IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AT SIDDIPET
P RESENT : Dr. T. RAGHURAM,
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Siddipet.
Tuesday, the 16 th day of April, 2024
SC No. 197 of 2021
Name of ComplainantP.S. Siddipet Rural
Name of accusedA1 Dongala Narsimulu @ Narsimha Reddy S/o Narayan Reddy, aged 29 years, Caste:Reddy, Occ: Private Job (Sub-Station Operator), R/o Laxmidevipally village of Siddipet Mandal. A2 Bonguram Linga Reddy S/o Ramulu, aged 23 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Bolero Driver, R/o laxmidevipally village of Siddipet Mandal. A3 Pathuri Sanjeeva Reddy S/o Malla Reddy, aged 60 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Contractor, R/o Laxmidevipally village of Siddipet Mandal.
Sections 302, 201, 120B of IPC against A1 and A2 301, 120B of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC against A3
Plea of AccusedNot Guilty
Finding of CourtNot Guilty
Sentence of the OrderAccused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B of IPC and Accused No.3 is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC.
Prosecution Conducted bySri Venkat Lingam Yasala Public Prosecutor
Defence conducted by Sri M.Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate for Accused No.1 Sri S.Harischandra, Advocate for Accused No.2 Sri S. Janardhan Reddy, Advocate for Accused No.3
PRC No. & Crime No.PRC No. 3 of 2020 Cr.No. 105 of 2019
Committed byPooja Kandukuri, I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.
This Sessions Case having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Venkat Lingm Yasala, Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate for Accused No.1, Sri S. Harischandra, Advocate
for Accused No.2 and Sri S.Janardhan Reddy, Advocate for Accused No.3, upon
perusal of material papers available on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:- 2 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Accused herein have been prosecuted by the State being represented by
Siddipet-Rural Police, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC.
2.The prosecution case in brief is, on 16.04.2019 at 9.00 am one Mr. Kasthuri
Janardhan Reddy S/o Narayana Reddy, a resident of Laxmidevipally village, gave a report to Mr. S.Koteshwar Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Siddipet Rural. In his report he stated inter alia that his brother-in-law Pathuri Raju S/o Sanjeva Reddy, working as Supervisor in Kohinoor Boiler Poultry Farm at Siddipet, who left the Poultry
Farm in the night of 14.04.2019 after discharging his night duty, not returned home on 15.04.2019; and that his brother-in-law Pathuri Raju boarded motorbike of one
Mr. Morgu Shaker and Mogulla Jaipal on that day and got down at Pullur old bus stage; and that when he made phone call to the mobile phone of his brother-in-law
Pathuri Raju, the mobile phone was switched off. He also stated in his report that he searched for his brother-in-law in their relative’s house, but was of no use and his brother-in-law wore wheat colour T-Shirt and dark colour pant when he left home on 14.04.2019 to attend night duty in the poultry farm.
It is also version of the prosecution that basing on the report said
Mr.S.Koteswar Rao, registered a case in Cr.No.105 of 2019 under the head of Man
Missing and issued First Information Report. After issuance of F.I.R. he examined the defacto complainant Kasthuri Janardhan Reddy and he also issued look out notice to border police stations and got it published in newspapers. He also examined and recorded statements of Mogulla Jaipal (LW2) and Mergu Shekar (LW3). During further course of investigation, he got call details report pertaining to mobile phone of missing man Pathuri Raju, analysed it and found that Pathuri
Raju made three calls to Mobile Number 8790393040 which belongs to Boguram
Linga Reddy (A2). While the investigation was in progress on 16.04.2019 at 7.00 pm on credible information received as to whereabouts of said Bonguram Linga
Reddy (A2), he along with his staff proceeded to Gandhi Chowrasta at Siddipet and apprehended Bonguram Linga Reddy (A2), brought him to police station and interrogated him in the presence of two panch witnesses namely Mr.Manne Bhuma
Lingam (LW12) and Mr. Usike Ramulu (LW13). In his confession statement, said 3 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
Bonguram Linga Reddy (A2) stated inter alia that he got acquaintance with the deceased Pathauri Raju about 3 years back and out of that acquaintance, he got driver’s job for the deceased in Mega Company. Later the deceased Pathuri Raju borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- from him about 18 months back for the purpose of constructing a house in Siddipet. Out of that Rs.3,50,000/-, the deceased repaid
Rs.50,000/-. While so on 15-04-2019 at 7.30 am he rang up to the deceased and informed him that he is at Pulluru Thalla. Then the deceased told him he also come to that place. Accordingly the deceased got down at Pullur Old stage and made phone call to him. Then he went to that place on his (A2’s) motor bike bearing
Regd. No. AP 15 AY 7512, purchased 2 liters toddy from some Goud community people and after that they both on the same motor bike came to a tin sheet roofed shed situated near Pittala huts and started consuming toddy. At that time he asked the deceased to repay the amount borrowed from him saying he has to dig bore well with that amount. He requested the deceased Pathuri Raju at least to give half of the amount borrowed from him. Then the deceased asked him to show any document to prove borrowal of the amount. On hearing it, he got angry and he came to a conclusion that the deceased would not repay the amount and he decided to some how kill the deceased. With that intention, he caught the head of the deceased who was in intoxicated condition and hit it against a near by stone. When the deceased fell on the ground, he took a boulder available in that place and left it on the head of deceased Raju, as a result of which the deceased received grievous injury on his head and died on the spot. After confirmation of the death of Raju (Deceased), he left his dead body, took his mobile phone to dispel the suspicion people may get, and threw that mobile phone on the way to his house and in a well situated at a canal.
On the same day at 12 noon he, after completion of lunch, went to his agricultural well. On the same day evening at 6.30 pm when he and his father were supervising the digging of bore with machine, accused no.1 (Narsimulu) came to that place and told him that he would bring a rental car and they both can go to Karimnagar on that car for which he agreed. On the same day at 7.30 pm , they both in a rented car went to their village and after reaching the village, A1 got down from that car and went to his house. He made A1 to believe that he can keep that car at his house and when
A1 believed his words and handed over car to him, he shifted dead body of the deceased in that car and threw the dead body into a pit situated near Musthabad-
Jillella road. After that he cleaned that car dickey and proceeded to his agricultural well. From agricultural well, his cousin Bapu Reddy took that car to his village 4 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
Badanakal. On the next day morning at 5 am he went to the village of his cousin took that car and went to Karimnagar along with his cousin. After that he returned home and handed over that car to its owner at Venkateshwara Temple, Siddipet and after handing over that car, his cousin Bapu Reddy returned home on his motor bike and he (Narsimulu) went on walk Gandhi Chock Siddipet.
