to be convicted under Section 302 and other are liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-II in view of the fact that they could not be said to have intended to cause any particular injury.
Paramata John Vs. State of AP 2020 (1) ALD 468contending that enmity between the parties is double-edged weapon, which may provide for falsely implicating the accused.
Ravulolla Ramulu Vs. State of AP 2004 (2) ALD 771contending that the prosecution failed to establish unlawful assembly, common object beyond reasonable doubt.
Pandhre Kishan Vs. State of Telanana 2023 (2) ALT (Crl.) 268 (DB)contending that accused did not carry any weapon while approaching the scene of
Page 11 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar offence and the occurrence of incident is without any intention to cause death. Thus, the case falls within the ambit of Part-II of Section 304 IPC.
21.The charges framed, the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove those charges, the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel
for the accused, would give rise to the following points for the consideration of
this Court:
1. Whether A1 to A15 congregated into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with an intention to kill the deceased and thereby guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.148 of IPC. ?
2. Whether A1 to A15 in prosecution of their common object criminally conspired together to kill the deceased and thereby guilty of the offence punishable under
Sec.120-B r/w 149 of IPC. ?
3. Whether A1 to A15 were members of the unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object and with an intention to kill the deceased wherein the deceased was attacked and was beaten with stones and killed and thereby guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w 149 of IPC. ?
22.Since the offences against A1 to A15 congregating themselves led into an unlawful assembly with the common object to kill the Bojja Thirupathi, committing criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased Bojja Thirupathi and killed the deceased
Thirupathi by beating him with stones and strangulating him with a towel in prosecution of their common object, have all occurred as series of incidents at one place and almost at a time, all the three points have to be dealt with together.
Page 12 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
POINTS NO.1 TO 3 :- 23.From the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused and the evidence of PW1/wife of the deceased Bojja Thirupathi and PW2/brother of the deceased Thirupathi and eye witnesses, PW3 and PW4/eyewitness to the incident and PW5 and PW6/circumstantial witness to the incident and from the recitals of
Ex.P1 complaint given by PW1 on the basis of which, the crime was registered against the accused, it is seen that PW-2 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident and other witnesses PW5 and PW6 hail from the same village and belong to the community of fishermen known as “Tenugu” having surnames as “Bojja” (family of the deceased) and “Myakala” (family of the accused) and thereby known to each other.
24.The motive attributed by the prosecution for the murder of the deceased is that the deceased Bojja Thirupathi was the President of Fisheries Co-operative
Society of Chamanapalli village. There were quarrels between the caste people of “Bojja family” and “Myakala family” regarding catching of fishes in two tanks namely Rajasamudram and Appannapalli tanks since last 15 years as Myakala family members stealthily caught fishes in the said tanks, the deceased Thirupathi obtained orders from the Hon’ble High Court and with the permission of Fisheries
Department was fishing in the two tanks and as the “Myakala family” members were removed from the said Society by cancelling their membership. About three years back, Myakala surname members attacked the deceased at Grampanchayath
Office with an intention to kill him and a case is pending before the Hon’ble Court besides other cases regarding catching of fishes. These matters led to accused developing grudge against the deceased and they conspired to eliminate him. On
Page 13 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar 19.04.2019, in the afternoon, as the water level of Appannapalli tank was decreased, the deceased left from Karimnagar to Chamanapalli and at about 1700 hours, when the deceased was laying pipes to Appannapalli tank from the agricultural well of Pabbathi Prathapa Reddy situated besides the tank, A1 to A15 along with JCL, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object to kill the deceased, all the accused beat the deceased with stones on his head and other parts of his body and also strangulated him with a towel.
25.Before adverting to examine the evidence of eye witnesses, circumstantial witnesses and the attributed motive for the murder of the deceased Thirupathi, it has to be seen whether the death of Bojja Thirupathi is a homicidal one. On this aspect, much discussion is not necessary since the accused did not choose to contradict when PW1 and PW2, i.e. wife and brother of the deceased, PW3 and
PW4, i.e. eye witnesses to the incident, have deposed in one voice that the deceased Thirupathi was beaten to death with stones by all the accused and was also strangulated with a towel by A6. It is the evidence of PW11/Investigation
Officer and PW7/panch witness to the inquest that when he along with Suresh went to Govt. Civil Hospital, Karimnagar, he saw the dead body of Bojja Thirupathi, with injuries on the forehead, top of the head, back side of the head and other parts of the body and the Police reduced the panchanama into writing, read over the contents of the panchanama to himself and Suresh and having agreed the same as true and correct, they signed on the Inquest Panchanama under Ex.P3 and that the police seized MOs.1 to 5 i.e.,one blood stained white shirt, Banian, light green colour pant,cut drawer andone red towel respectively.
Page 14 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar 26.PW7 also acted as mediator for the scene of offence panchanama under
Ex.P4 and seizure of MO6 to MO8 i.e., five blood stained stones, blood stained earth and Control earth respectively. PW11 Investigation Officer deposed that he sent the material objects i.e., MO1, MO2, MO5 to MO8 to Forensic expert,
Karimnagar for examination videEx.P18 letter of advice and that the forensic expert from RFSL, Karimnagar gave report that “the material objects were analyzed and human blood was detected on MO1 bloodstained shirt, MO2 Banian, MO5 towel, two stones of MO6 (out of five blood stained stones) and MO7 bloodstained earth” and that the Expert also opined that “MO1, MO2, MO5 and MO6 contain Human blood of ‘O’ group” and that Ex.P19 is the RFSL report.
27.The evidence of PW7 and PW11 in regard to conduct of inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P3 and scene of offence panchanama under
Ex.P4 is not in challenge, except suggesting to PW7 that no inquest panchanama and no scene of offence panchanama was conducted in his presence, which they denied. It was also suggested to PW11 that he did not seize five blood stained stones from the scene of offence and he denied the said suggestion.
28.Apart from the above oral testimonies of witnesses, there is medical evidence of PW9/Civil Asst. Surgeon who conducted postmortem examination (PME) and issued Ex.P15 Postmortem Examination Report, wherein, he deposed that he found the following anti mortem injuries, incorporating therein and his opinion as to cause of death being due to “Head Injury”:
i) Laceration 5 x 1 cms. bone deep with abraded margins with underlying open fracture of frontal bone of skull noted over upper part of right side of forehead region.
