Sri. T Venkateswara Reddy

1 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

IN THE COURT OF THE V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

Monday, the 3rd day of December. 2018.

PRESENT: Sri T. VENKATESWARA REDDY,

III-Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal, FAC.V-Addl. Sessions Judge, II-FTC, Warangal at Jangaon.

SESSIONS CASE NO.372 OF 2014.

(Preliminary Registration Case No.6 of 2014 on the file of the Addl. Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Jangaon – Crime No.106 of 2013 of Police Station

Palakurthy.)

1.Committed by :Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon.

2.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through complainanttheInspectorofPolice, Palakurthy police station.

3.Names and description of the:A1 Vakiti Ramu, S/o. Yadagiri, accused Age 22 years, Mudiraj, Mechanic, R/o. Palakurthy.

A2 Naraboina Ramesh, S/o. Yadagiri, 22 years, Mudiraj, R/o. Palakurthy.

A3 Yellaboina Samesh, S/o. Sommallu, 24 years, Mudiraj, Agriculture, R/o. Palakurthy.

A4 Jeedi Kavitha, W/o. Srinivas, Age 25 years, Mudiraj, Agriculture, R/o. Palakurthy.

4.Prosecution conducted by:Smt. P. Urvashi, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

5.Accused defended by:Sri K. Ambareesh Rao, Advocate.

6.Offences charged:Sec.120-B of IPC against A1 to A4 and Sec.302 r/w 34 and 201 of IPC against A1 and A2.

7.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

2 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

8.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

9.Sentence or Order:A1 to A4 are acquitted under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C.

This Sessions Case is coming on 26.11.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. P. Urvashi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri K. Ambareesh Rao, Advocate for all the accused; after hearing the arguments of both the sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Inspector of Police, Palakurthy police station filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in crime No.106 of 2013 of Police Station

Palakurthy under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the defacto-complainant is the brother of the deceased

Jampala Mohan. Jampala Mohan was running a Barber shop at Palakurthy and he is an unmarried person. The deceased Jampala Mohan and his mother were residing at Palakurthy. On 24.6.2013 at 7.00 A.M., the defacto-complainant lodged a written complaint stating that on 23.6.2013 at about 9.30 P.M., the accused No.1 and 2, who are the friends of the deceased, came to the house and took the deceased along with them.

Prior to this, a quarrel took place between the accused No.2 and the deceased as the deceased eve teased the sister of the accused No.2. On 24.6.2013 Gollapalli Sekhar informed that the dead body of the deceased was found in a pit at Maidanam kunta. On that the defacto-complainant and his mother went there and found the dead body of the deceased in a pit at Maidanam kunta. In the complaint, the defacto-complainant stated that the accused No.1 and 2 might have been killed the deceased by cutting his throat. The then Sub Inspector of Police (LW.23) registered a case on the basis of the complaint of the defacto-complainant in crime

No.106 of 2013 under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code 3 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

and issued first information report. The then Circle Inspector of Police (LW.24) took up investigation in the case, examined the scene of offence in the presence of panchayatdars and seized the bloodstained earth and controlled earth from the scene of offence and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. The then Circle

Inspector of Police (LW.24) conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars and sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. The Doctor (LW.21), who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to “haemorrhagic shock and multiple injuries to vital organs (Lung, infective,

Haemopenitave).

During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the accused

No.1 and 2 are relatives and residents of Palakurthy village. The accused

No.3 and 4 are also residents of Palakurthy village. The accused No.3 and 4 are having extra marital relationship. The deceased Jampala Mohan misbehaved with the sister of the accused No.2 and in that connection, the accused No.2 quarreled with the deceased and the accused No.2 waiting for an opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. The deceased Jampala Mohan asked the accused No.1 that the deceased will maintain illegal affair with the accused No.4 and requested the accused

No.1 to mediate between the deceased and the accused No.4. The accused No.1 refused for the same and informed the same to the accused

No.4. 13 days prior to the incident, the accused No.1 to 3 met near

Cheruvukatta and they hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased. The accused No.3 agreed to give cash of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused No.1 and 2 to meet the expenditure to eliminate the deceased. On 23.6.2013 the accused No.1 and 3 consumed liquor in the shop of Mallaiah (LW.13).