It is also version of the prosecution that basing on confession statement of said Boguram Linga reddy(A2) and lead by him the investigation officer proceeded to Jillella Village, and on the way Lingareddy (A2) showed dead body of the deceased and the same was seized in the presence of Manne Bhooma Lingam (LW12) and Usike Ramulu (LW13) under a seizure panchanama and also prepared a rough sketch.
It is also version of the prosecution that in pursuance of the confession statement of Bonguram Lingareddy (A2) the investigation Officer Mr.A.Nadeeshwar
Reddy(LW16) visited the tin sheet roofed shed and there he seized blood stained boulder, one cement brick, one two liters bottle blood stained earth and cement brick under a panchanama. Basing on confession and recovery panchanama, he altered Section of law from the head of man missing to the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
Further investigation was taken up by Mr.M.Venkat Ramaiah, Circle
Inspector of Police, Siddipet Rual, however, as he was on leave Mr. A.Nandeeshwar
Reddy, Inspector of Police, Siddipet-I Town, took up investigation. He effected arrest of Bonguram Linga Reddy (A2) on 17.04.2019. On the next day i.e. on 18.04.2019 he along with panch witnesses said Mr. Manne Bhuma Lingam (LW12) and Mr. Usike Ramulu (LW13) proceeded to the place where the dead body was threw out. He also made a requisition to Clues Team to visit the place and to collect clues. He also got photographed the dead body of the deceased Pathuri Raju by Mr.
Siddiram Vinod Kumar (LW7). During further course of investigation, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of said Mr. Manne
Bhuma Lingam (LW12) and Mr. Usike Ramulu (LW13). He also seized (1) blood stains on the dead body, (2) Identity proof of the deceased Pathuri Raju, (3) Voter
Identity Card of mother of the deceased Pathuri Raju. He prepared an inquest panchanama at that time. He also examined and recorded statements of circumstantial witnesses Smt. Pathuri Jayalaxmi (LW4), Kasthuri Bapu Reddy (LW5), Kasthuri Laxma Reddy (LW6) and Photographer Mr. Siddiram Vinod Kumar 5 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet (LW7). After that he shifted the dead body of the deceased to Government General
Hospital, Siddipet for postmortem examination. Dr.P.Srinivas Rao, Assistant
Professor, Government General Hospital and Medical College, Siddipet conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, submitted his report expressing his opinion that the death of the deceased was occurred due to head injury. At the time of autopsy clothes of the deceased under a panchanama were also seized and the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the blood relatives of the deceased to enable them to conduct final rites for the dead body.
It is also version of the prosecution that during further course of investigation, the Investigation Officer Mr. A.Nandeeshwar Reddy and the panch witnesses Mr.
Manne Bhuma Lingam (LW12) and Mr. Usike Ramulu (LW13), all proceeded to the outskirts of Pullur village along with Accused No.2 and Accused No.2 show them the scene of offence. The Investigation Officer examined the scene of offence and also photographed the scene of offence in the presence of said mediators; and with the help of clues team consisting of Police Constables No.1371 and 2731 he seized (1) sample blood stains collected from the red stone, (2) sample blood stains collected from a cement brick, (3) blood stained earth, (4) control earth and (5) two liters of empty plastic bottle under the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of said two mediators Mr. Manne Bhuma Lingam (LW12) and Mr.
Usike Ramulu (LW13).
It is also version of the prosecution that during further investigation the investigation officer took custody of Bonguram Linga Reddy (A2) and on further interrogation in the presence of said Manne Bhomalinga (LW12) and Usike
Ramlingam (LW13). Bonguram Lingareddy (A2) stated inter alia that in the year 2018 at the time of Vanabojanalu disputes arose between Sanjeeva Reddy who is the father of the deceased and him with regard to sharing of meat. A panchayath was also held in the presence of their community elders in that connection and panchayath elders also made the deceased Raju to admit his wrong. However since then the deceased Raju started demanding him for the share in the property of his father Sanjeeva Reddy, he threatened if he is not given any share in the property of his father Sanjeeva Reddy, he would kill him (A3) and his second wife’s children.
While the maters stood so, about 25 days back his villager Dongala Narsimha
Reddy (A1) met him, talked with him and expressed his intention to kill Pathuri 6 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
Raju and when he asked Narsimha Reddy as to why he intends to kill the deceased
Raju, Narsimha Reddy told him that Pathuri Raju had threatened his senior paternal uncle Sanjeeva Reddy and Sanjeeva Reddy’s second wife’s son and so his senior paternal uncle Sanjeeva Reddy who is afraid of the deceased Raju, decided to kill the deceased at any cost. He (A2) accepted the offer and Narsimha Reddy gave him
Rs.25,000/- . Since then they both planned to kill the deceased some how and as per their plan, he started moving closely with the deceased Pathuri Raju and giving information to Narsimha Reddy (A1) with regard to the movements of the deceased.
On 14.4.2019, he and Narsimha Reddy (A1) decided to kill the deceased some how and in pursuance of their intention, they selected accommodation which is a room situated in the out skirts of Raghavapur and decided to bring Pathuri Raju to that place and kill him. In pursuance of their plan on 15-04-2019 at about 7 am they both met, went to Kishan Goud’s shop on his (A2) vehicle No. AP15 AY7512, purchased toddy worth Rs.200/-from Mr. Pulluri Kishan Goud, consumed some toddy and then called the deceased over phone to join them and to consume toddy.