Page 15 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar ii) Laceration 4x3 cms. obliquely placed over middle of lower part of forehead to medial part of left eyebrow with abraded margins, bone deep with underlying open fracture orbital bone on left side.
iii) Laceration 1x1 cm. bone deep with abraded margins over bridge of nose.
iv) Laceration 1x1 cm. bone deep with abraded margins over middle part of nose.
v) Laceration 1x1 cms, mucosal deep with abraded margins over left side of chin. vi) Laceration 1x1 cms, mucosal deep with abraded margins over upper part of left side of chin. vii) Laceration 1x1 cms, mucosal deep with abraded margins over left side of upper lip. viii) Laceration 1x1 cms, mucosal deep with abraded margins on buccal surface of chin. ix) Multiple abrasions, red in colour over an area of 12x7 cms on left cheek.
x) Abrasion 3x1 cms, Red coloured over lateral aspect of right forearm.
xi) Abrasion 5x1 cims, Red coloured over medial aspect of left forearm.
xii) Laceration 6x1 cms with abraded margins over left parietal area of the scalp. xiii) Laceration 12x3 cms with abraded margins over left parieto-occipital area of scalp. xiv) Abrasion 3x2 cms below right knee in anterior aspect, Red in colour. xv) Upon reflection of the scalp flap diffuse contusions noted surrounding injury numbers 1, 2, 12, 13 with depressed fracture of frontal bone on left side tearing meninges, depressed fractures of left side of occipital bone noted with subdural Hemorrhage all over the brain noted, fractures of posterior cranial fossa of base of skull noted on both sides. xvi) Fracture of left maxillary bone noted.
xvii) Pale abrasion noted over the front of the neck, contusions of dorsum of both hands noted.
29.As per Ex.P15 Postmortem Examination Report, deceased was found with as many as (17) ante mortem injuries, including injury No.15, i.e. depressed fracture of frontal bone on left side tearing meninges, depressed fractures of left side of
Page 16 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar occipital bone noted with subdural Hemorrhage all over the brain noted and fractures of posterior cranial fossa of base of skull noted on both sides. These ante mortem injuries noted by PW9 Doctor on dead body of deceased Thirupathi when appreciated with the scene of offence panchanama and the material object collected under the scene of offence panchanama, viz. MO6 to MO8 i.e., five blood stained stones, blood stained earth and Control earth respectively under cover of
Ex.P4 panchanama, it is conclusively established that the death of deceased
Thirupathi was due to being assaulted by MO6 stones.PW9 further deposed that the above mentioned injuries from 1 to 16 are possible with the use of “blunt nature weapon”. The evidence of PW7 and the contents of Ex.P5 Inquest
Panchanama and the opinion of panchas established that the cause of death of deceased Thirupathi was the attack made on deceased by the accused with stones.
Thus, it is established that the death of deceased Bojja Thirupathi was homicidal death and not an accidental death.
30.In order to prove that the accused persons had a motive to kill the deceased
Bojja Thirupathi, they shared conspiracy, common object in killing the deceased and in prosecution of their common object killed the deceased by beating him with stones, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1, direct evidence of PW2,
PW3 and PW4 and the circumstantial evidence of PW5. The another set of evidence relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused persons to the charges is of PW8 and PW10, who are panch witnesses said to be present when
PW11 Circle Inspector apprehended all the accused, recorded their confessional statements and recovered five motorcycles, which are MO9 to MO13, from them under cover of separate Seizure Panchanamas under Exs.P10 to P14, which are used during the commission of offence and on the evidence of PW11 Investigation
Page 17 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
Officer who arrested the accused and conducted those proceedings, seeking to admit their evidence and the disclosure portions in the Panchanamas under
Exts.P5 to P9 and seizure of five motorcycles MO9 to MO13 under separate
Seizure Panchanamas Ext.P10 to P14, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
31.PW1/ wife of deceased deposed that her husband was president of Fishermen
Co-operative Society, Chamanpalli Village and there are two water tanks in their
Village, one is Raja Samudram Cheruvu and other one is Appannapalli Cheruvu and members of society should catch fishes in those tanks and there are members with surname “Bojja”, “Polu” and “Myakala” in their Society and there were disputes between Mayakala and Bojja people from last 15 years by the date of incident and said Myakala surname people caught the fish stealthily and committed irregularities and on that, her husband filed a case in Court and the Court removed the membership of Myakala people. She further deposed that from then her husband is managing fishing in two tanks and on that, Myakala people developed bore grudge against her husband as they were not allowed to catch fish and they attacked her husband in Gram Panchayath office and beat her husband and on which, a case was filed in the year 2016 and said case is pending.
32.PW1 further deposed that on 19.04.2019, her husband went to
Chamanapalli informing her that Appannapalli cheruvu dried up and he will talk with farmers and see that water is sent to Appannapalli cheruvu through pipes and pipes were being laid from well of LW6 Pabbathi Prathap Reddy, at that time, the
Myakala people i.e., A1 to A15 along with JCL attacked her husband, beat him with stones, strangulated her husband’s neck (uri vesi) with Towel and killed him. She further deposed that her brother-in-law Ravinder (PW-2) called her through phone
Page 18 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar and informed the same, then she rushed to the place near the Mathadi of
Appannapalli cheruvu, where she found her husband lying dead and she saw bleeding injuries on the head and a red towel was tied around his neck and she immediately rushed to Rural Police Station and lodged the complaint in which she stated that the said incident was witnessed by PW2 to PW4.
33.In her cross-examination, PW1 stated that on the date of incident, deceased had lunch around 12.00 Noon – 1.00 PM and left home around 3.00 – 4.00 P.M. and
before that, he called PW2, PW3 and PW4 on phone informing them that he is
coming to village and asked them to be there by the time he reaches the village.
PW1 stated that she received phone call about the incident from PW2 at 6.00 PM and reached Chamanaplli around 6.30 P.M., and by the time she reached the crime scene, villagers gathered there, Police and Ambulance were also there. She further stated that PW3 and PW4 Pochaiah and several Bojja people and others were present there. PW1 denied the suggestion that the accused are not responsible for the death of her husband and due to old enmity, lodged false complaint against the accused.
34.PW2/ brother of the deceased and an eye witness to the incident deposed on similar lines as that of PW1 regarding the dispute between Myakala people and
Bojja people, irregularities committed by Myakala people in catching fish in the ponds, obtaining Orders from Hon’ble High Court by the deceased and cancellation of membership of Myakala people. Regarding the incident, PW2 deposed that on 19.4.2019, his deceased brother went to Chamanaplli informing him that water is decreasing in Appannapalli cheruvu and he will talk with farmers and see that water is sent to Appannapalli cheruvu through pipes. PW2 further deposed that
Page 19 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar his deceased brother called him, PW3 Veeresham and PW4 Lacha Pochaiah and they (PW-3 & 4) went earlier and he went at 5.00 P.M. and the pipes were being laid from well of PW5 Pabbathi Prathap Reddy, in the meanwhile, seven Myakala people came there and they are Myakala Anajaiah (A5), Myakala Sampath (A11),
Myakala Naveen (A7), Mayakala Praveen (A8), Mayakala Srinivas S/o Ramulu (A10),
Myakala Srinivas S/o. Komuraiah (A9), Myakala Srinivas S/o. Venkatesham (A14).
Some of them caught hold of his brother and remaining of them beat his brother.