4 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

The accused No.1 and 2 purchased a knife from Manikantha Book Shop for

Rs.20/- and they also purchased I.B. full bottle liquor from

Santhoshimatha Wines and they purchased chips in the Hotel of Takur

Jalram (LW.14). The accused No.1 and 2 went to the house of the deceased and they took the deceased to the outskirts of Palakurthy village and there the accused No.1 and 2 and the deceased consumed liquor. The accused No.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with the deceased on the ground that the deceased misbehaved with the sister of the accused

No.2 and propagating against the accused No.3 and 4 that they are having illegal intimacy. The accused No.2 broken the beer bottle and stabbed on the stomach of the deceased. The accused No.1 cut the throat of the deceased with the knife and on that the deceased fell down and they put the body of the deceased in a pit. The accused No.1 took the scooter of the deceased and went to Vavilala village and the accused

No.1 hide the scooter of the deceased nearby Rice Mill at Palakurthy village. Finger Prints Unit Inspector (LW.20) compared the chance prints collected at the scene of offence with the finger prints of the accused and issued report that finger prints available on the plastic bottle and glasses are matching with the finger prints of the accused No.1 and 2. Thus, the case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 to 4 committed criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased and in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, the accused No.1 and 2 committed murder of the deceased and they threw the dead body of the deceased in a pit to screen the evidence of murder.

2.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, took the case on file under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 to 4 in Preliminary Register Case No.6 of 2014 and furnished the copies of case documents to the accused on their 5 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

appearance before the Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, committed the case against the

accused to the Court of Sessions, Warangal division, Warangal, for disposal of the same in accordance with law.

3.The Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, took the case on file in

Sessions Case No.372 of 2014 and made over the same to this Court for

disposal of the same in accordance with law.

4.After hearing the arguments submitted by both side counsel, charge under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 to 4, charge under Section 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal

Code against the accused No.1 and 2 were framed and the same were read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 4 in Telugu. To which, the accused No.1 to 4 denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To substantiate the charges, the prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 19 and got marked Exts.P1 to P23. After examination of Pws.1 to 19, the prosecution closed its side evidence by giving up the evidence of witnesses cited as LW.6, LW.21, LW.22 and LW.24 in the memo of the evidence. Thus after examination of Pws.1 to 19, the prosecution closed its side evidence.

6.PW.1 is the defacto-complainant and brother of the deceased. PW.2 is mother of the deceased. PW.3 is wife of PW.1. Pws.4 to 7 are residents of Palakurthy village and they are circumstantial witnesses. PW.8 is the

Wine shop owner, who sold the liquor and water to the accused. PW.9 is

Sweet shop owner, Palakurthy, in which shop the accused purchased the chips. PW.10 is resident of Palakurthy, who noticed the accused in the 6 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

company of the deceased. PW.11 is the resident of Palakurthy, who pacified the issues between the deceased and the accused No.2. PW.12 is the Worker in Manikantha Book stall, where the accused No.1 purchased the knife. PW.13 is resident of Palakurthy, who noticed the accused No.1 and 3 consuming liquor prior to the incident. PW.14 and PW.16 are the panch witnesses for confession of the accused and seizure of incriminating material at the instance of the accused. PW.15 is a

Photographer, who photographed the dead body of the deceased found at the scene of offence. PW.17 is panch witness for scene of offence observation panchanama and for inquest panchanama. PW.18 is the

Finger Prints Unit Inspector, who compared the chance finger prints of the accused obtained at the scene of offence with the finger prints of the accused. PW.19 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case and issued first information report.

7.Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on complaint. Exts.P2 to P14 are the

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of Pws.1 to 13 respectively. Ex.P15 is (8)

Photographs. Ex.P16 is the confession and recovery panchanama of the accused No.2. Ex.P17 is the confession and recovery panchanama of the accused No.1. Ex.P18 is the confession panchanama of the accused No.3.

Ex.P19 is the confession panchanama of the accused No.4. Ex.P20 is the seizure panchanama of the accused No.1. Ex.P21 is the seizure panchanama of the accused No.2. Ex.P22 is the Inquest report of the deceased. Ex.P23 is the First information report.

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused are examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., in order to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against the accused. To which, the accused denied the incriminating 7 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against them and stated that they have no defence witness to be examined on their behalf.

9.Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsel.

10.Now the points that arises for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt

of the accused No.1 to 4 of the offences for

which they stand charged beyond reasonable

doubt?