Then the deceased agreed for it, Narsimha Reddy (A1) called one Mr. Mahender
Reddy to come to that place with motor bike bearing No.AP 29 F 9235. Accordingly when Mahender Reddy came on motor bike along with Pathuri Raju. When
Narsimha Reddy(A1) informed him as to arrival of Pathuri Raju by giving a missed call, he went to that place. While Narsimha Reddy(A1) was waiting, secretly play his role in killing the deceased, he (Bonguram Linga Reddy) caught hold of legs of
Pathuri Raju, who was in intoxicated condition. On seeing it, Narsimha Reddy (A1) came out of the secrete place, caught hold of legs of the deceased Pathuri Raju and hit his head against a near steps stone. When the deceased Pathuri Raju fell on the ground, Narsimha Reddy (A1) took out steps stone and cement brick and threw them one after another on the head of Pathuri Raju and Pathuri Raju became movementless. There upon Narsimha Reddy (A1) took mobile phone of Raju from his pocket, switched off the mobile phone, after that they both went to a house of Sai
Kumar who is a friend of Narsimba Reddy (A1), left that clothes in the house of Sai
Kumar, wore new clothes and returned to their respective homes. After reaching home, he Bonguram Linga reddy (A2) had lunch and went to his agricultural field and when he and his elder brother's son Raju was consuming liquor and supervising the drilling bore well, Narsimha Reddy (A1) came to that place expressing his view that if dead body of the deceased Pathuru Raju is left at the place of death, there is possibility of their being caught by the police and so it is better to threw dead body 7 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet of Pathuri Raju at for away place. He also agreed for it and they both on the same day at 8 pm came to Siddipet took a car for rent from a person known to Narsimha
Reddy(A1) purchased Lungi in a cloth shop situated at Subash Road, Siddipet, two gloves from Shiva Medical Stores, situated at Musthabad Chowrastha and then proceeded to the place where they killed Pathuri Raju, wrapped dead body of the deceased Raju with the Lungi, purchased by them, kept the dead body in the car dickey and threw it into the agriculture well of one Mr. Udutha Narayana and kept the Lungi used to wrap the dead body of the deceased, in near by bushes. Later they cleaned that car dickey with bore well water and after that about 12 mid night, his cousin Bapu Reddy went away in that car. On the next day morning at about 6 am, he went to his cousin, took the car and went to the house of Narsimha Reddy (A1) and they both went to Karimnagar, dropped wife of Narsimha Reddy at her elder sister's house and returned Siddipet on the same day by 4 pm and handed over that car to Nagaraju. After handing over that car to Nagaraju, Narsimha Reddy (A1) and saying that the police investigation revealed that Pathuri Raju was killed by him(Bonguram Linga Reddy) and his phone is trapped and asked him to surrender
before the police but not to disclose his name and that he is engaged a lawyer to get
him out of the case. He also assured that if he admits guilt he would pay him Rs.5 lakhs, at the same time he disclosed his (A1) name he would kill his family members.
It is also version of the prosecution that after giving said confession statement
Bonguram Linga Reddy showed the motor cycle and phone and house of Narsima
Reddy and being lead by him and the investigation officer seized LYF mobile phone and Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing Registration No. AP 15 AY 7512 under a cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of said two mediators.
It is also version of the prosecution that on 27.4.2019 at 8.15 pm he interrogated Narsimha Reddy (A1) who stated that Sanjeeva Reddy who is his senior paternal uncle married a woman Jayamma and left her, while leaving her, he gave her some property, two years thereafter, he married one Venkatamma and in the year 2018 at the time of Vanabojanam, disputes arose between his senior paternal uncle
Sanjeeva Reddy’s first wife Jayamma’s son Pathuri Raju(deceased) and Sanjeeva
Reddy in connection with sharing of meat, a panchayath was also held. At that time pathuri Raju threatened him that if his second wife’s son is killed he would get his(Sanjeeva Reddy) entire property. As such he wanted to kill Pathuri Raji Reddy if 8 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet necessary A1 was spending Rs.10 lakhs and on all other aspects he supported version of Bonguram Linga Reddy. After confession of A1, police seized Samsung
Mobile Phone of deceased under cover of seizure panchanama.
During further course of investigation Mr.M.Venkat Ramaiah, along with A1 and A2 proceeded to Pullur village on 27.04.2019 at 11.30 am and A1 showed the house of his friend Mahender Reddy and also showed black colour Hero Honda passion plus motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 29 F 9235 and he seized the said motorcycle under a cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of said two mediators. On the same day he along with A1 and A2 were proceeded to Siddipet
Town at 12.30 pm and A1 showed house of car owner Chethri Nagaraju and shown
Maruthi Swift D-Zire car bearing registration No.AP11 AM 9405 and he seized the same under a cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of said two mediators.
On the same day, he along with A1 and A2 proceeded to the room of Sai Kumar,
Siddipet at 1.15 pm and showed clothes of A1 and A2 which were by them while commission of offence and he seized the above said clothes i.e. pant and shirts under a cover of seizure panchanama. After completion of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 and A2 they proceeded to the house of Pathuri Sanjeeva Reddy (A3) on 27.04.2019 at 2.15 pm and on interrogation he stated that about 26 years back due to family disputes he left his wife Jayamma and lived separate by giving his share in the property to his 1st wife Jayamma and got 2nd marriage with
Venkatamma and residing at Prashanthnagar, Siddipet by doing contract work in
Electricity Department and used to go to Laxmidevipally village. His relative
Dongala Narsimha Reddy (A1) used to do his works in the village and every year
Reddy community people would celebrate lunch programme (Vana Bhojanalu) in
Ashada Maaasam at Goddess Yellamma Temple in the village. In the year 2018 his 1st wife’s son Pathuri Raju @ Raji Reddy took his share of meat and when the community elders asked him to pay the chit amount regarding share of meat, on that
Pathuri Raju told that he had not received any meat and he need not pay the amount and so a panchayath was held before community elders regarding said issue and keeping the issue in his mind his 1st wife’s son Pathuri Raju threatened him to kill him and his 2nd wife’s son to grab his property. On that he informed the matter to
Dongala Narsimulu (A1) over phone and met him personally in Siddipet and expressed his rediness to kill his son Pathuri Raju (Deceased) even by spending
Rs.10,00,000/- and requested him to some how kill Pathuri Raju, for which A1 also 9 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet accepted for the same. Then he gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- to A1 for expenses; and on 14.04.2019 he made a phone call to A1 from his wife’s mobile phone stating that his son Raji Reddy is harassing him and reitereated his request for killing his son Raji Reddy immediately; and on 16.04.2019 at about 8.00 pm he came to know that said Pathuri Raju @ Raji Reddy was killed and thrown beside the road on
Musthabad Jillella road near Kaala Bhairava hilluck situated at the outskirts of
Bharath Nagar and he showed his Nokia mobile phone and Samsung Mobile phone of his wife and police seized the mobile phones under a cover of confession-cum- seizure panchanama of A3 in the presence of said two mediators. During further course of investigation arrest of A1 and A3 was effected. Therefore A1 and A2 are liable for punishment under Sections 302, 201 and 120 B of IPC and Accused No.3 is liable for punishment under Sections 302 and 120 B of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC.
3.The record shows the Committal Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of IPC against A1 and A2 and
Sections 302 and 120 B of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC against Accused No.3; and on appearance of Accused No.1 to 3 it had furnished copies of documents to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After committal of the case to this Court, A1 to
A3 were examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. on 03.02.2023. A charge under
Sections 302, 201 and 120 B of IPC against A1 and A2 and Sections 302 and 120B of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Hence, proceeded with trial.