35.PW2 further deposed that immediately he dialed 100 and his brother tried to run away, but the seven persons chased his brother and in the meanwhile, PW3
Veeresham tried to intervene and tried to rescue his brother by taking him to village on his small bike, but after passing about 50 meters, reamaining nine persons came there and they are Myakala Dharmaraju (A1), Myakala Ramulu (A2),
Mayakala Venkatrajam (A15), Myakala Venkatesham (A6), Mykalala Pochaiah (A3),
Mykala Komuraiah (A4), Mykala Lachaiah (A12), Myakala Sathaiah (A13) and
Myakala Rakesh (JCL). PW-2 further deposed that they all pulled his brother from bike and pulled him to the ground and all (16) accused beat his brother with stones on the forehead and A6/Myakala Venkatesh tied towel around the neck of his brother and pulled the towel and strangulated with towel and killed his brother and after confirming that his brother was died, the accused left the place.
36.In his cross-examination, PW2 stated that deceased informed him that he also called PW3 and PW4 to come there and he met PW3 and PW4 only after he went there and he does not know when PW3 and PW4 went to the scene of offence place and stated that by the time he went there, his brother, PW3 and LW5
Lacha Pochaiah (PW4) were present. On the date of incident, he went to edge of
Page 20 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar the Tank and by that time, black plastic pipes were laid from the well of Prathap
Reddy till the Tank and stated that the distance between the well and edge of tank is about 200 Meters. PW2 stated that first seven persons came and attacked his brother with stones near the junction and his brother received bleeding injuries on the back side of his head and further stated that the distance to the place where his brother was lying dead is 50 meters. PW2 clarified that there are stones at the causeway area, but there was no heap of stones and the accused beat his brother with those stones. Regarding the assault made on his deceased brother, PW2 stated that out of seven accused, some persons were talking with his brother and some persons beat his brother with stones on the back of his head and later, all the sixteen accused beat his brother with stones available there. PW2 stated that he cannot say if (16) stones were used to beat his brother. However, the fact remains is that the accused beat the deceased with stones. PW2 further stated that he dialed 100 at the time of first attack itself and the two attacks happened in one hour. He denied the suggestion that one cannot see the place where his brother was lying from the tank edge.
37.PW2 admitted that PW3 is his mother’s younger sister’s son and he was examined as PW1 in the case that was tried in connection with Gram Panchayath incident and Bojja Narayana was A1 in said case and PW3 is A7 in the said case and father and mother of PW3 were also accused in said case and he gave evidence in the said case after death of his brother. He stated that he is not fully aware of the affairs of the society and he does not know whether the appellant authority set aside the order of removal of ‘Myakala’ people from member ship of the Society in the year 2004 and challenging said order, deceased filed Writ Petition (WP)
No.16189 of 2016 before Hon’ble High Court and status-quo was ordered on the
Page 21 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar membership of ‘Myakala’ people and the order of re-enquiry. PW2 further stated that about two years back, they compromised with ‘Myakala’ people and presently
Bojja Anjaiah is President of the Society. He denied that as per orders of Tribunal and Hon’ble High Court, ‘Myakala’ people are members of the Society. PW-2 denied that he was not present near the scene of offence and he did not witness any incident on 19.4.2019 and none of the accused are in any way responsible for the death of his brother and due to old disputes, lodged false complaint against the accused after death of his brother.
38.PW3 eye witness to the incident deposed that there are two water tanks in their Village, one is Raja Samudram cheruvu and other one Appannapalli cheruvu and that only members of society should catch fishes and there are members with surname “Bojja”, “Polu” in their Society and there were disputes between “Mayakala” and “Bojja” people from last 20 years by the date of incident, that
Myakala people caught the fish stealthily and committed irregularities and on that deceased filed a case in Court and the Court removed Myakala people’s membership and from then deceased is managing fishing in the two tanks, for which, the Myakala people developed bore grudge against deceased and they beat deceased at Grampanchayath office about 8years ago.
39.PW3 further deposed that about 5 ½ years back, Thirupathi (deceased) asked for laying pipes from well of Prathap Reddy to Appannapalli cheruvu and he called him, PW4 Lacha Pochaiah and PW2 Bojja Ravinder for laying the pipes and when they were laying the pipes, said PW4 Lacha Pochaiah said that he will link the pipes and himself along with Thirupathi (deceased) were going by walk, at that time, first 7 (seven) persons came and they are, (1) Myakala Anajaneyulu, (2)
Page 22 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
Myakala Praveen, (3) Myakala Sampath, (4) Myakala Srinivas S/o. Venkatesham, (5)
Myakala Srinivas S/o. Komuraiah, (6) Myakala Srinivas S/o Ramulu and (7) Myakala
Naveen, but Mayakala Naveen was sitting on bike and he did not touch Thirupathi, the other six persons beat Thirupathi, then he intervened and stopped them, he himself told them that he is taking Thirupathi (deceased) to GP office and pleaded not to beat Thirupathi and took him on his small bike towards village and at that time, 9 (nine) persons came there and they are, (1) Myakala Dharmaraju, (2)
Myakala Ramulu, (3) Mayakala Venkatrajam, (4) Myakala Venkatesham, (5)
Mykalala Pochaiah, (6) Mykala Komuraiah, (7) Mykala Lachaiah, (8) Myakala
Sathaiah and (9) Myakala Rakesh S/o. Sathaiah and pulled Thirupathi (deceased) from his bike to ground and they all (16) accused beat Thirupathi (deceased) with stones on forehead and back of head and later, Myakala Venkatesh tied red towel around the neck of Thirupathi and pulled the towel and strangulated Thirupathi with towel and killed Thirupathi (deceased) and further deposed that Lacha
Pochaiah (PW4) and Ravinder (PW2) were hiding due to fear that accused will kill them.
40.In his cross-examination, PW3 stated that mother of deceased and his mother are own sisters. He admitted that himself and his parents were also included as accused in case relating to Gram Panchayath incident and that PW2 gave evidence in said case after death of Thirupathi and that himself and his parents were sent to Jail in the said case. He denied that PW2 did not make any incriminating statement in his evidence against him and his parents in the said case. PW3 further stated that on 19.4.2019, Thirupathi (deceased) called him on phone at 4.00 P.M. and as he was not having phone at that time, Thirupathi called on phone of Lacha Pochaiah (PW4) and Lacha Pochaiah informed and said that they
Page 23 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar should go and then he went to the Tank at 4.30 PM along with Lacha Pochaiah (PW4) and by that time, Thirupathi (deceased) was present there and they went there to lay the pipes and they laid one bundle of pipes which were brought by
Thirupathi (deceased). PW3 further stated that PW2 came at 5.00 PM and by that time, the pipe lines were laid and not connected and that Lacha Pochaiah (PW4) was connecting the pipes with rope, himself and Thirupathi (deceased) went ahead a distance of 100 meters and Ravinder (PW2) came to Lacha Pochaiah (PW4). PW3 further stated that when he and Thirupathi (deceased) came till the well of Prathap
Reddy, then seven accused attacked Thirupathi (deceased), out of them, some persons caught hold of Thirupathi and others beat Thirupathi with stones, but he cannot say who caught hold of Thirupathi and who beat Thirupathi with stones. It is stated that Thirupathi (deceased) received bleeding injuries on the back side of his head and blood spilled on his clothes and that the distance between the place where Thirupathi (deceased) was attacked first and was attacked again was 50 meters. He further stated that he cannot say if Thirupathi (deceased) was beat with 16 stones. PW3 further stated that after he brought their people, police came there and he told police what happened and Lacha Pochaiah (PW4) and PW2 also told police what happened and they also went to Hospital and Police also came to hospital.