2. To what result?

11.POINT No.1: The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the accused are residents of Palakurthy village. There are ill-feelings between the accused No.2 and the deceased as the deceased misbehaved with the sister of the accused No.2. Further, the deceased propagated the illegal relationship of the accused No.3 and 4 and the deceased asked the accused No.1 to mediate between the deceased and the accused No.4 as the deceased wants to develop illicit contact with the accused No.4. Thus, as per the prosecution version there were ill-feelings between the accused No.1 to 4 and the deceased and they were waiting for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased and all of them hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased and in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased, the accused No.1 and 2 took the deceased from his house to the scene of offence and there the accused

No.1, accused No.2 and the deceased consumed liquor and after that, the accused No.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with the deceased and the accused

No.1 stabbed the deceased on his stomach with broken beer bottle and the accused No.2 cut the throat of the deceased.

8 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

12.Admittedly there are no eye witnesses to the incident and entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. In a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RUKIA BEGUM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in AIR 2011 SC 1585, the Apex court held as under:

“When a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish that the circumstances proved lead to one and the only conclusion towards the guilt of the accused. Circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but inconsistent with his innocence.”

In JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in AIR 2012 SC 2600, the Apex Court held as under:

“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 establish circumstances are consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.”

From the judgments of the Apex Court, referred to above, it is clear that a duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove the circumstances relied upon and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should form chain of events connecting the accused with the crime.

Since the case on hand is based on circumstantial evidence, we shall now peruse the evidence to find out as to whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution form a chain so as to connect the accused with the crime.

13.The prosecution relied upon the following circumstances to fix the crime on the accused.

i.The death of the deceased is a homicidal death.

9 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

ii.There were ill-feelings between the accused No.1 to 4 with the deceased as the deceased misbehaved with the sister of the accused No.2 and as the deceased wants to develop illegal intimacy with the accused No.4.

iii.The accused No.1 and 2 came to the house of the deceased on the date of alleged incident and took the deceased to the scene of offence.

iv.The deceased was found in the company of the accused No.1 and 2 on the date of alleged incident.

v.Chance finger prints lifted by the Finger Prints Inspector (Pw.18) are matched with the finger prints of the accused

No.1 and 2.

vi.Purchase of liquor by the accused No.1 and 2 from the shop of PW.8 and purchase of food material i.e., chips by the accused No.1 and 2 from the shop of PW.9.

vii. Confession of the crime by the accused No.1 to 3 in the presence of PW.14 and PW.16.

14.With regard to the circumstance that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death, the accused No.1 to 4 are not disputing the same.

Further, from the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 it is clear that the dead body of the deceased was found at the scene of offence with injuries and there is a postmortem examination report to the effect that the deceased died as he sustained multiple injuries to vital organs. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has proved the circumstance that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death. Now it has to been seen whether the prosecution has established the other circumstances to connect that the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased and the accused No.1 and 2 are the persons, who committed murder of the deceased in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy of the accused No.1 to 4.

10 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

15.PW.1 is the defacto complainant and PW.2 is mother of the deceased. PW.3 is wife of PW.1. Pws.1 to 3 have not stated any incriminating material against the accused. The evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is not to the effect that the accused No.1 and 2 came to the house of the deceased and took the deceased to the scene of offence. Hence, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstance that the accused No.1 and 2 came to the house of the deceased and took the deceased to the scene of offence. Further, Pws.1 to 3 have not stated any motive aspect on the part of the accused No.1 to 4 to kill the deceased.

As per the prosecution version, PW.11 who is resident of Palakurthy, pacified the dispute between the accused No.2 and the deceased. But in the evidence, PW.11 has not supported the prosecution case. Since there are no eye witnesses to the incident, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove motive aspect on the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. But the prosecution has not established the motive aspect projected by the prosecution on the accused No.1 to 4 to kill the deceased.

16.As per the prosecution version, PW.10 noticed the deceased in the company of the accused No.1 and 2 on the date of alleged incident. But in the evidence, PW.10 has not supported the prosecution case and the evidence of PW.10 is not to the effect that he noticed the deceased in the company of the accused No.1 and 2. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstance that the deceased was found in the company of the accused No.1 and 2 as on the date of the incident.

