Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 1/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2021
PRESENT : SMT SUNEETHA KUNCHALA,
I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
SESSIONS CASE NO.85/2017
Crime Number and Police StationCrime No.499/2013 of Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad. Name and description of the accused Birlangi Prashanth, S/o. B. Anand Rao, personAged 26 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o.H.No.140, Alakananda Colony, Opp: State Bank of India, Vizianagaram Dist. N/o. Taratava (v), Akiveedu (m), West Godavari District. Name and description of the complainantThe State represented by the Inspector of Police, PS Saifabad, Hyderabad. Prosecution conducted bySri K. Durgaji, Additional Public Prosecutor. Defence conducted bySri. E. Ramakrishna and Smt P. Vijayalakshmi, counsels for the accused. Offences chargedunder Sections 302 and 380 of IPC Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty. Finding of the CourtFound the accused guilty. RESULT In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 380 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said charges.
Therefore, accused is sentenced to undergo “LIFE IMPRISONMENT” and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, they have to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 2/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
The accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each (Rupees Two
Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, they have to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC.
Total fine amount Rs.5,000/-.
Boththesentencesshallrun concurrently. The case property i.e.
MOs 1 to 3 and MOs 10 to 14 along with unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed and MO4/Car which is given to the son of the deceased under interim custody shall be made absolute and MOs 5 to 7 shall be returned to the son of the petitioner on proper identification and acknowledgment, after expiry of appeal period. Further, MOs 8 and 9 shall be kept along with the exhibits of the case till the disposal of the appeal.
:: J U D G M E N T ::
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 3/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
1.The Inspector of Police, PS Saifabad, Hyderabad, has filed a charge sheet in Crime No.449/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC against the accused person.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows :-
(a)On 17-08-2013 at 4.00 p.m the complainant/Meesala Srinivasa Rao/
PW1, working as A.R. Constable, PC 1824 at Vizianagaram District has lodged a complaint with the police stating that from last 20 days, as per the orders of his
Superior Officer, he along with AR PC 1468/Madhu/PW2 are discharging their duties as Gunmen to Sri. Shiva Prasad Rao and on 10-08-2013, Shiva Prasad Rao,
Gunman Madhu/PW2 and car driver Prashanth/accused went to Tirupathi in Shiva
Prasad’s i-20 car bearing No.AP 35 Q 6979 and on 14-08-2013, PW2/Madhu called
PW1 and asked him to come to Hyderabad for relieving him, as such, on 15-08- 2013 PW1 boarded “Gareeb Rath” train at Vizianagaram and got down at
Secunderabad on 16-08-2013 at 9.00 a.m. and at about 9.30 a.m. Shiva Prasad telephoned to PW1 and asked him to get ready by having fresh-up in Suvidha and in the afternoon at about 1.30 p.m. Shiva Prasad picked PW1 in his car from
Suvidha and at that time Prashanth was driving the car and they all went to
Hampshire Hotel, Lakdikapool and stayed in Room No.1104 till 5.30 p.m. and in the meantime on receiving phone call from two persons among them one is old lady aged about 70-80 years and another one is male person aged about 45 to 50 years, who were waiting outside the hotel, then they left from Hotel
Hampshire by locking the room, then they all boarded the car and when they reached near Ravindra Bharathi, another male person aged about 40 years joined them in the car and all six members travelled in the car and when they reached Narayanguda, the male person who boarded at Ravindra Bharathi has got down from the car and after that they all went to the residence of High Court
Lawyer at Barkathpura and met him. After that at about 8.30 p.m. they all five
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 4/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
members left to Hampshire Hotel in the car and when they reached near
Hampshire Hotel, Shiva Prasad dropped PW1 at Suvidha, Lakdikapool and told
PW1 to come on the next day i.e. on 17-08-2013 at 8.30 a.m. and accordingly on the next day when PW1 went to the hotel and asked about Shiva Prasad Rao at reception, then the hotel boy took PW1 to Room No.1104 and pressed the doorbell but there was no response, upon which PW1 went to parking place but did not find the car, after waiting for a while at the hotel, PW1 made phone calls to Shiva Prasad Rao and also driver Prashanth/accused but both the mobile phones were reported as switched off. After waiting for long time at about 3.00 p.m. PW1 along with Hotel Management opened the room with master key, wherein they found Shiva Prasad Rao was lying in a pool of blood and he is dead, blood spots were scattered on the bed sheet, pillows and weighing machine, upon which PW1 again called the accused Prashanth but his mobile phone was reported switched off. Therefore, PW1 suspected the driver Prashanth/accused in this incident and that he might have killed Shiva Prasad Rao and taken away car and gold ornaments, as the said driver Prashanth was staying in the hotel along with the deceased Shiva Prasad Rao.
(b)Basing on the above complaint of PW1, PW13/Venkata Narayana,
Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.449/2013 under Section 302 of
IPC and handed over the case file to PW14/V. Umender, Inspector of Police for further investigation after dispatching Express FIR to all the concerned.
(c)During the course of investigation, PW14 examined PW1 thoroughly and recorded his detailed statement, in which he corroborated with the contents of the complaint, that PW14 along with his staff visited the scene of offence and observed the scene of offence minutely, secured the presence of PW7/Gerard
Edward Lever andLW9/J. Prasad Rao and conducted the scene observation-cum- seizure panchanama and seized (1) two white colour blood stained pillow covers, (2) two white4 colour blood stained bed sheets, (3) one blood stained broken
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 5/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
weighing machine make Equinox, capacity 150 Kgs. (4) two broken plastic pieces of weighing machine, (5) one blood stained wooden stick admeasuring 14”, (6) one paid of coffee colour socks belonging to the accused, (7) one Nokia cell phone Model No.301 having two sim cards, (8) one black colour hand bag belonging to accused contained (i) one brown colour lower track poses with black strap by two sides named Sheva – Naresh, (ii) one black colour stripes short, (iii) one purple colour ‘T’ Shirt named Duke, (iv) one white colour banian. On observing the scene i.e. Hotel Room No.1104 is located in the first floor facing towards west, the deceased was found lying in pool of blood on the floor with bleeding injuries on left ear, head, the deceased Shiva Prasad Rao wore white colour banian and black colour underwear, the deceased body was found between eastern side wall and cot, the head is facing towards south and legs facting towards north and also found the blood spilled/splatters on the wall, bed sheets and pillows. PW14 also drawn rough sketch of the scene and also photographed the scene with the assistance of LW20/Narender, photographer.