41.Ex.D1 was marked in Section 161 Cr. PC. Statement of PW3. The relevant part of his statement reads that “after going for about 200 meters accused again attacked Thirupathi”. PW11 Investigation Officer stated that PW3 stated before him that after going about “200 meters” accused again attacked Thirupathi (deceased) as in Ex.D1. PW2 admitted that he did not state before police that he told the accused that he is taking Thirupathi (deceased) to GP office and pleaded
Page 24 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar not to beat Thirupathi. He denied that on 19.04.2019, Thirupathi did not call him and Lacha Pochaiah (PW4) and that Lacha Pochaiah did not go to the Tank. PW3 denied that his statement that in the first attack seven accused beat deceased
Thirupathi and later nine accused beat Thirupathi with stones is false and futher denied that he was not present at the time of alleged incident and that he did not witness any incident. PW3 admitted that he stated before police that seven accused first came to the place where himself, Lacha Pochaiah (PW4) and
Thirupathi (deceased) were there, that the seven accused tried to attack Thirupathi and Thirupathi (deceased) tried to escape by going to his motor cycle, that accused chased and caught Thirupathi (deceased) near well of Prathap Reddy. He denied that he did not state before police that in the first attack, PW2 was present. PW11
Investigation Officer also stated in his cross-examination that PW3 did not state
before him that in the first attack PW2 was present. It was suggested to PW3 that
PW1 and PW2 promised to save him and his parents in other criminal case and for that reason, he is deposing false against the accused and he did not witness any incident and the accused are not responsible for the death of Thirupathi and the same were denied.
42.PW4 eye witness deposed on similar lines as that of PW3. He also deposed that he was at a distance of 30 meters from the place of attack and the accused beat Thirupathi (deceased) with stones and he received bleeding injuries on the back of his head and the Thirupathi (deceased) tried to escape from there, but the accused chased him and nine persons came there and they all are Myakala people and he cannot give their names. PW4 also deposed that all the accused present in the court hall came there and they all beat Thirupathi (deceased) with stones on his head and himself and Ravi (PW2) hide at some distance due to fear that accused
Page 25 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar will kill them, he shouted that Thirupathi (deceased) was killed and rushed to village and called their people and he returned to Thirupathi (deceased) and saw him dead and found injuries on the head of Thirupathi.
43.In his cross-examination, PW4 stated that he does not know about the affairs of Society. Cases was filed by Thirupathi (deceased) when he was President of Society, that Bojja family got 24 shares and Mayakla family got 11 shares in the
Society, but Myakala people were removed from membership of Society. PW4 further stated that Thirupathi (deceased) called him on the date of incident at 4.30
PM and at that time, he was at home and he first went to the Tank and Veeresham (PW3) followed him within 10 or 15 minutes and the pipe line was laid in a distance of 60 meters and Thirupathi (deceased) brought the pipes from Karimnagar. PW4 stated that the seven accused first came near well of Prathap Reddy, at that time, only himself, PW3 Veeresham and deceased Thirupathi were present and
Thirupathi was talking on phone by sitting on pial near the well.
44.PW4 further stated that seven accused first came near well of Prathap
Reddy, at that time, only himself, PW3 Veeresham and deceased were present and he was setting the pipes, that himself and PW3 were at a distance of 40 meters from Thirupathi, that the accused beat Thirupathi (deceased) with stones and he ran from there for a distance of 50 to 60 meters. He further stated that seven persons were joined by nine other accused and they all chased Thirupathi (deceased), that PW3 Veeresham ran towards Thirupathi (deceased), himself and
PW2 Ravinder hide near the tank in the grass which was taller than them and they will not be visible and they were seeing the incident. PW4 further stated that he did not state before police that they were hiding in the grass and that he did not
Page 26 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar state before police that Thirupathi called him on phone. He admitted that he did not state before police that he shouted that Thirupathi was killed. He added that due to shock, he did not tell the police. It was suggested to PW4 that his statement that due to shock, he did not tell the police is not correct, that he did not go near the tank as Thirupathi (deceased) never called him on phone, he did not lay pipe lines on that day near the tank, he did not witness any incident and he is deposing false to help PW1 and PW2 as he is their agnate and he told the names of known accused to police. PW4 denied all these suggestions.
45. PW5 circumstantial witness deposed that he is having agricultural land and well in Chamanpalli Village outskirts by the side of Appannapalli tank, that the incident occurred five years ago, that three or four days prior to the incident, the deceased/Thirupathi called him on phone and requested him that he will take water from his agricultural well to Appannapalli village tank stating that the fishes are there and water is decreasing and he did not gave permission stating that well water will not be enough to fill the tank and thereafter the incident occurred. He also deposed that in the night at 7.30 P.M., he came to know that there was quarrel near his field and on the next day morning, he went to village and came to know that Thirupathi died. In his cross-examination, PW5 stated that the distance between his well and well of Gaja Thirupathi is about 400 to 500 yards.
46.PW6 is examined to depose that A6 is using the mobile phone which stands on his name. He deposed that he is owner of SIM bearing No.9330856284 and he obtained said Sim card in the year 2012 and about 7 or 8 years back, his friend
Varala Sravan Kumar requested to give one SIM to him and he handed over said
Page 27 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
Sim to Varala Sravan Kumar, but he does not know who is using said Sim card from then.
47.PW6 was declared as hostile and was permitted to be cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and in his cross-examination, PW6 denied having stated to police as in Ex.P2.
48.PW8 and PW10 are the panch witnesses for confession of accused deposed that on 21.04.2019 in the afternoon, their RI and MPDO respectively instructed them to go to Gopikrishna Function hall to act as mediators in panchanama and that
Karimnagar Rural CI of Police called them, then they went to Gopikrishna Function hall, where CI of police and other police were present there and accused persons (15 in number) were also present in the custody of police and they can identify one person i.e. Dharmaraju among those 15 persons and they identified A1 present in
Court hall as said Dharmaraju. They further deposed that on the instructions of police, they enquired them separately and the said persons including A1 confessed their guilt in this case to have killed Bojja Thirupathi by beating him with stones and by strangulating his neck with towel and the police reduced the confession statement of said persons including A1 into writing, read over the contents of panchanama to them and having agreed the same as true and correct, they signed on the panchanama and also they all proceeded to Chamanapalli village to the houses of five persons who made confession, but they cannot give the names of said five persons. PW8 and PW10 further deposed that the police seized five motorcycles, which are MO9 to MO13 under cover of separate seizure panchanamas marked as Exs.P10 to P14.