17.As per the prosecution version, the accused No.1 purchased knife from the shop of PW.12. In the evidence, PW.12 has not supported the 11 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

prosecution case and the evidence of PW.12 is not to the effect that the accused No.1 and 2 purchased a knife from his shop. Similarly, the Wine shop owner PW.8 and Sweet shop owner PW.9 have also not supported the prosecution case. PW.4, PW.5, PW.6 and PW.7 the circumstantial witnesses to speak about the motive aspect and disputes between the accused No.2 and the deceased have also not supported the prosecution case.

18.Coming to the confession of the accused No.1 to 3, PW.14 and

PW.16 are the confessional panchayatdars. Both PW.14 and PW.16 have not supported the prosecution case and their evidence is not to the effect that the accused No.1 to 3 confessed the offence as mentioned in

Exts.P16 to P21 confessional panchanamas and the evidence of PW.14 and PW.16 is not to the effect that the Inspector of Police recovered the material objects at the instance of the accused No.1 to 3 as mentioned in recovery panchanamas. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of incriminating material at the instance of the accused No.1 to 3 and the prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused No.1 to 3 confessed the crime before PW.14 and PW.16. Pws.1 to 14, PW.16 and

PW.17 are very material witnesses to prove the circumstances relied on by the prosecution to connect the accused with the murder of the deceased, but all the material witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 14, PW.16 and PW.17 have not supported the prosecution version. Though the prosecution cross examined Pws.1 to 15, PW.16 and PW.17, the prosecution has not elicited anything so as to fix the crime on the accused. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the motive aspect, last seen theory and other material circumstances to connect the accused with the murder of the deceased, the evidence of PW.18 Finger Prints Inspector is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. Further, the very recovery of water bottle, Whisky bottle 12 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

and plastic glasses from the scene of offence is not proved by the prosecution for the reason that the panch witnesses for the recovery of said objects have not supported the prosecution version. In view of this also the evidence of Finger Prints Inspector that the finger prints obtained from the material objects are identical or matching with the finger prints of the accused No.1 and 2 is not helpful the prosecution case and from that circumstance it is not safe to come to a conclusion that the accused are the persons who committed the murder of the deceased.

19.In view of above all reasons, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances to come to a conclusion that accused are the persons who committed murder of the deceased.

20.In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances to connect the accused with the crime. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused of the offences for which they stand charged beyond reasonable doubt and this point is answered against the prosecution.

21.POINT No.2: In view of my finding on Point No.1, it is held that the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offences for which they stand charged.

22.In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal code, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under

Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C., of the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall ordered to be continued for a period of six months from the date of judgment.

13 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

The unmarked non-valuable property involved in this case is ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Dictated to the Steno-Typist, after her transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this 3rd day of December, 2018.)

III-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL,

FAC.V-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1 Jampala Someshwar-NONE- PW.2 Jampala Yadamma PW.3 Jampala Rama PW.4 Jampala Bakkaiah PW.5 Gollapelli Sekhar PW.6 Shivarathri Somaiah PW.7 Gade Somi Reddy PW.8 Kammagani Somanna PW.9 Thakur Jalram PW.10 Kothi Bixapathi PW.11 Chityala Yakaiah PW.12 Polasa Srinivas PW.13 Thallapally Mallaiah PW.14 Guntipelli Srinivas PW.15 Rapolu Ramu PW.16 Pedduri Ramesh PW.17 Gayala Salaiah PW.18 N. Raghu (Finger Print Expert) PW.19 N. Prabhakar Reddy, SI.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 Signature of PW.1 on complaint. -NIL- Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P6 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5. Ex.P7 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P8 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7. Ex.P9 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8. Ex.P10 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9. Ex.P11 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10. Ex.P12 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.11. Ex.P13 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.12. Ex.P14 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.13.

14 of 14 SC No.372 of 2014/V-ASJC, Jangaon.

Ex.P15 (8) Photographs. Ex.P16 Confession & Recovery panchanama of A2. Ex.P17 Confession & Recovery panchanama of A1. Ex.P18 Confession panchanama of A.3. Ex.P19 Confession panchanama of A.4. Ex.P20 Recovery panchanama of A.1. Ex.P21 Recovery panchanama of A.2. Ex.P22 Inquest report. Ex.P23 First Information report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

III-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL,

FAC.V-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

1 of 7 SC No.330 OF 2015/V-ASJ, Jangaon.