Further, PW14 recorded the statement of PW2, who is the second gunmen of the deceased.
(d)On the requisition by PW14, LW18/Dr.N.Venkanna, Scientific Officer,
Clues Team, CCS, Hyderabad and PW12/J. Prakash Veer, ASI of Police, Clues
Team, CCS, visited the scene and assisted PW14 in collecting the material objects at the scene. Further, PW14 visited the CCTV monitoring system in the hotel and seized one hard disk in the presence of PW7 and LW9 at the instance of PW6, after that PW14 shifted the dead body of the deceased to the mortuary of Osmania General Hospital for preservation. During the course of investigation,
PW14 examined LW3/Arpita Saha and PW3/G. Parashuramulu, who are Duty
Manager and Room Boy in Hotel Hampshire, Lakdikapool and recorded their detailed statements and collected the copies of the documents, which were produced by the deceased Shiva Prasad at the time of check-in-into the Hotel.
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 6/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
(e)During the course of investigation, on 18-08-2013 PW14 visited the mortuary of OGH and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW10/B. Srinivas and PW5/Gunti Reddy Acutha Rao and sent the dead body for postmortem and during autopsy, PW14 took the photographs of the deceased and also seized one blood stained white banian and black colour underwear from the body of the deceased in the presence of LW10 and PW5. During inquest, PW14 secured the presence of blood relatives of the deceased i.e. LW6/Y. Rajasekar and PW4/Y. Chandrasekar and after examination recorded their detailed statements and after completion of autopsy, the body of the deceased was handed over to the blood relatives for performing his last rites under proper acknowledgement.
(f)During the course of investigation while the efforts were on foot, on credible information that the accused driver Prashant moving at Bowenpally in the deceased i-20 car bearing No.AP-35Q-6979, PW14 along with his staff and mediators rushed near MMR Gardens (check post) at Bowenpally and apprehended the accused on 20-08-2013 at 9.00 a.m. along with deceased car and interrogated him thoroughly, wherein the accused admitted his guilty of committing the offence that he killed his owner Shiva Prasad, therefore, PW14 recorded his confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of LW12/B.
Manohar Babu and PW8/K. Sudhakar and seized i-20 car, one back pack name
HAHA containing one gold chain with Rudraksha, one gold ring with white stone, one gold ring with black stone, one Pan Card, one Corporation Bank VISA ATM
Card, which belongs to the deceased Y. Shiva Prasad Rao, one Corporation Bank
VISA ATM Card belongs to Y.C. Shekar Rao, one Andhra Bank International Debit
Card VISA ATM belongs to Y. Shiva Prasad, net cash of Rs.56,000/-, one Samsung cell phone, one blood stained khaki color pant, one blood stained ash color T- shirt with yellow color collar named buke from the possession of the accused under the cover of panchanama for sending them to FSL for serology test. After
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 7/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
that PW14 along with the accused and his staff went to the scene of offence i.e.
Room No.1104, Hotel Hampshire and reconstructed the scene of offence with the assistance of the accused and thereafter PW14 along with the accused returned to PS at 2.30 p.m. together with the seized material and affected the arrest of the accused and remanded him to judicial custody on 20-08-2013. During the course of investigation, PW14 forwarded the material objects to FSL for analysis and report.
(g)Thereafter, LW26/P. Ashok, Inspector of Police took up the investigation on his transfer and posting to Saifabad Police Station, perused the investigation done by PW14 and found it on proper lines and collected the reports. LW16/Dr. K.V. Ramesh, who held the autopsy over the deceased has furnished opinion regarding the cause of death as “Due to Head Injury”. LW17/Ms
K. Arun Jyothi, Assistant Director, FSL, Hyderabad, who examined the material objects have furnished the Report.
(h)Later on PW15/K. Poornachander, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation on his transfer and posting to Saifabad Police Station, perused the investigation done by PW14 and LW26 and found it on proper lines. During the course of investigation, on 02-04-2015, PW15 sent a requisition to PWs 9 and 11,
Bank Officials and collected the statements of bank account of deceased Shiva
Prasad from 15-08-2013 to 25-08-2013 and recorded the statements of PWs 9 and 11 after causing enquiries, wherein they stated that the deceased Y. Shiva
Prasad is the account holder of their respective banks. From the facts and averments of the case, a prima facie of offence under Sections 302 and 380 of
IPC has been established against the accused Prashanth, as such, PW15 added the Section 380 of IPC to the existing Section 302 of IPC and forwarded the section alter letter to the Hon’ble Court and after completion of pending investigation, PW15 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC.
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 8/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
3.Cognizance of the case was taken against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC and numbered the same as PRC No.01/2016 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C before the trial court. Since the offence under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by following the due procedure as contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
4.The case was registered as S.C No.85/2017 by the Hon'ble
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law. On appearance of the accused and upon hearing both sides, charges under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, wherein the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW’s.1 to 15 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P17 and marked MOs 1 to 14 in support of its case. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence and no documents were got marked on behalf of his defence.
6.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.
7.Now the point for determination is :
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 9/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
(1)“Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?
POINT :
8.The prosecution examined PW’s.1 to 15 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P17 and marked MOs 1 to 14 in support of its case. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused and no documents are got marked on behalf of the defence.
9.PW1 is the complainant/gunman of the deceased, PW2 is another gunman of the deceased, PW3 is the witness, who speaks about the incident,
PW4 is the younger son of the deceased and circumstantial witness, PW5 is the panch for inquest panchanama and seizure of deceased clothes,PW6 is the circumstantial witnesses, PW7 is the panch for scene observation-cum-seizure panchanama, PW8 is the panch for the confession cum seizure panchanama,
PWs 9 and 11 are the Bank Officials, who speaks about the ATM Cards of the deceased and holding of his accounts with their respective Banks, PW10 is the
Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued
PME Report, PW12 is the Police Officer who assisted PW14 in collecting material objects from the scene, PW13 is the Police Officer, who registered the case and issued FIR, PW14 is the 1st Investigating Officer and PW15 is the 2nd
Investigating Officer in this case.
10.The brief facts of the case are that on 16-08-2013 between 11.00 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. at Room No.1104, Hotel Hempshire Plaza, Lakdikapool,
Hyderabad, the accused Prashanth, who is the driver of the deceased Shiva
Kumar, thrashed the head of the deceased with weighing machine and killed him, after that the accused stolen away two gold rings, one gold chin and purse of the deceased containing net cash and ATM cards of various banks.