4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant Kasthuri
Janardhan Reddy (PW1), circumstantial witnesses Mr. Mogulla Jaipal (PW2), Mr.
Mergu Shekar (PW4), Pathuri Jayamma (PW3) who is mother of the deceased,
Kasthuri Bapu Reddy (PW5) who is maternal uncle of the deceased, Kasthuri
Laxma Reddy (PW6) and Photographer Siddiram Vinod Kumar (PW7), Gaddam
Mahender Reddy (PW8), Chethri Nagaraju (PW10) Palle Kishan Goud (PW9). It also examined said Manne Bhuma Lingam (PW11) and Usike Ramulu (PW12) who are panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanamas of A1, A2 and A3, dead body seizure panchanama, clothes seizure panchanama of accused, Car,
Motorcycles and cell Phones seizure panchanama, deceased clothes seizure panchanama and scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama and also inquest 10 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet panchanama. It also examined P. Srinivas Rao, Asst. Professor, Govt. General
Hospital and Medical College, Siddipet (PW13) who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, S. Koteswar Rao (PW14), A.
Nandeeshwar Reddy (PW15), M.Venkat Ramaiah (PW16) and K.Surender Reddy (PW17) who are Investigation Officers in this case.
The evidence of LW8 was given up by the learned Public Prosecutor.
The prosecution also marked report (Ex.P1) given by PW1, Original First
Information Report (Ex.P99) issued by PW14 basing on Ex.P1, recovery of dead body panchanama (Ex.P82), confession cum recovery panchanama of A2 (Ex.P83),
Scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama (Ex.P87), Rough sketch (Ex.P88), postmortem examination report (Ex.P81), F.S.L. report (Ex.P98), seizure panchanama of clothes of deceased (Ex.P89), relevant portion of confession of A2 (Ex.P90), seizure panchanama of vehicle of A2 and Mobile (Ex.P91), relevant portion in confession panchanama of A1 (Ex.P92), seizure panchanama relating to
Mobile Phone (Ex.P93), seizure panchanama relating to Hero Passion Plus (Ex.P94) , seizure panchanama relating Maruthi Swift Desire Car (Ex.P95), Seizure panchanama of two blue colour jean pants, one light pink colour shirt and one black colour T shirt (Ex.P96), relevant portion in the confession panchanama of A3 (Ex.P97), Section Alteration Memo (Ex.P84), statement of PW2 (Ex.P2), PW4 (Ex.P3), PW4 (Ex.P4), PW6 (Ex.P5), PW9 (Ex.P6) and PW10 (Ex.P8), photos (Ex.P7), Signature of PW11 on the dead body recovery panchanama (Ex.P12)
Signature of PW11 on the dead body of recovery panchanama (Ex.P13), signatures of PW11 on Inquest Panchanama (Ex.P15 to Ex.P20), signature of PW11 on the rough sketch attached with dead body recovery panchanama (Ex.P14), signature of
PW11 on scene of offence-cum-recovery panchanama (Ex.P21), signature of PW11 on rough sketch (Ex.P22), signature of PW11 on recovery panchanama of clothes of deceased (Ex.P23), signatures of PW1 on the confession panchanama of A2 (Ex.P9 to P11, Ex.P24 to P30), signature of PW11 on recovery of vehicle and mobile from
A2 (Ex.P31), signatures of PW11 on confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A1 (Ex.P32 to P37), signature of PW11 on recovery mobile panchanama of A1 (Ex.P38), signature of PW11 on recovery of vehicle used by A1 (Ex.P39), signature of PW11 on recovery of car used in the crime (Ex.P40), signature of PW11 on recovery of clothes of A1 (Ex.P41), Signatures of PW11 on confession-cum- 11 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet recovery panchanama of A3 (Exs.P42 to P44), signatures of PW12 on the confession panchanama of A2 (Ex.P45 to P47), signatures of PW12 on recovery of deadbody panchanama (Ex.P48 and P49), signature of PW12 on rough sketch with recovery of dead body (Ex.P50), signatures of PW12 on the inquest panchanama (Ex.P51 to
P56), signature of PW12 on scene of offence-cum-recovery panchanama (Ex.P57), signature of PW12 on rough sketch (Ex.P58), signature of PW12 on recovery of cloths of deceased (Ex.P59), Signatures of PW12 on confession panchanama of A2 (Ex.P60 to P66), signature of PW12 on recovery of vehicle and mobile from A2 (Ex.P67), signatures of PW12 on confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A1 (Ex.P68 to P73), signature of PW12 on recovery of mobile panchanama of A1 (Ex.P74), signature of PW12 on recovery of vehicle (Ex.P75), signature of PW12 on recovery of car (Ex.P76), signature of PW12 on recovery of cloths of A1 (Ex.P77), signatures of PW12 on confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A3 (Ex.P78 to
P80).
It also marked Stone (MO1), Water bottle (MO2), cement brick (MO3), Voter
ID (MO4), Driving Licence (MO5), blood stained shirt of deceased (MO6), Blood stained banyan of deceased (MO7), silver colour LYF Company mobile phone (MO8), Motorcycle bearing Regd.No.AP15 AY 7512 (MO9), Samsung duel model (MO10), Samsung Smart phone gold colour (MO11), Blue colour Lungi (MO12),
Her passion plus blue colour bike reg.No.AP29 F9235 (MO13), White colour
Maruthi swift Dezire No.AP 11 AM 9405 (MO14), Two blue colur jeans pants (MO15), One Light Pink Colour Shirt (MO16), One Black colour T Shirt (MO17),
Samsung White colour keypad phone (MO18), Mobile Phone (MO19) and Mobile
Phone (MO20).
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 13.03.2024 by inviting their attention to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Their plea is a total denial. However, no defence evidence was adduced by them.
6.Heard.
7.Now, the points for consideration are- 12 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
1. Whether Accused No.1 and 2 committed murder of the deceased late Pathuri Raju on 15.04.2019 as alleged by the prosecution?
2. Whether Accused No.1 and 2 screened the evidence as alleged by the prosecution?
3. Whether Accused No.1 and 2 conspired to kill the deceased Pathuri Raju as alleged by the prosecution?
4. Whether Accused No.3 abetted Accused No.1 and 2 to conspire and
to commit murder of his first wife’s son late Pathuri Raju as
alleged by the prosecution?
5. Whether the prosecution proved guilt of Accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubts?
8.As the version of the prosecution to the extent it is relevant, is already given, it is not being recapitulated here.