IN THE COURT OF THE V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

Monday, the 12th day of November, 2018.

PRESENT: Sri T. Venkateswara Reddy,

III-Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal, FAC.V-Addl. Sessions Judge, II-FTC, Warangal at Jangaon.

SESSIONS CASE NO.330 OF 2015.

(Preliminary Registration Case No.5 of 2015 on the file of Addl. Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Jangaon – Crime No.183 of 2014 of PS

Bachannapet.)

1.Committed by :Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon.

2.Name and description of the :Sub Divisional Police Officer, complainantJangaon.

3.Name and description of the :A1 Cheera Venu, accused S/o. Iylaiah, Aged 23 years, Kuruma, Occ: Agriculture.

A2 Cheera Iylaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, 60 years, Caste: Kuruma, Occ: Agriculture.

A3 Cheera Iylamma, W/o. Iylaiah, 55 years, Kuruma, Occ: Agriculture.

All are R/o. Konney village, Bachannapet mandal.

A4 Bandru Saritha, W/o. Siddulu, age 25 years, Kuruma, Agriculture, R/o. Alair, Nalgonda district.

4.Prosecution conducted by:Smt. P. Urvashi, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

5.Accused defended by:Sri N. Siddulu, Advocate.

6.Offences charged:Under Secs.498-A, 304-B of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

7.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

8.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

9.Sentence or Order:Accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for 2 of 7 SC No.330 of 2015/V-ASJ, Jangaon.

the offences under Sections 498- A, 304-B of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

This Sessions Case is coming on 12.11.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. P. Urvashi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri N. Siddulu, Advocate for all the accused; after hearing the arguments of both the sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jangaon, filed the charge sheet in crime No.183 of 2014 of Bachannapet police station alleging that the accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased Cheera Mamatha @

Vasantha, the accused No.2 and 3 are in-laws of the deceased, the accused No.4 is sister of the accused No.1. The marriage of the deceased

Cheera Mamatha @ Vasantha was performed on 23.3.2014. The defacto complainant (LW.1) is the father of the deceased. On 26.11.2014 the defacto complainant lodged a written complaint before police stating that the accused No.1 to 4 subjected the deceased for mental and physical cruelty for additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/-. The deceased informed the same to her parents. The accused No.1 to 3 took away 13 goats belonging to the father of the deceased and without satisfying the same, the accused No.1 to 4 subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty for another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards additional dowry amount. On 26.11.2014 consumed pesticide poison due to the harassment of the accused No.1 to 4 and on the same day, the deceased died while undergoing treatment. On the basis of the said complaint, the then Sub

Inspector of Police, Bachannapet police station registered a case and the then Sub Divisional Police Officer (LW.24) investigated into the same and filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation against the accused No.1 to 4 under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and under Sections 3 of 7 SC No.330 OF 2015/V-ASJ, Jangaon.

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thus, the case of the prosecution is that the death of the deceased is a dowry death.

2.The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangoan, took the case on file against the accused No.1 to 4 under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in P.R.C. No.5 of 2015 and furnished the copies of case documents to the accused on their appearance before the Court. Since, the offences alleged against the accused are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, committed the case against the

accused to the Court of Sessions, Warangal division, Warangal for disposal of the same in accordance with law. The Principal Sessions Judge,

Warangal, took the case on file in Sessions Case No.330 of 2015 and made over the same to this Court for disposal of the same in accordance with law.

3.After hearing the both side counsel, charges under Sections 498-

A, 304-B of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused No.1 to 4 and the same were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To substantiate the charges, the prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 14 and got marked Exts.P1 to P16.

5.PW.1 is the defacto complainant and father of the deceased. PW.2 is mother, PW.3 and PW.6 are brothers, PW.5 is sister of the deceased.

PW.4 is brother of PW.2 and maternal uncle of the deceased. PW.7 is elder brother of the accused No.1. PW.8 is wife of PW.7. Pws.9 and 10 are the neighbours of the accused. PW.12 is the doctor, who conducted 4 of 7 SC No.330 of 2015/V-ASJ, Jangaon.

postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. PW.13 is

Tahsildar, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

PW.14 is Sub Divisional Police Officer, who investigated into the case and filed the charge sheet.