Page 28 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar 49.In their cross-examination, PW8 and PW10 denied that A1 or any other person was not present at the function hall and they did not make any confession
before them and the police did not seize any motor cycles from any one and that
they went to police station and put signatures on the panchanama in the police station on the instructions of the police and that they are deposing false.
50.In cross-examination, it was suggested to PW10 that accused were not apprehended at Gopi Krishna Function Hall and that they did not make any confession and that accused did not lead to their houses and did not seize five motor cycles from the houses of accused and not collected any evidence to show that accused went to scene of offence on their motor cycles. PW10 denied all these suggestions.
51.This Court is of the considered opinion that recovery of motorcycles used in the commission of an offense is considered incriminating material and a crucial piece of circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime, where the accused, while in police custody, gave information that led directly to the discovery of the MOs.9 to 13 motorcycles used in the crime, that information and the recovery are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
52. PW11 Investigation Officer deposed that he received complaint (Ex.P1) on 19.04.2019 at 9.00 PM and registered Crime No.155 of 2019 (Ex.P16) and after examination recorded the statement of PW1 and rushed to the scene of offence and photographed the scene of offence through LW7 Chinthala Raji Reddy (Ex.P17) and shifted the dead body to Govt. Civil Hospital, Karimnagar and on the next day visited the hospital and secured the presence of two mediators (PW7 and
Page 29 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
LW12 G.Suresh) and conducted inquest panchanama (Ex.P3) over the dead body of the deceased Bojja Thirupathi and same was reduced into writing and also photographed the dead body and seized shirt, banion, pant, cut drawer and towel (MO1 to MO5) and gave requisition for conducting post moretem examination and collected PME report (Ex.P15). Further deposed that he examined and recorded the statements of LW2 Bojja Mallaiah, PW2 to PW4, LW7 Chithala Raji Reddy.
Along with panch witnesses proceeded to scene of offence and observed the crime scene and reduced the panchanama (CDF) in writing along with rough sketch (Ex.P4) and seized bloodstained stones, bloodstained earth and control earth (MO6 to MO8) and deposed that motor cycle of the deceased was lying in the scene offence and further deposed that he examined and recorded the statement of PW5 and during the course of investigation, he apprehended A1 to A15 and JCL near Gopikrishna Function Hall, Vavilalapalli. After securing the presence of PW8 and PW10, reduced the confession panchanama of all the accused in writing and also seized five motor cycles (MO9 to MO13) from A2, A3, A8, A9 and A11 under
Ex.P10 to Ex.14 seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, effected the arrest of the accused and produced before the Court and sent the material objects (MO1, MO2, MO5 to MO8) to Forensic Expert for examination vide
Ex.P18 letter of advice and collected Ex.P19 RFSL report.
53.PW11 Investigation Officer deposed that he gave requisition toVodafone and Jio Nodal officer to furnish CAF, and CDR of mobile numbers i.e., 9652364337 of A2, 9948682746 of A3, 9912087055 of A7, 9705037775 of A8, 9030478655 of
A9, 9704923323 of A11, 9502737116 of A14, 9705764393 of A15 and he also sought for CAF and CDR of 9701146718 and 7032379407 used by A5, 9550856284 of A6 in the name of his neighbor LW8 Srikanth, 7702954548 of A10 which was in
Page 30 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar the name of LW9 Challa Venu Kumar and that Ex.P20 to Ex.P31 are CAF and CDR of above said 12 phone numbers. Learned counsel for the accused raised objection for marking Ex.P20 to Ex.P31 on the ground that the documents have to be marked through the Nodal Officers and not through I.O and said objection was over ruled as the documents are only marked through the I.O. who collected the documents and the counsel can always submit on the probative value of the documents marked during arguments.
54.PW11 further deposed that during the course of investigation he also collected documents from Dist. Fisheries Cooperative Society of Chamanpalli village and Ex.P32 is the information furnished by the Dist. Fisheries Officer,
Karimnagar containing 11 pages. Learned counsel for Accused raised objection for marking Ex.P32 on the ground that the documents have to be marked through DFO and not through I.O. and said objection was over ruled as the documents are only marked through the I.O. who collected the documents and the counsel can always submit on the probative value of the documents marked during arguments. Ex.P32 contains removal orders of members from the Fisheries Cooperative Society of
Chamanapalli Village passed by Hon’ble High Court, Orders passed by Hon’ble High
Court in favour of Bojja Thirupathi, President, Fisheries Cooperative Society Ltd.,
Chamanapalli for fishing in the village tanks and Orders passed by the District
Fisheries Officer, Karimnagar for fishing in the village tanks during the year 2017-
18. However, nothing was suggested to PW11 in his cross-examination on the validity of documents furnished under Ex.P32.
55.In his cross-examination, PW11 admitted that as per the CDRs filed, most of the cell phones were all located in the tower location of Deva Manohar Reddy, R/o
Page 31 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
Chamanapalli Village. PW11 denied that only the Nodal officers of Airtel,
Vodafone and Jio service providers are best persons to speak about Ex.P20 to
Ex.P31. This Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the direct evidence of PW.2 to 4 regarding the murderous assault made by the accused on the deceased, call data record becomes insignificant.
56.PW11 during cross examination stated that, he did not shown the pipe line being laid in the scene of offence panchanama. Further stated that Gopikrishna
Function Hall is surrounded by shops and other establishments and he did not secure mediators from surroundings of the said function hall and place from where, five motor cycles were seized were accessible to all as they were open places. PW11 denied that he did not seized bloodstained stones, control earth, bloodstained earth from scene of offence and accused were not apprehended at
Gopikrishna Function Hall and they did not make any confession and they did not lead to their houses and the motor cycles are not seized from the houses of accused and the accused are not responsible for the death of deceased and the complaint was lodged keeping the enmity between the parties and filed the charge sheet without proper investigation.
57.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Masalti Vs. State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202 held that where a criminal court is dealing with evidence pertaining to an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test of support by two or three or more witnesses, if they give a consistent account of the incident.
58.The evidence of eye witnesses should be of very sterling quality and caliber and it should not only instill confidence in the Court to accept the same, but it
Page 32 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar should also be a version of such nature that can be accepted at its face value and further it should be natural and consistence with the case of the prosecution and there should not be any prevarication in the version of such witnesses. Further, ocular version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion.