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 10/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
11.In criminal law, use of circumstantial evidence becomes necessary in many cases and it is also because the direct evidence of occurrence of offence is rarely available in any case. It is only by proof of circumstances the offence has to be proved. Circumstantial evidence must be clinching and shall not give any scope for suspicion that the accused may not be the offender. The circumstantial evidence on contrary must also indicate without any doubt that the accused must have committed the offence.
12.It was held in Trimukh Mroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681, it was held that :
“In the case in hand there is no eye witnesses of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chin so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.”
13.In a Judgment reported in AIR 2012 SC, page 2600 between
Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab, wherein their Lordships has held that :
“When the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, conviction is permissible only when all links in chain of events are established beyond reasonable doubt and established circumstances are consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence”.
14.The Hon'ble A.P. High Court in another Judgment reported in
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 11/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
2009(1) ALD (Crl.) (AP) between Shaik Khadar Basha Vs. State of A.P.
Their Lordships reiterated the same principle. Thus, the consistent view of the other Hon'ble High Courts and the High Court of A.P., is that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each and every circumstances, so as to complete the chain of circumstances and the proved circumstances must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and circumstances inconsistent with the innocence of accused, the offence which he charged. Thus, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
15.Admittedly the case of prosecution is based on more of circumstantial evidence and when the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance so as to complete the chain of circumstances.
16.Basing on the material available on record and on the rival contentions of both parties, following circumstances are culled out.
Acquaintance of the deceased with the accused person. Identification of the accused person. Accused was last seen in the company of the deceased soon
before the death of the deceased.
Seizure of material objects. Medical Evidence to establish that the injuries found on the deceased were caused with MO.1.
17.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that with the evidence of PWs 1 to 15 coupled with Exs.P1 to P16 and MOs 1 to 14 the prosecution is able to prove the above chain of circumstances successfully and thereby the guilt of the accused is established. Therefore, prayed this Court to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of
IPC for committing the murder of the deceased and after committing the murder
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 12/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
of the deceased committing theft of his belongings.
18.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses but there is no consistency in their evidence, that the case of the prosecution is depending on the evidence of PW8 and MO.10/hard disk, CD of Hotel and except these two, there is no strong evidence to show the involvement of the accused in this case, that the hotel rooms are with sliding windows without any iron grills and that anyone can enter into the room from outside, except MO.10/hard disk there is no proper evidence to connect the accused with the alleged incident and that there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW6 and PW14 with regard to the seizure of MO.10, wherein PW14 deposed that he seized MO.10 at the instance of PW6, wherein in his cross-examination he stated that MO.10 was handed over to him by PW6 and this inconsistent version of PW14 goes to show that MO.10 was planted for the purpose of this case.
The learned counsel for the accused further argued that PWs 1 and 2 are gunmen of the deceased and they left the deceased in Hotel and left without the permission of their higher ups, which goes to show that they are colluded with the actual culprits. Further, police did not examine the old lady and her son who boarded the car of the deceased driven by the accused and also no
CCTV footages of ATMs were collected by the police to show who has withdrawn the amount from the ATMs and the same creates a doubt as to whether the accused has withdraw the amounts from the ATMs.
The learned counsel for the accused further argued that PWs 3 and 7 are the staff of the Hotel Hampshire, as such, they deposed in favour of the police and that the FSL Director/Aruna Jyothi is not examined and that one of the photographer of scene of offence is also not examined. Further, the finger prints of the accused are not collected to compare the same with the finger prints on the weighing machine which was found in the room of the deceased.
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 13/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the panchnamas were not conducted as per the procedure and the panch witnesses are the stock witnesses of the police and even the account number mentioned is different from the chief examination of PW9 to that of his cross-examination. He further argued that the case was registered at 4.00 p.m. wherein PW1 lodged the complaint at 6.00 p.m. which shows that a false case was registered against the accused and the prosecution has to prove all the links in the chain of circumstances, to establish the guilt of the accused but in the present case not even a single circumstance is proved, as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal and hence prayed this Court to acquit the accused from the charges framed against him.
19.Undisputedly the death of the deceased is homicide and the same is established from the evidence of PW5 who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased coupled with Ex.P2/Inquest report and PW10/Doctor who stated about the autopsy conducted by LW16/Dr. K.V. Ramesh over the dead body of the deceased and issuance of Ex.P9/PME Report by LW16/Dr. K.V.
Ramesh.
20.Now the point to be considered is whether the accused person has committed the murder of the deceased?
21.The first and foremost point to be considered is the acquaintance between the accused and the deceased :
On this point the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 goes to show that the accused used to work as the car driver of the deceased Shiva Prasad which establishes the acquaintance between the accused and the deceased. Moreover, accused did not dispute his acquaintance with the deceased and working as the driver of the deceased. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the acquaintance between the accused and the deceased.
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 14/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
22.The next point to be considered is with regard to the identity of the accused:
The evidence of PW1/M. Srinivasa Rao, the then AR Constable,
Viziayanagaram, who worked as Gunman to the deceased goes to show that on 14-08-2013, PW2/ Madhusudhan, another Gunman to the deceased made a phone call to him and informed him to come to Hyderabad to relieve him and accordingly on 15-08-2013, he boarded Garibradh Train and reached
Secunderabad at around 9.00 a.m on 16-08-2013 and at that time the deceased called him over phone and asked him to fresh up at Suvidha Police Guest House and after that he will pick up him and accordingly the deceased along with the accused picked him at around 1.30 p.m. He identified the accused present in court hall as the driver of the deceased.
The evidence of PW1 is supported by the evidence of PW2/K.
Madhusudhan, AR Constable, Vizianagaram, whose evidence goes to show that on 10-08-2013 at around 10.00 a.m himself and the driver/accused accompanied the deceased in his i-20 Car Bearing No. AP-35-Q- 6979 to Tirupathi and from
Tirupathi they went to Bangalore on 11-08-2013 or 12-08-2013 and from there went to Ananthapur and from Ananthapur came to Hyderabad on 15-08-2013. He further deposed that on 14-08-2013 when they were at Ananthapur, he made a phone call to PW1 and asked him to come to Hyderabad to relieve him from duty and accordingly, on 16-08-2013 in the morning hours PW1 came to Hyderabad and relived him and accordingly he went to headquarters at Vizianagaram. He identified the accused as the driver and also identified i-20 Car shown to him in the court, as it was the same car in which himself and the accused/driver travelled along with deceased from 10-08-2013 to 15-08-2013.
The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is supported by the evidence of PW3/G.