6.Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on complaint. Exts.P2, P4, P5, P6,

P7, P8, P9, P10, P11 , P12 are Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements of Pws.1, 3 to 11 respectively. Ex.P3 is Wedding card of the marriage of the deceased. Ex.P13 is Postmortem examination report of the deceased.

Ex.P14 is Inquest report. Ex.P15 is First Information report. Ex.P16 is FSL report.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in order to explain incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against the accused. To which, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against them and they stated that they have no defence witnesses to be examined on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsels.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused of the offences for which they stand charged beyond reasonable doubt.

10.POINT: The deceased is the wife of the accused No.1 and their marriage was performed on 23.3.2014. The accused No.2 and 3 are in- laws of the deceased. The accused No.4 is sister of the accused No.1.

Pws.1 and 2 are the parents, PW.3 is the brother, PW.5 is the sister of the 5 of 7 SC No.330 OF 2015/V-ASJ, Jangaon.

deceased. PW.7 is elder brother of the accused No.1. PW.8 is wife of

PW.7. The above relationship of the parties is not in dispute.

11.PW.12 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased along with another doctor (LW.21).

Ex.P13 is the Postmortem examination report of the deceased issued by

PW.12 doctor. As seen from PW.13, it is clear that the death of the deceased is a suicidal death and not a natural death. From this, the prosecution has established the unnatural death of the deceased. Now it has to be seen whether the accused No.1 to 4 are responsible for the death of the deceased and the death of the deceased is a dowry death.

12.Pws.1 to 6 are close relatives of the deceased and they are very material witnesses for the case of the prosecution. Similarly, Pws.9, 10 and 11 are the neighbours of the deceased and in view of this, they are also very material witnesses for the case of the prosecution to speak about their alleged harassment meted out by the deceased in the hands of the accused No.1 to 4 for additional dowry. Pws.1 to 6, Pws.9 to 11, who are the material witnesses to the case of the prosecution, have not supported prosecution case. The evidence of Pws.1 to 6, Pws.9 to 11 is not to the effect that the accused No.1 to 4 subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty for additional dowry amount. PW.7 who is the brother and PW.8 who is sister-in-law of the accused No.1, stated in their evidence that they do not know about the facts of the case and their evidence is not to the effect that the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment of the accused for additional dowry amount. Thus, only the material witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 11 examined by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case. Though the prosecution cross examined Pws.1 to 11, the prosecution has not elicited anything from the 6 of 7 SC No.330 of 2015/V-ASJ, Jangaon.

cross examination of Pws.1 to 11 so as to fix the crime on the accused.

PW.1, Pws.3 to 11 denied their statements recorded by the police under

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. and the same are marked as Exts.P2, P4 to P12 respectively. When the very material witnesses have not supported prosecution case, the evidence of PW.13 Tahsildar, who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and the evidence of PW.14 Sub

Divisional Police Officer, who investigated into the case is not helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove that the death of the deceased is a dowry death. Since, all the material witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 11 have not supported the prosecution case, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused of the offences for which they stand charged beyond the reasonable doubt and this point is answered against the prosecution.

13.In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, the accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. of the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall ordered to be in force for a period of six months from today.

The unmarked non-valuable property involved in this crime is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by the Steno-Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 12th day of November, 2018.)

FAC.V-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.

7 of 7 SC No.330 OF 2015/V-ASJ, Jangaon.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1 Jogu Sailu-None- PW.2 Jogu Mangamma PW.3 Jogu Anil PW.4 N. Mallaiah PW.5 K. Madhavi PW.6 K. Shankar PW.7 Ch. Mahender PW.8 Ch. Madhavi PW.9 M. Vani PW.10 Myla Siddi Ramulu PW.11 Malga Siddi Ramulu PW.12 Dr. Srinivas, CAS PW.13 V. Vijayasagar, MRO. PW.14 K. Surender, SDPO.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1 Signature of PW.1 on complaint. Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P3 Wedding Invitation card of A.1 (marked thr. PW.2). Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P6 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5. Ex.P7 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P8 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7. Ex.P9 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8. Ex.P10 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9. Ex.P11 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10. Ex.P12 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.11. Ex.P13 PME report (marked thr.PW.12) Ex.P14 Inquest report (marked thr.PW.13). Ex.P15 FIR (marked thr.PW.14). Ex.P16 RFSL reportl (marked thr.PW.14).

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

FAC.V-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.