59.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that as per the prosecution version, the incident occurred on 19.04.2019 at 5.00 PM and the complaint was lodged by wife of the deceased (PW1) at 9.00 P.M., though the rural police station,
Karimnagar is at a distance of 10 to 12 Kms and there is a delay of 4 hours in lodging Ex.P1 complaint/report and registering Ex.P16 FIR.
60.It is well settled law that delay in giving the complaint/report and registering the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case.
Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect the villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. In the present case, the incident occurred at 5.00 PM and the wife of the deceased (PW1) in her evidence stated that she received phone call regarding the incident through PW2 at 6.00 PM and rushed to the scene of offence at 6.30 PM and she lodged the complaint at 9.00 PM on the same day itself. When PW1 lost her husband, she was in sorrow and under the depression and it cannot be expected that by leaving the dead body of her husband, she has to lodge complaint immediately. The delay of 4 hours cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is hereby rejected.
Page 33 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar 61.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW2 to PW4 who allegedly witnessed the incident have not reported the incident to the police and it is a fatal to the prosecution case. In criminal law, it is not mandatory that only the eye witnesses to the incident should report the same to the police. The criminal law can be set into motion by any person. In the present case, upon receiving of information regarding the incident, the wife of the deceased went to the place of incident and lodged Ex.P1 complaint/report before the police on the same day and basing on the same, Ex.P16 FIR was registered. Merely because, the eye witness to the incident had not reported the incident to the police is a not ground to reject the prosecution version and accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is rejected. The Judgment relied upon by the accused in Dhanakka
Shankaraiah’s case is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
62.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW1 is wife of the deceased, PW2 is brother of the deceased, PW3 is agnate/relative of the deceased,
PW4 also relative of the deceased, as such, they are close relatives of the deceased and interested witnesses, as such, their evidence cannot be relied upon and same has to be disregarded.
63.It is settled law that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as interested witness and the term “interested” postulates that the witness must have some interest in having the accused convicted for some animus or some other reason. The relative witness cannot be set to be an interested witness merely by virtue of being relative of the victim/deceased. In criminal cases, it is often that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim/deceased, whose presence on the scene of offence would be natural. The evidence of such
Page 34 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar witness cannot automatically be disregarded by labeling that the witness as interested. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity, as such, the Courts as a Rule of prudence, not as a Rule of law should scrutinize with little care. Merely because, the eye witnesses i.e., PW2 to PW4 are related to the deceased, their testimony cannot be disbelieved, particularly, when their presence with the deceased at the spot appears to be natural. It is relevant to mention that the incident had taken place in Chamanpalli Village and all the witnesses i.e, PW2 to PW4 belongs to same village. There appears to be no personal enmity on the part of these witnesses against the accused. Therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the accused is hereby rejected. The
Judgment relied upon by the accused in Sudhakar @ Sudharasan’s case is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
64.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW1 during the cross examination stated that the deceased had lunch between 12.00 to 1.00 PM and left the home at 4.00 PM to Rajasamudram Cheruvu and as per the prosecution version, the incident occurred at 5.00 PM. PW9 doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body during cross examination, stated that normally simple vegetarian meal will take 2 to 4 hours digestion and as per PME report, the deceased stomach contains 100 CC of digested food and submitted that the occurrence of the incident at 5.00 PM is incorrect. A perusal of Ex.P15 PME Report shows that about 100 CC of digested food was present in the stomach. In cross- examination, PW9 Doctor admitted that as per his report, stomach contains 100 CC of digested food and that normally simple vegetarian meal will take 2 to 4 hour for digestion. PW9 deposed that he commenced postmortem examination at 11.20
A.M. and concluded it at 12.40 P.M. and the approximate time of death was 18
Page 35 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar hours prior to conducting PME. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel
for the accused that the food was not digested and the occurrence of incident at
5.00 P.M. is doubtful, cannot be accepted on such technicality.
65.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that as per the prosecution version, the accused No.6 strangulated the deceased with a towel and there is no reference of strangulation in PME report issued by PW9 Doctor. The case of the prosecution is that the accused beat the deceased with stone indiscriminately on the vital part, i.e. head, and caused the death. Further the witnesses deposed that the accused No.6 tied towel to the neck of the deceased. It is not the entire case of the prosecution that the death caused by accused only by strangulation. PW2 to
PW4 deposed that the accused attacked and beat the deceased with stone and the accused No.6 tied towel to the neck of the deceased. In Ex.P15 PME report, injury
No.17 is noted that “Pale abrasion over the front of the neck” which must be due to strangulation with MO5 towel. However, in the cause of death of the deceased as deposed by PW9 is “Head Injury” and not strangulation. Hence, the contention of the accused is rejected.
66.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that during the course of investigation, police recovered only five stones, not (16) stones and blood stains were found only on two stones and not on other stones and it creates a doubt. It is to be noted that even if two stones contained blood stains, they are sufficient to cause head injury which is likely to cause death. It is seen that MO6 stones (5 Nos.) are coursed rubble stones and are likely to cause death if used as weapon of offence. PW2 who is eye witness to the incident stated that there are stones at causeway area, but there was no heap of stones and the accused beat with those
Page 36 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar stones. However, failure on the part of investigation officer to recover the stones from the open field which was place of occurrence is not fatal to the prosecution case, when the eye version account of the occurrence and medical evidence showing large number of injuries support each other.
67.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the case of the prosecution is that while laying pipes to Rajasamudram Cheruvu/tank by the deceased and PW2 to PW4, the incident was occurred and the prosecution failed to seize the pipes as narrated by the witnesses and submitted that the investigation is defective. The pipes referred to by the learned counsel and were available at the scene of offence are not incriminating materials to connect the accused with the offence. Therefore, non-seizure of said pipes by the Investigation officer is inconsequential. Defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the matter cannot bring discredit to the story of the prosecution. Giving undue importance to them would amount to adopting a hyper technical approach. It is settled principle that the court while appreciating the evidence, should not attach much significance to minor discrepancies and the discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case are to be ignored.
68.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that mere presence of a person at the place of offence does not incriminate him and the person will not liable for being a member of unlawful assembly and keeping the enmity between the parties, the accused were falsely implicated in this case and submitted that enmity is a double edged weapon for implication. It is settled law that mere
Page 37 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar presence or association with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold every one of them criminally liable for the offenes committed by the others unless there was sufficient evidence on record to show that one such also intended to or knew the likelihood commission of such an offending act. If the person concerned goes away and ceases to be a member of the unlawful assembly before the commission of the offence, no vicarious liability can be fastened upon him, if any subsequent act done by the other members of the unlawful assembly. For recording conviction under Section 149 IPC, prosecution must prove that firstly, accused shared a common object and were part of unlawful assembly and secondly, it must be proved that they were aware of offences likely to be committed to achieve the said common object.