Parashuramulu, working in House Keeping at Hampshire Hotel, Lakdikapool,
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 15/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
Hyderabad and his evidence goes to show that accused along with deceased came to their hotel on 15-08-2013 at around 6.00.pm and they allotted Room
No.1104 to the deceased.
The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is supported by the evidence of PW4/Y.
Chandra Shekar, who is the son of the deceased and his evidence goes to show that PWs 1 and 2 are the gunmen of his deceased father at the time of his death and that his father/deceased used to visit Hyderabad frequently in various cases and that his father had i-20 Car Bearing No. AP-35-Q-6979 and engaged the accused as his driver. PW4 identified the accused as the driver of his father.
From the above evidence of PWs 1 to 4, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the accused. Even the accused did not dispute his identity.
23.The next point to be considered is whether the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused soon before his death :
The evidence of PW1 goes to show that on 16-08-2013 at around 1.30 p.m. the deceased along with the accused picked him from Suvidha Police
Gest House and they all proceeded to hotel Hampshire and stayed in the Hotel till 5.00 p.m and at around 5.00 p.m one old aged lady around 70 to 80 years and one male person aged about 45 to 50 years came to the Hotel and called the deceased over phone, on that deceased, himself and the accused/driver and the said lady and male person went out in the car and on the way at Lakdi-ka-pool center one person boarded the car and got down at Narayanguda and thereafter, they all proceeded to Barkathpura to meet the lawyer, that the deceased, the old lady and the male person went and met the lawyer and thereafter at around 8.30 p.m deceased dropped him at Suvidha Police Guest House and asked him to get ready on next day i.e. 17-08-2013 by 8.30 a.m and accordingly he went to the
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 16/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
Hotel Hampshire to meet the deceased at around 8.30 a.m and enquired with the room boy about the deceased and he along with room boy went to the Room
No.1104 and knocked the door but he did not open the door, on that he went to the reception and enquired as to whether the deceased went out of the room, then the hotel people replied him that the deceased might have gone out, on that, he waited in the hotel for long time and in the meantime he called the deceased and the accused over phone but both of their phones were switched off and at around 3.00 p.m the Hotel Management opened the room with master key and found the deceased in a pool of blood on the floor, that he observed bleeding injuries on the forehead and left ear of the deceased and his gold chain and gold rings were also found missing. He observed the blood stains on the bed sheet and pillow covers and also on the weighing machine and on that he again made a call to the accused but his phone was switched off, on that he lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 with police at around 6.00 p.m suspecting the accused for the death of the deceased as his phone was switched off, gold was missing from the dead body of the deceased and the car of the deceased was also not found.
The evidence of PW1 is supported by the evidence of PW3, whose evidence goes to show that on 16-08-2013 accused went out in the morning and came back at around 8.30 p.m and on 17-08-2013 PW1/gunman of the deceased came to his hotel and enquired about the deceased and he went to the room of the deceased, came back and reported at reception that the deceased was not opening the door and went away, that PW1 again came back to the reception at around 3.00 p.m and informed them that the deceased was not opening the room door, on that himself and other hotel staff and PW1 went to the room and opened the door with the master key and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood and that the gold chain and gold rings on the deceased were found missing, that the bed sheets and pillows and the weighing machine in the room were found with blood stains and he identified MO’s 1 to 3 shown to him in the court, as they
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 17/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
belongs to their hotel, that PW1 made a phone call to the accused and reported that his phone was switched off, then he suspected the accused for the death of the deceased.
The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is supported by the evidence of PW6/I.
Vishwa Prakash, whose evidence goes to show that he worked in CC TV
Maintenance Section in Hampshire Hotel, Hyderabad from 2007 to 2014 and on 17-08-2013 at around 4.00 p.m as per the instructions of his Security Manager, he checked the CC TV footages of 15-08-2013 and 16-08-2013 and noticed that the deceased coming to the Hotel room at around 8.30 p.m on 16-08-2013 and later at about 9.40 p.m on 16-08-2013 accused/driver also came to the room of the deceased and that the accused left the room at about 11.00 p.m, that he identified the accused/driver present in the court hall as he noticed him in CC TV footages and that on the same day, he handed over the hard disk/MO.10 to the police and he identified the said hard disk shown to him in the court.
At this point, it has to be seen that in 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 898 SC, in between Nizam and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, it was held that :
“If prosecution succeeded in proving that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and reasonable inference can be drawn against the accused. Onus shifts on the accused under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act to offer a reasonable explanation as to the cause of the death of the deceased.”
It was also held in Sahadevan Vs. State, reported in 2002(2) ALD (Crl) 908 (SC), that “The Onus lies on the accused under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act to give satisfactory explanation to the incriminating circumstances specifically within the knowledge.”
The accused did not put forth any evidence on his behalf, either oral or documentary to show that he was not present at the scene of
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 18/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
offence at the relevant point of time when the offence was committed.
Therefore, in the light of the above case laws and where the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 coupled with the evidence of PW6 clearly establishes that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused soon before the death of the deceased, a reasonable inference can be drawn against the accused that the deceased was in the company of the accused soon before his death and this court has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has proved the rule of last seen theory beyond reasonable doubt.
24.The next point to be considered is seizure of material objects :
Coming to this point, PW1 deposed that he observed the blood stains on the bed sheet and pillow covers and also on the weighing machine and he identified MO1/Weighing Machine, MO2/ Two bed sheets and MO3/ Two pillow covers which were seized from the scene of offence.
The evidence of PW1 is supported by the evidence of PW3, whose evidence goes to show that the bed sheets and pillows and the weighing machine in the room were found with blood stains and he identified MOs 1 to 3 shown to him in the court, as they belongs to their hotel.
The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is supported by the evidence of PW12, whose evidence goes to show that he retired as Clues Team Incharge in the year 2014, that on 17-08-2013, the Inspector of Police, PS Saifabad, Hyderabad, gave him a requisition to come to Hampshire Hotel at Lakdikapool to assist him, on that, he went to Hampshire Hotel and the Inspector of Police, Saifabad PS took him to Room No.1104 of the said hotel and he obtained the photographs of the scene of offence and also collected blood stains from the deceased, blood from the cot, blood stains from the weighing machine, control earth, hair from the floor and hair from the body of the deceased and handover them to the Inspector of
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 19/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
Police/PW14, that he identified the photographs shown to him in the court hall as he captured them in Room No.1104 of Hampshire Hotel. Ex.P13 is 5 positive photographs of the dead body of the deceased and weighing machine. Ex.P14 is the CD of Ex.P13 and also the photographs of the scene of offence.
The evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 12 is supported by the evidence of
PW7/Gerard Edward, whose evidence goes to show that that he has been working as Security Incharge in Hotel Hampshire, Hyderabad since April, 2010 and that he knows LW9/J.Prasad Rao as he worked as Finance Manager at Hampshire Hotel and that on 17-08-2013 at around 9.30 a.m to 10.00 a.m police came to their
Hotel Room No.1104, that himself and LW9/J.Prasad Rao accompanied the police to the room and noticed one male person died and lying in a pool of blood on the floor between the sofa and the cot and the said male person was wearing one white colour banian and black colour underwear, that they also noticed two blood stained pillow covers, two blood stained bed sheets, one wooden stick with blood stains and one weighing machine with blood stains and broken plastic pieces of weighing machine and one pair of coffee colour socks. He identified MOs 1 to 3 and broken pieces of weighing machine/MO.11 shown to him in the court hall, that police seized MOs 1 to 3 and 11 in his presence and prepared Ex.P3/scene of offence observation cum seizure panchanama and Ex.P4 rough sketch map.
The evidence of PWs 1, 3, 12 and 7 is supported by the evidence of
PW8/Sudhakar, whose evidence goes to show that on 20-08-2013 at about 11:00 a.m while himself and LW12/Manohar Babu were passing through Bowenpally,
Police Saifabad called them to Bowenpally Checkpost and at that time, accused was in the custody of the police and that at the request of police, they enquired with the accused and he confessed the guilt of commission of the offence, that the police seized one bag containing one Gold Chain/MO5, two Gold Rings/MO6,
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 20/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
one Samsung Mobile Phone/MO7, one Pan Card/MO8, two Corporation Bank
Cards/MO9, one Andhra Bank Debit Card/MO9 and Cash of Rs.56,000/- from the possession of the accused and one T-shirt and one pant from the dickey of the
Car, that the police also seized i-20 Car/MO4. MO12 is the T-Shirt of the accused,
MO13 is the pant of the accused and MO14 is the bag in which MOs 5 to 9 and cash of Rs.56,000/- were found and Ex.P5 is the admissible portion of the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused.
At this juncture it is pertinent to look into Section 27 of Indian
Evidence Act which speaks as follows :
How much of information received from accused may
be proved: “Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved”.
From the evidence of PW8/Sudhakar, it is very clear that on 20-08- 2013 at about 11:00 a.m in his presence police seized one bag containing one
Gold Chain/MO5, two Gold Rings/MO6, one Samsung Mobile Phone/MO7, one Pan
Card/MO8, two Corporation Bank Cards/MO9, one Andhra Bank Debit Card/MO9 and Cash of Rs.56,000/- from the possession of the accused and police also seized one T-shirt/MO.12 and one pant/MO.13 from the dickey of the Car and also seized i-20 Car/MO4 of the deceased and MO14 is the bag in which MOs 5 to 9 and cash of Rs.56,000/- were found and this evidence clearly establishes that the recovery was made from the possession of the accused. Further, the accused did not offer any plausible explanation about MOs 4 to 9 and cash of Rs.56,000/- in his possession. Further, the illustration (a) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act speaks that “the court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 21/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”. Moreover, Exs.P8 and P11/Bank account statements of the deceased shows that the amounts were withdrawn from the ATMs after the death of the deceased on 16-08-2013.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the seizure of MOs 4 to 9 and cash of Rs.56,000/- from the possession of the accused is established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
25 .The last point to be considered is whether there is any medical evidence in support the prosecution case :
Coming to this point, PW10/Dr. Abhijeet Subedar is the Medical
Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and his evidence goes to show that while he was working as Incharge Professor in
Osmania General Hospital from May, 2008 to September, 2016, at that time Dr.
K.V. Ramesh also worked as Asst. Professor in the same hospital and he can identify the signature of Dr. K.V. Ramesh/LW16. He further deposed that Dr. K.V.
Ramesh expired in the month of February, 2017 and he is deposing on behalf of
Dr. K.V. Ramesh as he was summoned by the court vide Crl.MP.No.438/2019,
dated 21-05-2019, that on 18-08-2013, Dr. K.V. Ramesh received a requisition
from the Inspector of Police, PS Saifabad to conduct post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased/Yelugula Shiva Prasad Rao, aged around 56 years and the dead body was identified by PC No. 5229 of PS Saifabad,
Hyderabad and accordingly, the PME over the dead body was conducted by Dr.
K.V. Ramesh on the same day between 10:00 am to 11:00 am and noticed the following ante-mortem external and internal injuries.
(i) A Laceration of 4 cm x 1 cm skin deep present on left side of forehead.
(ii) An abrasion of 2 cm x 1 cm present over the root of nose.
(iii) A laceration of 4 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present over middle of left ear dividing the ear into two halves.
(iv) A contusion present all over the scalp.
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 22/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
(v) A linear fracture measuring in length 22cm present on mid parietal region of skull extending from left temporal upto right temporal region.
(vi) A sub-dural Haemorrage present all over the brain
(vii) A fracture of 2nd to 6th ribs present on left side of chest
(viii) A contusion of 6 cm x 2 cm present below the left nipple.
(ix) A contusion of 9 cm x 2 cm present beside 8th injury
(x) A contusion of 8 cm x 5 cm present over the left shoulder.
(xi) A contusion of 3 cm x 2 cm present on back of left elbow.
(xii) A contusion of 13 cm x 3 cm present on inguinal region of left thigh
(xiii) A contusion of 11 cm x 9 cm present on back of right knee
(xiv) A contusion of 3 cm x 2 cm present on medial malleolus of right leg
The cause of death was due to head injury. The approximate time of death was 36 hours to 40 hours prior to PME and accordingly, Dr. K.V. Ramesh issued PME Report/Ex.P9 and signed on it, that he identified the signature of Dr.
K.V. Ramesh on PME Report/Ex.P9.
The evidence of PW10 coupled with Ex.P9 clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicide.
26.The learned counsel for the accused argued that no CCTV footages of ATMs were collected by the police to show who has withdrawn the amount from the ATMs and the same creates a doubt as to whether the accused has withdraw the amounts from the ATMs.
Coming to this contention, the evidence of PW9/Uday Bhasker Rao,
Retired Asst. General Manager, Andhra Bank Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad, goes to show that on the requisition/Ex.P6 from the Inspector of Police, Saifabad
PS, Hyderabad, he addressed a letter/Ex.P7 to Inspector of police stating that one
Y. Shiva Prasad Rao/deceased had bank account in their bank vide A/c
No.133410100015683 and a debit card was issued to him vide No.