Points No.1 and 3:
9.Version of the prosecution in brief is, on 16.04.2019 PW1 gave a report to
PW14 who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Siddipet (Rural) stating inter alia that the deceased who is his cousin and who is working in a poultry farm left home on 14.04.2019 to attend night duty and on 15.04.2019 while returning along with PW2 and PW4 on their motorbike at about 9.00 am to Laxmidevipally. He received phone call when their vehicle came to Pullur old bus stage and on receipt of a phone call he got down at that place and that thereafter, inspite of number of phone calls made to his phone No.9704499192, there was no response and the phone was switched off.
Basing on contents of the report, PW14 registered a case in Cr.No.105 of 2019 under the head of “Man Missing”. He collected call data of the deceased and found three calls were received from Accused No.2 by the deceased prior to the time of missing.
He then suspected Accused No.2 and interrogated him in the presence of PW11 and
PW12. Accused No.2 confessed that because the deceased asked him to show documentary proof with regard to borrowal of Rs.3,50,000/-, he became angry and killed him and threw the dead body of the deceased with the help of Accused No.1 into a pit situated near Musthabad-Jillella road. Basing on his confessional statement PW14 proceeded to the place where the dead body of the deceased was thrown and he seized the dead body of the deceased and also prepared seizure panchanama-cum-rough sketch (Ex.P82) and he altered the section of law. Further 13 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet investigation was conducted by PW15. He again visited the tin sheet roofed shed and there he seized MO2 and MO3 under Ex.P89. He continued the investigation since regular Inspector of Police was on leave. He effected arrest of Accused No.2 on 17.04.2019 and proceeded to the place, where the dead body of the deceased was thrown and he informed the clues team got photographed the dead body of the deceased by PW7. During further course of investigation he conducted an inquest and prepared panchanama (Ex.P86) over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW11 and PW12 and he also seized MO4 and MO5. He examined
PW3, PW5, PW6 and PW7. He also got conducted postmortem examination by
PW13. At the time of postmortem examination he seized clothes of the deceased under Ex.P89. After that he proceeded to the outskirts of pullur village along with
A2 who showed the scene of offence and with the help of clues team he collected sample blood stains from MO1 and MO2 under Ex.P87. Further investigation was conducted by PW16 who was regular Inspector of Police and he took Accused No.2 into police custody and interrogated him in the presence of PW11 and PW12 and in pursuance of his confession statement relevant portion (Ex.P90), he seized MO8 and
MO9. On 27.04.2019 he interrogated A1 in the presence of PW11 and PW12 and he seized MO11 of the deceased and on being shown by A1 he proceeded to the house of PW8 and there he seized MO13 under Ex.P94 . From there he proceeded to the house of PW10 who is owner of the car used by A1 and A2 to shift the dead body of the deceased and seized that car (MO14) under Ex.P95 in the presence of PW11 and
PW12. After that he proceeded to the room of Sai Kumar, there he seized clothes (MO15, MO16 and MO17) kept by A1 and A2 in his house under Ex.P96. After that he proceeded to the house of A3 and interrogated him in the presence of PW11 and
PW12 and from his possession he seized MO18, MO19 and MO20 Mobile phones.
10.Version of the prosecution is Accused No.2, who got appointed the deceased late Pathuri Raju as driver in Mega Company, lent Rs.3,50,000/-, at his request for construction of a house. Out of it, the deceased repaid Rs.50,000/-. However, on the date of incident, when they both were in intoxicated condition, he (A2) asked the deceased for the amount to be paid, for which the deceased asked him to show if there is any documentary proof. As such, he became angry and conspired with A1 to kill the deceased late Pathuri Raju. It is also version of the prosecution that in the year 2018 during lunch programme (Vanabojanalu) at Goddess Yellamma Temple of their village, there was a quarrel between the deceased and his father Sanjeeva 14 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
Reddy (Accused No.3). A panchayath was also held in that connection. In that panchayath the deceased stated he had not received any meet and as such he need not pay the amount. Further the deceased also threatened Accused No.3 that he would kill his second wife’s son, so that he would succeed the entire property of
Accused No.3. Then, Accused No.3 decided to do away the deceased who is the son of his first wife Jayamma and approached Accused No.1, he also has given
Rs.50,000/- to Accused No.1 for expenses and later A1 and A2 committed murder of the deceased on 15.04.2019.
11.PW14 stated inter alia in his evidence that on 16.04.2019 at 9.00 am he received Ex.P1 from PW1 and with regard to missing of the deceased and basing on contents of the report, he registered a case in Cr.No.105/2019 under the head “Man
Missing”.
12.In his evidence PW1 stated inter alia that his cousin Pathuri Raju was working in poultry farm in the year 2019. On 15.04.2019 between 8 am and 9 am, he was returning to his village on a motorbike and along with Mogulla Jaipal and
Merugu Shekar and on the way he got down from the motorbike near Pullur village.
He also stated the deceased used to return home from duty by 2 pm every day, but on that day he did not turn up till 3 pm. As such, his aunt Pathuri Jayamma called him over phone and informed him about non-return of her son. He then made a phone call to Pathuri Raju, but the phone was switched off and the phone number is 9704499192. Then he suspected something went wrong and he enquired the people of poultry farm where Pathuri Raju was working at that time and he was informed that Pathuri Raju not attended night duty on 15.04.2019. Therefore, on the next day morning he gave report to Siddipet Rural Police. In his cross-examination he stated that he has not mentioned either in Ex.P1 or in the statement given to the police about his aunt Jayamma informing him over phone that her son not returned home till 2 or 3 pm as usual and that he enquired poultry authorities who informed him that Pathuri Raju not turned up for night duty on 15.04.2019. Further he also admitted he has not witnessed his cousin Pathuri Raju returning home on his motorbike along with Mogulla Jayapal and Merugu Shekar; and that his signature not even obtained by the police and signature of Thirupathi Reddy, who according to him scribed Ex.P1 not there in Ex.P1. Said Mogulla Jaipal who was examined as
PW2 and Merugu Rajashekar who was examined as PW4. However they both 15 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet turned hostile.
13.Coming to the evidence of PW3 who is the mother of the deceased Pathuri
Raju. She stated inter alia that about 4 years back on one day at 9.00 pm, and after having supper, her son Pathuri Raju left home as usual to go to poultry farm wherein he was working, but not returned home even after 9 am on the next day. At that time they were residing at Laxmidevipally village. She then searched for her son and enquired her relatives including her brother Bapu Reddy and her brother convinced her saying that her son would come. He also told her that when he and Mogulla
Jayapal (PW2) were bringing fuel on a motorcycle, on the way her son Pathuri Raju joined them, but Pathuri Raju got down from their motorcycle at Pullur village stage. She believed his words and returned home, had meals and again started waiting for her son, but her son did not turn up even after midnight of that day.