69.Section 149 IPC does not create a separate offence but only declares vicarious liability of all members of unlawful assembly for acts done in common object. Thus, in order to attract Section 149 IPC it must be shown by the prosecution that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object by such unlawful assembly. It must be within the knowledge of the other members as one likely to be committed in furtherance of common object. Even if no overt act is imputed to the accused individually, the presence of the accused as part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction. The inference of common object has to be drawn from various factors such as, the weapons with which, the members were armed, their movements, the acts of violence committed by them and the end result.
70.The ingredients of Section 149 IPC require presence of an unlawful assembly which is defined under Section 141 IPC as an assembly of 5 or more persons, if the
Page 38 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar common object of the persons composing that assembly is any of the five objects fully enunciated in Section 141 IPC. The explanation to Section 141 clarifies that an assembly which was not unlawful when assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly. To determine the existence of common object, the Court is required to see the circumstances in which, the incident had taken place, the conduct of members of unlawful assembly as well as the weapon of offence they carried or used on the spot. The common object may form on the spur of the movement. Prior concert by way of meeting of members of unlawful assembly is not necessary.
71.From the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, it is evident that there were disputes between the deceased and the accused persons in regard to catching of fishes in the two tanks namely, Raja Samudram Cheruvu and Appannapalli Cheruvu, and as the accused stealthily caught fishes in said tanks, the deceased obtained Orders from the Hon’ble High Court whereby the membership of accused persons in
Cooperative Society was canceled and they were not allowed to catch fishes in those two tanks and from then onwards, the deceased was managing fishing in the two tanks and as a result of which, the accused persons developed grudge against the deceased and in the year 2016, the accused persons assaulted the deceased in
Gram Panchayath office and beat him and a case was registered against the accused persons, which is the subject matter in SC No176/2018 on the file of Addl.
Asst. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Though there is an omission in the evidence of
PW3 regarding the presence of PW2 at the time of offence, it is the evidence of
PW4 in his cross-examination that himself and PW3 hide near the tank in the grass.
It was also tried to elicit in the cross-examination of PW2 to PW4 that 16 stones were not available at the scene of offence to beat the deceased. However, it is the
Page 39 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar evidence of PW2 to PW4 that at first seven accused persons came to the scene of offence and later nine accused joined them and they all beat the deceased
Thirupathi with stones. MO6 are five blood stained stones seized from the scene of offence under Ex.P4 scene of offence panchanama, which are used by the accused to beat the deceased. On perusal of stones (MO6) and their size, they can be used as deadly weapons to cause death of the deceased. PW2 to PW4 also gave the names of 16 accused persons, including the JCL, who participated in the offence and beat the deceased. Considering the entire actual position, the presence of PW2 to PW4 on the spot was proved beyond doubt. Thus the evidence of PW2 to PW4 is consistent with regard to the incident that occurred on 19.04.2019 around 05.00 P.M., near the agricultural well of PW5 situated at the outskirts of Chamanapalli Village, wherein, at first seven accused attacked the deceased with stones and after sometime, nine accused persons joined them and they all beat the deceased with stones.
72.The medical evidence of PW9 coupled with the seizure of material objects
MO6 to MO8, when appreciated with the oral evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4, who are direct eye witness to the incident and the circumstantial evidence of PW5, it is established that A1 to A15 beat the deceased Thirupathi with MO6 stones causing fracture injury on the head of deceased and other injuries and killed him.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused had a strong motive to kill the deceased and accordingly, on 19.04.2019, around 05.00 P.M., while the deceased was laying pipeline from well of PW5/Pabbathi Prathap Reddy to fill water in the tank, all the accused conspired together to kill the deceased
Thirupathi, congregated themselves into an unlawful assembly with common object and in prosecution of their common object, accused No.1 to 15 herein along
Page 40 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar with JCL attacked the deceased and beat him with stones and Myakala Venkatesh (A6) also strangulated his neck with MO5 Towel and killed him.
73.In this case, A1 to A15 attacked the deceased in two groups. The first group consisting of A1 to A7 and the second group, which came after some time, consisting of A8 to A15 and JCL and it is the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 that all the accused beat the deceased with stones with an intention to kill him and accordingly killed him. It is well settled law that when a group attacks simultaneously and it is difficult to determine which specific injury caused the death, all the accused are jointly liable for the fatal outcome of such attack. As per
Section 149 of IPC., if five or more people form an unlawful assembly and one member commits murder in prosecution of common object of such unlawful assembly, all the members present at the time of committing the offence are liable for murder for sharing the common object. Therefore, by following the principles laid down in the Judgments cited supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that all the accused No.1 to 15 are guilty of the offences with which they are charged.
74.This Court holds that, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and an offence is committed by member of that assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly and members of such assembly knew likely to be committed an offence in prosecution of that object, every person who at the time of committing of that offence was a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence. On the basis of evidence, the membership of the accused in unlawful assembly at the relevant time has been established and the fact that they were not active participants would be of no avail.
Page 41 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar 75.Learned counsel for the accused placed reliance on the Judgment of
Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangna reported in State of Telangana,
through Circle Inspector of Police, Boath, Adilabad District, represented by Public
Prosecutor 2023 (2) ALT (Crl.) 268 (DB) (T.S.) contending that the accused did not carry any weapons with them while approaching the scene of offence and the offence committed by the accused is not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder falls under Section 304-II of IPC.
76.In the present case, the manner of assault where all the accused, in prosecution of their common object, beat the deceased with stones on his head with an intention to kill him and caused fatal injuries to him, it is evident that it was not a sudden fight or free fight between the two groups but it was one sided attack on the deceased. The injuries were found to be on the vital parts of the body of the deceased i.e. head. They were reflective of the intention of the accused at the time of causing such injuries and the accused had knowledge that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Further, the oral testimony of the eye witnesses, medical evidence of the doctor (who found numerous injuries), investigation officer read with inquest report and seizure list, entirely supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the offence committed by the accused does not fall under the exceptions mentioned in Section 300 IPC and the Judgments relied upon by the counsel for accused are not applicable to the present facts of the case.
77.Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution amply established that A1 to
A15, having criminally conspired together, keeping in mind the dispute they had with the deceased Bojja Thirupathi regarding fishing in the village ponds, as the
Page 42 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar deceased obtained Orders from Hon’ble High Court whereby the membership of
A1 to A15 in the Cooperative Society was canceled and they were not allowed to cash fish in those ponds, congregated themselves into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object, went to the agricultural well of PW5 on 19.04.2019, at about 05.00 P.M., when the deceased along with PW2, PW3 and
PW4 were laying pipeline from the well of PW5 to fill water in the dried tank, A1 to
A15 came there in two groups one after another and in prosecution of their common object, assaulted the deceased Bojja Thirupathi twice by beating him with
MO6 stones on his head causing fracture injuries and other injuries which resulted in his death and said incident was witnessed by PW2 to PW4 and PW2 immediately informed the same to PW1 who rushed to the spot and saw her husband Bojja
Thirupathi lying dead. She lodged complaint/report and stated that the incident was witnessed by PW2 to PW4 and the evidence of PW1 corroborated by PW2 to
PW4 and medical evidence of PW9.