4688171334024742, that he also issued the statement of account/Ex.P8 of the
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 23/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
above account number for the period from 17.08.2013 to 21.08.2013, that on 17-08-2013 the debit card of the deceased was swiped once for Rs.1,450/- and on 18-08-2013 the debit card of the deceased was swiped twice for Rs.1,725/- and
Rs.1,750/- respectively. The said two transactions were reflected in the account on 19-08-2013 as the amounts were withdrawn in the midnight of 18-08-2013 and on 21-08-2013 charges were deducted from the said account from the system, that he identified the Andhra Bank ATM Card/MO9 issued by their bank.
Further, the evidence of PW11/A.V. Anand Murthy, Retired Chief
Manager, Corporation Bank goes to show that he worked as Branch Manager,
Corporation Bank, LTB Road, Vijayanagaram from 08.09.2014 to 27.06.2015 and that in the month of April, 2015 he received a requisition from the Inspector of
Police, PS Saifabad, requesting him to furnish the bank accounts statements of
VISA ATM Card Account Holders by name Y. Shiva Prasad Rao and Y.
Chandrasekhar Rao and accordingly, he issued their bank account statements along with covering letter/Ex.P10 to the Inspector of Police. Ex.P11 is the Bank
Account Statement of Y. Shiva Prasad Rao and Ex.P12 is the Bank Account statement of Y. Chandrasekhar Rao.
On perusing Exs.P8/Andhra Bank statement and P11/Corporation
Bank statement, it is very clear that the amounts were withdrawn by using the
ATM Cards of the deceased after the death of the deceased. Further, the ATM cards were seized from the possession of the accused during the course of investigation which clearly establishes that the accused has withdrawn the amounts from the accounts of the deceased by using the ATM cards of the deceased, soon after the death of the deceased. Mere, non collecting of CCTV footages of ATM does not vitiate the case of the prosecution, where the evidence of PWs 9 and 11 coupled with Exs.P8 and P11 are corroborating with each other and establishing the transactions made by the accused soon after the death of the deceased. Therefore, this contention of the accused that no CCTV footages
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 24/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
of ATMs were collected by the police to show who has withdrawn the amount from the ATMs has no force.
27.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the case of the prosecution is depending on the evidence of PW8 and MO.10/hard disk, CD of
Hotel and except these two, there is no strong evidence to show the involvement of the accused in this case, that the hotel rooms are with sliding windows without any iron grills and that anyone can enter into the room from outside, except
MO.10/hard disk there is no proper evidence to connect the accused with the alleged incident and that there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW6 and PW14 with regard to the seizure of MO.10, wherein PW14 deposed that he seized MO.10 at the instance of PW6, wherein in his cross-examination he stated that MO.10 was handed over to him by PW6 and this inconsistent version of PW14 goes to show that MO.10 was planted for the purpose of this case.
Coming to this contention, no doubt, PW14 deposed that he seized
MO.10/hard disc at the instance of PW6, wherein in his cross-examination he stated that PW6 handed over MO.10 to him. Further, PW6 also admitted in his cross-examination that he handed over MO.10/hard disc to the Security Manager of the Hotel but not directly to the police. Even though the evidence of PWs 14 and 6 is not corroborating with each other to the extent of handing over MO.10 by PW6 to PW14, the same will not brush out the seizure of MO.10/hard disc from the hotel. However, on verification of the hard disc/MO.10, it did not open when this court tried to verify the same as the hard disc was seized 8 years back and was not in use. Further, the Investigating Agency failed to store the data what ever was present in MO.10 by way of CDs for the reasons best known to them, due to which the contents of hard disc were not brought out and as such MO.10/ hard disc could not be considered as evidence. This is nothing but defective investigation on the part of the Investigating Agency and the same cannot be a
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 25/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
benefit for the accused where the offence committed by the accused is brutal in nature.
On this point, it is relevant to look into the case in (2010) 9 SCC (567), in between C. Muniappan and Ots. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court explained the law on this point in the following manner :
“There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the Investigating Agency or omissions etc., which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses effected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation”.
Hence, in view of the above discussion and in light of the above case law, it is settled law that defective investigation in each and every case is not fatal to the case of prosecution unless it is shown that such defect has caused great prejudice to the accused. Moreover, in the case on hand the evidence of
Pws 1, 3 and 6 clearly shows that the accused was very much present along with the deceased in the hotel on 16-08-2013 and PW6 saw the accused leaving the hotel at around 11.00 p.m. on 16-08-2013 i.e. on the date of offence. Therefore,
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 26/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
this contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the inconsistency in the evidence of PW14 with regard to MO.10/hard disc is fatal to the prosecution is not tenable.
28.Coming to the further contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the hotel rooms are with sliding windows without any iron grills and that anyone can enter into the room from outside, in the cross-examination of PW14 he clearly stated that the wall to the back side of the room of the deceased was completely closed and there is no scope for anyone to scale over the wall. Further, Ex.P4/rough sketch of scene of offence shows that Room
No.1104 in which the deceased stayed was located in the first floor of the hotel.
Therefore, possibility of any third person entering into the room of the deceased by scaling over the wall is not possible. Hence, these contentions of the learned counsel for the accused are not tenable.
29.The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the police did not examine the old lady and her son who boarded the car of the deceased driven by the accused.
Coming to this contention, the evidence of PW1 goes to show that on 16-08-2013 at around 5.00 p.m one old aged lady around 70 to 80 years and one male person aged about 45 to 50 years came to the Hotel and called the deceased over phone, on that deceased, himself and the accused/driver and the said lady and male person went out in the car and on the way at Lakdi-ka-pool center one person boarded the car and got down at Narayanguda and thereafter, they all proceeded to Barkathpura to meet the lawyer, that the deceased, the old lady and the male person went and met the lawyer and thereafter at around 8.30 p.m deceased dropped him at Suvidha Police Guest House and asked him to get ready on next day i.e. 17-08-2013 by 8.30 a.m. From the evidence of PW1 it is to be seen that the said old lady and her son did not return to the hotel along with
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 27/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
the deceased and as such there is no reasonable ground to infer their involvement in this case. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel is groundless.