While so at about 11 pm her elder brother Bapu Reddy received information from
Sub-Inspector of Police that her son Pathuri Raju was beaten with a brick by
Bonguram Lingareddy (A2) near Pullur, killed him and shifted the dead body to a place near Jillella. On receipt of that information they all rushed to the place where the dead body of her son late Pathuri Raju was found; and she identified the dead body of her son late Pathuri Raju. Thus, according to her her brother Bapu Reddy was informed by the police about the deceased Pathuri Raju and A2 killing the deceased with a brick.
14.This case arose out of the report given by one Mr. Kasthuri Janardhan Reddy who is the brother-in-law of the deceased. In his report (Ex.P1) said Kasthuri
Janardhan Reddy stated inter alia that on 14.04.2019 his brother-in-law Pathuri Raju left home to do night duty and after discharge of his night duty, on the next day morning at about 9.00 am, while coming along with their villagers Mergu Shekar (PW4)and Mogulla Jaipal (PW2), received some phone call when their vehicle was at Pullur old stage and got down from the vehicle and after that his brother-in-law
Pathuri Raju not returned home and his mobile phone also was found switched off.
Said Kasthuri Janardhan Reddy was examined as PW1. Thus, it is clear the contents of Ex.P1 are proved by the evidence of PW1 who is the defacto complainant.
15.As per the version of PW5, he having come to know of his sister Jayamma worrying about non return of her son Pathuri Raju, he assured her that Pathuri Raju would come. As per the version of the prosecution, PW5 informed her that her son 16 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
Pathuri Raju who was coming along with him and Mogulla Jaipal, got down at
Pullur village. However, said Mogulla Jaipal who was examined as PW2 turned hostile. Similarly, Merugu Rajashekar (PW4) who was also with the deceased on 16.04.2019 also turned hostile. For that matter, there is no whisper in the evidence of PW1 as to PW5 informing her about her son Pathuri Raju coming along with
PW2 and PW4 and assuring her that he would come. Even PW5 also nowhere stated in his evidence about his informing his sister Jayamma (PW3) about the deceased coming along with PW2 and PW4.
16.As per the version of the prosecution, PW14 obtained call data pertaining to mobile phone of the deceased and suspected involvement of Accused No.2, since three calls were received from the phone of Accused No.2 by the deceased before his death. Had it been correct, PW14 should have known where from the deceased answered the call of Accused No.2. But PW14 nowhere stated about this fact. For that matter, the very call data said to have been collected by PW14 is not marked by the prosecution.
17.As per the version of the prosecution, there are two versions that constitute motive for committing murder of the deceased by Accused No.1 and 2, (1) because the deceased questioned Accused No.2 and asked him to show any document to prove borrowal of Rs.3,50,000/- , he became angry and decided to kill the deceased.
The prosecution to prove these facts, mainly relied on confessional statements of
Accused No.1, Accused No.2 and Accused No.3. As per the version of the prosecution after verifying call data of the deceased PW14 suspected Accused No.2 and so, he apprehended Accused No.2 and interrogated him in the presence of PW11 and PW12, then Accused No.2 confessed that he became angry, when the deceased asked him to show prooof of borrowal of money, if any, from him and so he killed the deceased. When PW15 obtained police custody of Accused No.2, interrogated him, again he showed the place of offence to him and panch witnesses (PW11 and
PW12), again when he was taken into police custody by PW16, he further confessed about Accused No.3 contacted him to kill the deceased. However, as already stated,
PW11 and PW12 turned hostile. Thus, the very confessional statements of A1, A2 and A3 and also recovery of dead body, and also of blood stained clothes of Accused
No.1 and 2, motorcycle used by A1 to bring the deceased to the place of incident, so also recovery of car used by Accused No.1 and 2 to drop the dead body of the 17 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet deceased into a pit beside the road running from Musthabad to Jillella conduct of scene of offence panchanama; and the rough sketch said to have been prepared by
PW15 and PW16 are not proved by the prosecution.
18.As per Ex.P81 (postmortem examination report of the deceased) which was proved by PW13 the deceased died of head injury and the time of death is 42 to 48 hours prior to postmortem examination, which commenced at 9.50 am on 17.04.2019. From the evidence of PW13 coupled with the evidence of PW1, PW2,
PW3 and PW4, it can safely be said that the death of the deceased occurred on 15.04.2019 and the death was caused due to head injury.
19.Now the next question is whether the head injury was caused by A1 and A2 as alleged by the prosecution and A3 abetted A1 and A2 to commit murder of his son late Pathuri Raju who was born to his first wife Jayamma (PW3). As per the version of the prosecution, when PW14 interrogated A2 in the presence of PW12 and PW13 and A2 confessed the offence and stated that as the deceased asked him for proof of amount lent by him (A2), he became anger and killed the deceased. When PW16 interrogated A2 further by taking into custody with the permission of the Court also
Accused No.2 further stated about involvement of Accused No.3. However, both
PW11 and PW12 though supported version of the prosecution to some extent in their chief examination, they both turned hostile. Thus, the very confession statements said to have been made by A1, A2 and A3 which are the basis for the Investigation
Officer to come to a conclusion that A1 and A2 conspired and killed the deceased and A3 abetted them itself is not proved. Thus, Ex.P83, Ex.P85, Ex.P86, Ex.P87,
Ex.P88, Ex.P89, Ex.P90, Ex.P21, Ex.P2, Ex.P93, Ex.P94, Ex.P95, Ex.P96 and
Ex.P97 which were marked through Investigation Officer were not proved.
Similarly, the very confession so also recovery of boulder (stone) (MO1), Blood stained clothes of deceased (MO6 and MO7), Cement brick (MO3), Motorcycle bearing No.AP 15 AY 7512 (MO9), Silver colour LYF company Mobile Phone (MO8), Samsung duel model SMB 313E/D (MO10), Samsung Duel Smart Phone gold Colour (MO11), Hero Passion Plus blue colour bike bearing No.AP 29 F 9235 (MO13, white colour Maruthi Swift Dezire Car bearing registration No. AP 11 AM 9405 (MO14), Two Blue colour Jeens Pants (MO15), One Light Pink Colour Shirt (MO16), One blac colour T Shirt (MO17), Samsung White colour Kepyad phone with IMEA No. 354322/06/763236/4 (MO18), Mobile with IMEA No.
18 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet 354322/06/76/3236/2 with Airtel Sim No. 899149030462458407H-2 (MO19) and
Mobile Phone SIM No. 355774/06/570414/3 Model RM/969 with SIM NO.