78.Once the case of a person falls within the ingredients of Section 149 IPC., the question that the accused individually did nothing with their own hands would be immaterial. The accused independently cannot put forward the defence that, he did not commit the offence with his own hand in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or such as, the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. It is not necessary that all the persons forming an unlawful assembly must do some overt act.
79.The Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments held thatIf an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to
Page 43 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence." The law of vicarious liability under Sec.149 of IPC is crystal clear that even the mere presence in the unlawful assembly, but with an active mind, to achieve the common object makes such a person vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly”.
80.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution proved the guilt of Accused No.1 to 15 for the offence punishable under Sec.148, 120-B r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and they are liable to be convicted of said offences. The points are answered accordingly.
81.IN THE RESULT, accused No.1 to 15 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.148, 120-B r/w149 and 302 r/w 149 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted under Sec.235 (2) of Cr. PC.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 31 st day of March, 2026.
Prl. Sessions Judge Karimnagar.
-: ORDER OF SENTENCE :-
82. After convicting the accused No.1 to 15 as above, they are questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them and the same is recorded on a separate questionnaire. They pleaded to show mercy while imposing the sentence.
83.A1 to 15 along with JCL having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, criminally conspired together to commit murder of the deceased Bojja
Page 44 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
Thirupathi and in prosecution of their common object, killed the deceased by beating him with stones indiscriminately due to previous disputes in regard to fishing in the tanks of the village. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence. This Court is of the view that punishment of imprisonment for two years and fine for the offence punishable under Sec.148 of IPC and as this case is not rarest among rare to impose death sentence, the minimum punishment of imprisonment for life prescribed for the offences punishable under Sec.120-B r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.302 r/w 149 of IPC is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
(i)Hence, accused No.1 to 15 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of TWO YEARS each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence punishable under Sec.148 of IPC.
(ii) Accused No.1 to 15 are further sentenced to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR
LIFE and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of
TWO MONTHS each for the offence punishable under Sec.120-B r/w 149 of
IPC.
(iii)Accused No.1 to 15 are further sentenced to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR
LIFE and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of
TWO MONTHS each for the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w 149 of
IPC. All the sentences imposed against accused No.1 to 15 shall run concurrently.
Page 45 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
(iv)Total fine Rs.37,500/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand five hundred only).
(v) Remand period of accused No.1 to 15 from 22.04.2019 to 10.05.2019 shall be set off as required under Sec.428 of Cr. PC.
(vi)Office is directed to furnish a copy of the Judgment to accused as provided under Sec.363 of Cr. PC.
(vii)MOs.1 to 8 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. MO9/TVS Star City motorcycle (AP-15-BE-5261), MO10/Bajaj Discover motorcycle (AP-15-AX- 6274), MO11/Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle (AP-15-BL-4035),
MO12/TVS Sports motorcycle (AP-15-AQ-4899) and MO13/Bajaj Discover motorcycle (TS-02-EA-9829), which are given for interim custody, shall be retained by their respective registered owners, after appeal time is over.
(viii) Accused No.1 to 15 are informed of their right to prefer appeal before the
Hon’ble High Court, by taking legal-aid if necessary by approaching State
Legal Services Authority. On enquiry, accused No.1 to 15 stated that they have means to engage counsel to prefer appeal against this Judgment.
Pronounced and signed by me in the Open Court this the 31st day of March, 2026.
Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION : PW1Bojja Samatha @ Vijaya PW2Bojja Ravinder PW3 Bojja Veeresham PW4Bojja Lacha Pochaiah PW5Pabbathi Prathap Reddy
Page 46 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
PW6A. Srikanth PW7N. Chandu PW8M. Sudhakar PW9 Dr. N. Laxmikanth Reddy PW10 B. Venumadhav PW11 K. Shashidhar
FOR THE DEFENCE
-NONE–
FOR THE PROSECUTION :
EXP.119-04-2019Complaint of PW1 to Police EXP.207-07-2019161 Statement of PW6 EXP.320-04-2019Inquest Panchanama of PW7 EXP.419-04-2019CDF along with rough sketch by PW7 EXP.521-04-2019Relevant admissible portion in confession statement leading to seizure of motor cycle of A2. EXP.621-04-2019Relevant admissible portion in confession statement leading to seizure of motor cycle of A3. EXP.721-04-2019Relevant admissible portion in confession statement leading to seizure of motor cycle of A8. EXP.821-04-2019Relevant admissible portion in confession statement leading to seizure of motor cycle of A9. EXP.921-04-2019Relevant admissible portion in confession statement leading to seizure of motor cycle of A11. EXP.1021-04-2019Seizure Panchanamma of MO9 motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-DE-5261 EXP.1121-04-2019Seizure Panchanamma of MO10 motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AX-6274 EXP.1221-04-2019Seizure Panchanamma of MO11 motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-BL-4035 EXP.1321-04-2019Seizure Panchanamma of MO12 motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AQ-4899 EXP.1421-04-2019Seizure Panchanamma of MO13 motorcycle bearing No.TS-02-EA-9829 EXP.1520-04-2019PME Report EXP.1619-04-2019FIR EXP.17---(7) Photographs of deceased at scene of offence EXP.1830-04-2019Letter of Advice EXP.1930-04-2019RFSL Report
Page 47 SC No. 413 OF 2021 PSJ, Karimnagar
EXP.2020-12-2013CDR and CAF EXP.2123-06-2017CDR and CAF EXP.2223-06-2017CDR and CAF EXP.2325-10-2017CDR and CAF EXP.2424-09-2017CDR and CAF EXP.2502-02-2019CDR and CAF EXP.2622-01-2011CDR and CAF EXP.2720-02-2018CDR and CAF EXP.28CDR and CAF EXP.2916-12-2014CDR and CAF EXP.3001-10-2010CDR and CAF EXP.31 07-01-2012CDR and CAF EXP.32 13-06-2019Information furnished by District Fisheries Officer, Karimnagar vide Letter dt.13.06.2019
FOR THE DEFENCE
Ex.D1 20-04-2019Portion of 161 statements of PW3
MATERIAL OBJECTS
MO1One Blood stained white shirt MO2Banian MO3Light Green colour pant MO4Cut drawer MO5One Red Towel under cover MO6(5) Blood stained stones MO7Blood stained earth MO8Control earth MO9TVS Star city Motor cycle (AP-15- BE -5261) MO10Bajaj Discover Motor cycle (AP-15 AX 6274) MO11Hero Passion pro Motor cycle (AP-15- BL- 4035) MO12TVS Sports Motor cycle (AP-15 AQ 4899) MO13Bajaj Discover Motor cycle (TS-2-EA-9829)
Prl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.