30.The other evidence available on record is the evidence of PWs 5, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15. The evidence of PW5/ Achuth Rao goes to show that on 18-08- 2013 he went to mortuary of Osmania Hospital at request of his friend and at that time, police who were present there asked him and LW10/B. Srinivas to act as panch witnesses for inquest panchanama, that they observed the dead body and noticed bleeding injuries on the fore head and left ear of the dead body, that there were minor injuries on other parts of the body of the deceased, that they also observed white baniyan and black underwear on the dead body of the deceased, police prepared inquest panchanama/Ex.P2 and after completing the inquest, himself and LW10/ Srinivas singed on Ex.P2/panchanama.
31.The evidence of PW13/P. Venkat Narayana, S.I of Police, goes to show that on 17.08.2013, at 4:00 pm, PW1 came to police station and lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 and basing on said complaint, he registered a case in Crime No.
449/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and issued
FIR/Ex.P15 and immediately forwarded the FIR to the concerned court and a copy to his superior authority and as the offence is grave in nature, he handed over the CD file to Umendar/PW14, Inspector of Police, PS Saifabad for investigation.
32.The evidence of PW14/V. Umendar, who is the 1st Investigating
Officer in this case goes to show that on 17-08-2013, he received CD file from
PW13 and proceeded with the investigation and during the course of his investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1, thereafter he along with his staff visited the scene of offence situated at Room No.1104, Hotel
Hampshire Plaza, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad, observed the scene of offence and found the deceased lying in the pool of blood on the floor with bleeding injuries,
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 28/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
secured the presence of PW7 and LW9/Prasad Rao and in their presence he conducted the scene observation cum seizure panchanama and seized two white colour blood stained pillow covers/MO3, two white colour blood stained bed sheets/MO2, one blood stained broken weighing machine/MO1, two broken plastic pieces of weighing machine/MO11, one blood stained wooden stick, one pair of coffee colour socks and drew the rough sketch map/Ex.P4 of the scene, obtained the photographs of the scene/Ex.P13 with the assistance of PW12 and prepared scene observation cum seizure panchanama/Ex.P3.
He further deposed that on his request, PW12 and LW18/N.
Venkanna of Clues Team visited the scene of offence and assisted him in collecting the following material objects.
(1)Blood stains from the deceased (2)Blood collected from the cot (3)Blood stains collected from the weighing machine (4)Control cloth (5)Hairs from the floor (6)Hairs from the body of deceased
Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to Mortuary
Osmania General Hospital, that he examined and recorded the statement of PW2 and later visited the CCTV Monitoring System in the Hotel and seized one Hard
Disc/MO10 in the presence of PW7 and LW9/Prasad Rao at the instance of PW6, that he also examined and recorded the statements of PW3 and LW3/Arpith Saha and collected the copies of documents which were produced by the deceased at the time of check-in into the hotel and later visited the mortuary of OGH on 18- 08-2013, secured the presence of PW5 and LW10/Srinivas and conducted Inquest
Panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in their presence and prepared
Inquest panchanama/Ex.P2 and thereafter, the dead body was sent for autopsy and during autopsy, he obtained the photographs of the deceased and also seized blood stained white banian and black colour underwear from the dead
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 29/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
body of the deceased in the presence of PW5 and LW10/Srinivas, that he also examined and recorded the statement of PW4 and LW6/ Rajshekar and after completion of autopsy, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his blood relatives.
PW14 further deposed that on 20-08-2013 at about 9:00 am, on credible information, he along with LW21/Arjun Singh/PC 4404,
LW22/Veenaiah/PC 4019 and LW23/Rajasekhar/Addl. Inspector of Police, PS
Nampally and PW8 and LW12/Manohar Babu rushed to MMR Gardens,
Bowenpally, Secunderabad and apprehended the accused and on interrogation, the accused voluntarily admitted the guilt of commission of offence and his confession was recorded and in pursuant to his confession, he seized one
Hyundai i-20 Car/MO4, one back pack/MO14, one gold chain with Rudraksha/MO5, one gold ring with white stone and one gold ring with black stone/MO6, one
Samsung Cell phone/MO7, one Pan Card/MO8, one Corporation Bank Visa ATM
Card and one Andhra Bank ATM Card/MO9 of the deceased, one Corporation Bank
Visa ATM Card/MO9 in the name of Y.C. Shekhar Rao and net cash of Rs.56,000/-, one blood stained khaki colour pant/MO13, one blood stained Ash Colour T-Shirt with Yellow colour collar/MO12 from the possession of the accused under the cover of panchanama/Ex.P5 and thereafter, accused lead them to the scene of offence i.e. Room No.1104, Hotel Hampshire, Lakadikapool and he re-constructed the scene of offence and thereafter, the accused was brought to the police station and he affected the arrest of the accused by following due procedure of law and produced him before the court for judicial custody, that he also forwarded the seized material objects to FSL for chemical analysis on 10-02-2014 along with the Letter of Advice (LOA) and subsequently, on his transfer, he handed over the CD file to his successor Narayana/Inspector of Police for further investigation.
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 30/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
33.The evidence of PW15/K. Poornachander, the 2nd Investigating
Officer in this case has deposed that on 14-01-2015 after assuming charge as
Inspector of Police, Saifabad PS, he took up the investigation of this case from
LW26/Ashok, Inspector of Police, verified the investigation done by PW14 and
LW26 and found it to be on proper lines and proceeded with further investigation, that during the course of further investigation, on 02-04-2015, he gave a requisition to PW9/AGM, Andhra Bank, Head Office Saifabad and LW14/M.Venkat
Rao/Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Vijayanagaram, to furnish the statements of the bank accounts of deceased from 15.08.2013 to 25.08.2013 and accordingly, they issued the bank statements of the deceased, that he examined and recorded the statements of PW9 and LW14, that LW26/Ashok collected the
FSL Report/Ex.P16 and PME Report/Ex.P9 and from the facts and averments of the case, PW14/Umendar, Inspector of Police added Section 380 of IPC to the existing Section 302 of IPC and filed Section Addition Memo/Ex.P17 before the court and after collecting all the relevant document and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC.