8991735050461389455N (MO20) and also Blue colour Lungi (MO12) said to have been used by the Accused No.2 to wrap the dead body of the deceased are not proved by the prosecution.
20. Thus, though prosecution was able to prove the deceased Pathuri Raju left home on 14.04.2019 to attend night duty and not returned home even after midnight of 15.04.2019 and he was found with head injury in a pit situated near Musthabad-
Jillella Road, it has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that A1 and A2 conspired and caused head injury to late Pathuri Raju and that A3 who is the father of the deceased abetted A1 and A2 and committed murder of Pathuri Raju. Thus, a reasonable doubt arose from the evidence of PW11, PW12, PW14, PW15 and PW16 as whether A1 and A2 are the persons who conspired and committed murder of the deceased on 15.04.2019 as alleged by the prosecution. The accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. These Points are accordingly answered.
Point No.2:
21.It is the version of the prosecution that Accused No.1 and 2 screened the evidence after committing murder of the deceased.
22.From the findings on Points 1 and 3, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove by substantial evidence and beyond all reasonable doubts that A1 and A2 conspired and committed murder of the deceased late Pathuri Raju on 15.04.2019. It is the version of the prosecution that after committing murder of the deceased A1 and A2 took his dead body and threw it into a pit situated on Musthabad-Jillella road and also kept their blood stained clothes in the house of one Mr. Saikumar who is a friend of Accused No.1 and also kept Lungi used to wrap the dead body of the deceased in nearby bushes, situated at the place where the dead body of the deceased was thrown. However, PW16 and PW17 not examined said Saikumar which is fatal to the prosecution case.
23.From the version of the prosecution when interrogated by PW14 in the presence of PW11 and PW12 and Accused No.2 showed the place where the dead body was thrown and it was recovered under Ex.P82 panchanama and rough sketch 19 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet was also prepared by PW15 in the presence of PW11 and PW12, later inquest over the dead body of the deceased was also conducted by PW15 in the presence of
PW11 and PW12. As already stated, PW11 and PW12 turned hostile. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that Accused No.1 and 2 screened the evidence as alleged by the prosecution. The point is accordingly answered.
Point No.4:
24.It is the version of the prosecution that Accused No.3 is none other than the father of the deceased. In the year 2018 dispute arose between him and the deceased who is his first wife’s son with regard to sharing of meat at the time of Vanabojanam and at that time the deceased threatened him that if he kills his (A3’s) second wife’s son, he would get the entire property and there would be no problem for his (deceased) family. With that intention he approached Accused No.1 and paid
Rs.50,000/- to him and expressed his readiness to spend even Rs.10,00,000/- for killing the deceased. Then A1 joined A2 and they both in pursuance of their plan made the deceased to come to the place of incident and committed murder of the deceased and threw away his dead body and also screened evidence, thereby he abetted A1 and A2 in committing murder of his first wife’s son late Pathuri Raju.
However, on the findings of points 1 and 3 the prosecution failed to prove even
Ex.P97 which is confession statement of A3.
25.As per the version of the prosecution basing on confession statement of A3,
PW6 was examined. But there is no whisper in the evidence of PW6 who is elder of
Reddy Association (Sangam) as to any dispute between the deceased and Accused
No.3 at the time of Vanabojanam in the year 2018. He only stated that on 16.04.2019 PW5 told him that he was informed by PW14 that A2 had taken away the deceased in a car and killed him by throwing a stone on him. Then, he and PW5 rushed to the place of incident and they found dead body of deceased Pathuri Raju with an injury on his left shoulder and on the left side of his fore head. It is pertinent to note, he having stated so in his chief examination, he again stated in his cross- examination that he has not stated before the police about his coming to know from
PW3 that her son not returned home from duty or that he found injury on his left shoulder and on the left side of his forehead.
26.Thus, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove that Accused No.3 abetted 20 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
Accused No.1 and 2 to commit murder of the deceased. The point is accordingly answered.
Point No.5:
27.From the findings on Points 1 to 4, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove by substantial evidence and beyond all reasonable doubts that A3 who decided to kill his son late Pathuri Raju (deceased) who threatened him that to kill his second wife’s son, approached Accused No.1 and that Accused No.1 who received some advance from Accused No.3, conspired with Accused No.2 brought the deceased on his motorcycle to the place of incident, then Accused No.2 hit head of the deceased with a step stone and after that he (A1) and A2 beat the deceased with stones and bricks and killed him and wrapped his dead body with a new Lungi and threw it in a pit situated beside the road running from Musthabad to Jillella and also kept Lungi in bushes and their blood stained clothes in the house of their friend Sai Kumar and
A1 to A3 are entitled for benefit of doubt. The point is accordingly answered.
28.IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 and 2 are found Not Guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of IPC and Accused No.3 is found
Not Guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 302 of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC, and they are acquitted of those offences under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 to 3 shall continue to be in force for six months from today. MO9 Motorcycle bearing Registration No. AP 15 AY 7512 which was already given as interim custody to its owner shall be made absolute.
MO13 Hero Passion Plus Blue Colour Bike bearing Registration No.AP 29 F 9235 shall be returned to its owner namely Gaddam Mahender Reddy (PW8) under proper identification and acknowledgment. MO14 White Colour Maruthi Swift Dezire Car bearing Registration No. AP 11 AM 9405 which was already given as interim custody to its owner shall be made absolute. MO1 to MO8, MO10 to MO12, MO15 to MO20 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2024.
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, SIDDIPET.