34.From the overall evidence placed before this court both oral and documentary, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the accused and acquaintance of the accused with the deceased as the accused was working as the driver of the deceased as on the date of commission of offence. The evi- dence of PWs 1, 3 and 6 clearly goes to show that the deceased came to Hamp- shire Hotel along with the accused and stayed in Room No.1104, which was situ- ated in the first floor of the hotel 16-08-2013 and the evidence of PW1 is clear that on 17-08-2013 at around 8.30 a.m. he went to Hotel Hampshire to meet the deceased and knocked the door of Room No.1104 but there was no response, as such, he waited for long time and made phone calls to the deceased and the ac- cused but both the phones were switched off. Then at around 3.00 p.m. the room
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 31/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
was opened by the Hotel Management and found the deceased died and was ly- ing in a pool of blood with bleeding injuries and the gold ornaments on the body of the deceased were also missing and when he made a phone call to the ac- cused, his phone was switched off. The evidence of PWs 1, 3, and 6 clearly es- tablishes that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused soon
before his death and the accused left the hotel at around 11.00 p.m. on 16-08-
2013. Further, from the evidence of PW8 it is established that MOs 4 to 9 and cash of Rs.56,000/- was seized from the possession of the accused soon after the death of the deceased. Further, from the evidence of PWs 9 and 11 coupled with
Exs.P8 and P11 it is established that the accused has withdrawn the amounts from the ATMs by using the ATM cards of the deceased soon after his death and the said amount i.e. Rs.56,000/- was recovered from the possession of the ac- cused. The evidence of PWs 8, 9 and 11 proves that the accused has committed the offence of theft of MOs 4 to 9. The entire evidence placed before this court is pointing out at the accused only that he has committed the murder of the de- ceased and committed theft of the gold ornaments present on the body of the deceased and ATM cards of the deceased and fled away from the scene in the car/MO.4 of the deceased soon after the commission of offence and also has withdrawn the amounts from ATM Centres from the accounts of the deceased by using the ATM cards of the deceased. The entire evidence is pointing out at the accused only that he committed the murder of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt.
35.No doubt, there are minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, as the said contradictions are not material and not significant and are not going to the root cause of the offence and not disturbing the nature of the offence, the same need not be considered. Moreover, minor contradictions are bound to be happen while conducting the investigation of criminal cases and any lacuna and defective investigation in the investigation
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 32/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
cannot be a benefit for the accused where the offence committed by the accused is brutal in nature.
36.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC, wherein the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 established the identity and acquaintance between the deceased and the accused and the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 6 clearly establishes that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and the evidence of
PW8 establishes the seizure of MOs 4 to 9 and cash of Rs.56,000/- from the possession of the accused and from the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 6, 12 and 14 it is established that the offence was committed in Room No.1104 of Hampshire
Hotel and even the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased are so severe in nature which shows that such injuries were caused by the accused to cause the death of the deceased in all probabilities and the same is supported by
Ex.P9/PME Report and the evidence of PWs 1 to 12 establishes the chain of circumstances linking up the circumstances without any break of the links and the evidence of PWs 13 to 15/Police Officers establishes the guilt of the commis- sion of the offence by the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
37.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said charges.
Typed directly to my dictation by the Gr-I Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 9th day of June, 2021.
I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 33/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
38.Accused is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence. His plea is recorded wherein he stated that he has to look after his old aged parents and pleaded mercy of the court. After hearing the accused, this court is of the considered opinion that lenient view cannot be taken against the accused as the offences committed by him are grave in nature.
39.Therefore, accused is sentenced to undergo“LIFE
IMPRISONMENT” and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, they have to further undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
The accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each (Rupees
Two Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, they have to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC.
Total fine amount Rs.5,000/-. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The case property i.e. MOs 1 to 3 and MOs 10 to 14 along with unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed and MO4/Car which is given to the son of the deceased under interim custody shall be made absolute and MOs 5 to 7 shall be returned to the son of the petitioner on proper identification and acknowledgment, after expiry of appeal period. Further, MOs 8 and 9 shall be kept along with the exhibits of the case till the disposal of the appeal.
40.The accused person is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 34/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
before the Hon'ble High Court and he is further informed that he will be provided
legal-aid counsel, if required. Free copy of Judgment is supplied to him.
Typed directly to my dictation by the Gr-I Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 9th day of June, 2021.
I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION :
PW1 - M. Srinivasa Raju, the complainant/gunman of the deceased. PW2- K. Madhusudan Rao, another gunman of the deceased. PW3- G. Parashuramulu, witness who speaks about the incident. PW4- Y. Chandrasekar, younger son of the deceased. PW5- G. Achutha Rao, panch for inquest panchanama and seizure of deceased clothes. PW6- I.V. Prakash, circumstantial witness. PW7- Gerard Edward Lever, panch for scene observation-cum-seizure Panchanama. PW8- K. Sudhakar, panch for confession-cum-seizure panchanama. PW9- V. Uday Bhaskara Rao, who speaks about ATM card of the deceased. PW10 - Dr. Abhijeeth Subedar, who speaks about the autopsy conducted by Dr. K.V. Ramesh. PW11 - A.V. Anand Mathur, who speaks about ATM card of the deceased. PW12 - J. Prakash Veer, ASI of Police. Clues Team, who assisted I.O. in Collecting material objects from the scene. PW13 - Venkata Narayana, S.I. of Police, who registered the case and issued FIR.
PW14 - V. Umender, Inspector of Police, the 1st Investigating Officer. PW15 - K. Poornachander, Inspector of Police, the 2nd Investigating Officer.
DEFENCE : NIL.
NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION :
Ex.P1 - Complaint given by PW1. Ex.P2 - Inquest Report. Ex.P3 - Scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P4 - Rough sketch of the scene. Ex.P5 - Admissible portion in confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the ac- cused.
Fair Judgment in SC 85/2017 35/35 Dt : 09-06-2021.
Ex.P6 - Requisition from the Inspector of Police to Andhra Bank Head Office. Ex.P7 - Letter addressed to Inspector of Police by PW9. Ex.P8 - Statement of the account of the deceased (Andhra Bank). Ex.P9 - PME Report of the deceased. Ex.P10- Covering letter to Inspector of Police by PW11. Ex.P11- Bank account statement of the deceased (Corporation Bank). Ex.P12- Bank account statement of son of the deceased. Ex.P13- 5 positive photographs of the dead body of the deceased and weighing machine. Ex.P14- CD of Ex.P13. Ex.P15- F.I.R. Ex.P16- FSL Report.
DEFENCE : Nil
NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :
MO1- Weighing machine. MO2- Bed sheets. MO3- two pillow covers. MO4- i20 Car bearing No.AP 35 Q 6979 of the deceased. MO5- Gold chain. MO6- two gold rings. MO7- Samsung mobile phone. MO8- PAN Card. MO9- 3 ATM Cards. MO10 - Hard disc. MO11 - Broken pieces of weighing machine. MO12 - T-shirt of the accused. MO13 - Pant of the accused. MO14 - Bag in which MOs 5 to 9 and Rs.56,000/- were found.
I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.