21 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION SIDE:
PW1Sri Kasthuri Janardhan Reddy
PW2Sri Mogulla Jaipal
PW3Smt. Pathuri Jayamma
PW4Sri Merugu Raja Shekar
PW5Sri Kasthurim Bapu Reddy
PW6Sri Kasthuri Laxma Reddy
PW7Sri S.Vinodh Kumar
PW8Sri Gaddam Mahender Reddy
PW9Sri Pulle Kishan Goud
PW10Sri Chetri Nagaraju
PW11Sri Manne Bhoomalingam
PW12Sri Usike Ramulu
PW13Sri Dr.P.srinivas Rao
PW14Sri S.Koteshwar Rao
PW15Sri A.Nandeeshwar Reddy
PW16Sri M.Venkat Ramaiah
PW17Sri K.Surender Reddy
DEFENCE WITNESSES:
- NONE -
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P1Complainant
Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2
Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4
Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4
Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW6
Ex.P6161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW9
Ex.P7Two (2) positive Photos (car)
Ex.P8161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW10
Ex.P9Signature of PW11 on the confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P10Signature of PW11 on the confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P11Signature of PW11 on the confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P12Signature of PW11 on the Dead body Recovery panchanama
Ex.P13Signature of PW11 on the Dead body Recovery panchanama
Ex.P14 Signature of PW11 on the Rough sketch attached with Dead body 22 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
Recovery panchanama
Ex.P15Signature of PW11 on the Inquest panchanama
Ex.P16Signature of PW11 on the inquest panchanama
Ex.P17Signature of PW11 on the inquest panchanama
Ex.P18Signature of PW11 on the Inquest panchanama
Ex.P19Signature of PW11 on the inquest panchanama
Ex.P20Signature of PW11 on the inquest panchanama
Ex.P21Signature of PW11 Scene of offence cum Recovery panchanama
Ex.P22Signature of PW11 on Rough sketch
Ex.P23Signature of PW11 on Recovery panchanama for cloths of deceased
Ex.P24Signature of PW11 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P25Signature of PW11 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P26Signature of PW11 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P27Signature of PW11 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P28Signature of PW11 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P29 Signature of PW11 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P30Signature of PW11 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P31Signature of PW11 on Recovery of Vehicle and Mobile from accused No.2
Ex.P32Signature of PW11 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1
Ex.P33Signature of PW11 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1
Ex.P34Signature of PW11 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1
Ex.P35Signature of PW11 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1
Ex.P36Signature of PW11 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1
Ex.P37Signature of PW11 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1
Ex.P38Signature of PW11 on Recovery mobile panchanama, marked through A1
Ex.P39Signature of PW11 on Recovery of vehicle used by Accused No.1
ExP40Signature of PW11 on Recovery of car used in the Crime
Ex.P41Signature of PW11 on Recovery of cloths of the accused No.1
Ex.p42Signature of PW11 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A3
Ex.P43Signature of PW11 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A3
Ex.P44Signature of PW11 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A3
Ex.P45Signature of PW12 on the confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P46Signature of PW12 on the confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P47Signature of PW12 on the confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P48.Signature of PW12 on the Recovery of Dead body panchanama
Ex.P49Signature of PW12 on the Recovery of Dead body panchanama 23 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
Ex.P50Signature of PW12 on the Rough sketch attached with Recovery of Dead body
Ex.P51Signature of PW12 on the Inquest panchanama
Ex.P52Signature of PW12 on the inquest panchanama
Ex.P53Signature of PW12 on the inquest panchanama
Ex.P54Signature of PW12 on the Inquest panchanama
Ex.P55Signature of PW12 on the inquest panchanama
Ex.P56Signature of PW12 on the inquest panchanama
Ex.P57Signature of PW12 Scene of offence cum Recovery panchanama
Ex.P58Signature of PW12 on Rough sketch
Ex.P59Signature of PW12 on Recovery of cloths of deceased
Ex.P60Signature of PW12 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P61Signature of PW12 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P62Signature of PW12 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P63Signature of PW12 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P64Signature of PW12 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P65Signature of PW12 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P66Signature of PW12 on Confession panchanama of A2
Ex.P67Signature of PW12 on Recovery of Vehicle and Mobile from Accused No.2
Ex.P68Signature of PW12 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1
Ex.P69Signature of PW12 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1
Ex.P70Signature of PW12 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1
Ex.P71Signature of PW12 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1
Ex.P72Signature of PW12 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1
Ex.P73Signature of PW12 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1
Ex.P74Signature of Pw12 on Recovery mobile panchanama through A1
Ex.P75Signature of PW12 on Recovery of vehicle used by Accused No.1
Ex.P76Signature of PW12 on Recovery of car used in the Crime
Ex.P77Signature of PW12 on Recovery of cloths of the accused No.1
Ex.P78Signature of PW12 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A3
Ex.P79Signature of PW12 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A3
Ex.P80Signature of PW12 on Confession cum recovery panchanama of A3
Ex.P81Post Mortem Examination through PW13
Ex.P82Recovery of Dead body panchanama through PW14
Ex.P83Confession cum recovery panchanama of A2 through PW14
Ex.P84Section Alteration letter through PW14 24 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
Ex.P85Rough sketch marked through PW15
Ex.P86Inquest panchanama marked through PW15
Ex.P87Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama marked through PW15
Ex.P88Rough sketch marked through PW15
Ex.P89Seizure panchanama of cloths of deceased, marked through PW15
Ex.P90Relevant portion of the confession of A2 marked through PW16
Ex.P91Seizure panchanama of Vehicle of A2 and mobile (Silver colour LYF company mobile phone) marked though PW16
Ex.P92Relevant portion in the confession panchanama of A1 marked through PW16
Ex.P93Seizure panchanama relating to Mobile phone samsung duo smart phone gold colour and blue colour Lungi marked through PW16
Ex.P94Seizure panchanama relating to Hero Passion Plus Blue Colour Bearing Regd. No.AP 29 F/9235.
Ex.P95Seizure panchanama relating to white colour Maruthi Swift Desire Car bearing Regd. no.AP 11 AM 9405.
Ex.P96Seizure panchanama relating to two blue colour jean pants, one light pink colour shirt and one black colour T shirt.
Ex.P97Relevant portion in the confession panchanama of A3
Ex.P98F.S.L. Report marked through PW17
Ex.P99Original FIR issued by PW14
DEFENCE EXHIBITS:
--Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
MO-1Stone
MO-2Water bottle
MO-3Cement Brick
MO-4Voter ID
MO-5Driving License
MO-6Blood stained shirt of the deceased
MO-7Blood stained banyan of the deceased
MO-8Silver colour LYF Company mobile phone.
MO-9Motor cycle bearing Regd.No.AP 15 Ay/7512
MO-10Samsung due model SMB313E/D.
MO-11Samsung due smart phone gold colour
MO-12Blue colour Lungi
MO13Hero passion plus blue colour bike bearing Regd. No.AP 29 F/9235 25 SC 197 of 2021 Prl.Dist.&Sessions Court,Siddipet
MO-14White colour Maruthi swift desire card bearing Regd.No. AP 11 AM 9405 ( its photographs of MO14 was marked as Ex.P7 and MO14 is had already be given interim custody to the registered owner)
MO-15Two blue colour jeen pants.
MO-16One Light pink colour shirt
MO-17One black colour T shirt
MO-18Samsung white colour keypad phone with IMEA No. 354322/06/763236/4
MO-19Mobile phone with IMEa No. 354322/06/76/3236/2 with airtel SIM No. 899149030462458407H-2.
MO-20Mobile phone SIM No. 355774/06/570414/3 model RM/969 with SIM No. 8991735050461389455N.
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, SIDDIPET.