IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS: SESSIONS DIVISION::
SRIKAKULAM.
BEFORE THE SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.
PRESENT: V.APPA RAO.
SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.
DATED THIS THE MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015.
SESSIONS CASE No.109 of 2014
(PRC No.19/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, arising out of Crime No.58 of 2010 of Santhakaviti Police Station)
Between:-
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajam circle. Complainant. And:
1. Kurmana Dharma Rao, S/o late Narayana, aged 52 years.
2. Boddepalli Parvathi Rao, S/o late Mallesu, aged 50 years (died)
3. Gurugubelli Trinadha Rao, S/o late Ramulu, aged 50 years.
4. Tammineni Raja Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, aged 38 years.
5. Gurugubelli Sridhar, S/o Trinadha, aged 22 years.
6. Boddepalli Udayachalam, S/o late Mallesu, aged 48 years.
7. Boddepalli Lokanadham, S/o late Mallesu, aged 38 years.
8. Pydi Mohana Rao, S/o Mallesu, aged 20 years. All are Kalinga by caste, R/o Gujjannapeta village, Santhakaviti Mandal. (Case against A.2 is abated as per order dated 15.10.2014.) Accused.
Date of offence: 26.09.2010 at 19.30 hours.
Date of report/complaint: 27.09.2010 at 05.00 hours.
Date of appearance of the accused: 16.02.2012
Date of commitment: 03.10.2012
Date of commencement of trial: 01.07.2015
Date of sentence or order: 07.12.2015.
Explanation for the delay:
a) In the committal court : ( Vide separate docket extract of the lower court)
b) In this Court :
After receiving the record from the committal court, the case was taken on file on 01.09.2014 and summons issued to the accused. The accused has appeared on 01.10.2014. On 27.03.2015 charges under Sections 148 and 2 341 of the Indian Penal Code against A.1, A.3 to A.8; charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against A.1, A.3 and A.4; charge under section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code against A.5 to A.8; charge under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against A.5 to A.8 and charge under section 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code against A.1, a.3 and A.4 were framed. Therefore, the case underwent some adjournments at the request of the defence. On 06.04.2015 trial schedule was fixed from 01.06.2015. On 01.06.2015 on the petition filed by the accused, the trial schedule is cancelled and issue retrial schedule from 01.07.2015. On 01.07.2015 PWs.1 and 2, on 02.07.2015 PW.3; on 03.07.2015 PW.4; on 06.07.2015 PWs.5 and 6; on 07.7.2015 PW.7; on 08.07.2015 the counsel for accused filed a petition to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 vide Crl.M.P.315/2015 is pending. On 10.07.2015 P.Ws.8 and 9 were examined and P.W.10 examined in chief; On 13.07.2015 P.W.10 is examined. On 24.07.2015 Crl.M.P.318/2015 is allowed and P.W.1 is recalled and further cross examined and prosecution evidence was closed. On 06.08.2015 the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.,
Thereafter, the case underwent some adjournments at the request of defence, the case underwent adjournments for arguments till 09.11.2015. On 17.11.2015 arguments were heard and posted for judgment to 24.11.2015. On 24.11.2015
Public Prosecutor filed petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C. and posted to 30.11.2015. On 30.11.2015 Crl.M.P.583/2015 is allowed and heard further arguments. On 07.12.2015 the judgment is pronounced.
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDG,
SRIKAKULAM.
3
IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS: SESSIONS DIVISION::
SRIKAKULAM.
BEFORE THE SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.
PRESENT: V.APPA RAO.
SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.
DATED THIS THE MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015.
SESSIONS CASE No.109 of 2014
(PRC No.19/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, arising out of Crime No.58 of 2010 of Santhakaviti Police Station)
Between:-
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajam circle. Complainant. And:
1. Kurmana Dharma Rao, S/o late Narayana, aged 52 years.
2. Boddepalli Parvathi Rao, S/o late Mallesu, aged 50 years (died)
3. Gurugubelli Trinadha Rao, S/o late Ramulu, aged 50 years.
4. Tammineni Raja Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, aged 38 years.
5. Gurugubelli Sridhar, S/o Trinadha, aged 22 years.
6. Boddepalli Udayachalam, S/o late Mallesu, aged 48 years.
7. Boddepalli Lokanadham, S/o late Mallesu, aged 38 years.
8. Pydi Mohana Rao, S/o Mallesu, aged 20 years. All are Kalinga by caste, R/o Gujjannapeta village, Santhakaviti Mandal. (Case against A.2 is abated as per order dated 15.10.2014.) Accused.
Prosecution was conducted by:-Sri T.Chandrasekhara Rao, Public Prosecutor, Srikakulam.
Accused was defended by:Sri D.V.Chowdary, Sri K.Srirama Murthy, and Sri B.Srinivasulu Reddy, Advocates, Srikakulam.
Offence charged:Under sections 148, 341, 302, 302 read with 149, 324 and 324 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Judge:Accused 1, 3 to 8 found guilty of the offences.
Sentence or order:In the result, the accused Nos.1, 3 to 8 are convicted under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C., and they are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000-00 (Rupees two thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine amounts, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. They are further sentenced to 4 undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.200-00 (Rupees two hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) days each.
The accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000-00 (Rupees ten thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months each for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused Nos.5 to 8 are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000-00 (Rupees ten thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months each for the offence under section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused 5 to 8 are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each and shall also pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) months each for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused 1, 3 and 4 are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each and shall also pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) months each for the offence under section 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The substantial sentences of imprisonment for the above mentioned offences imposed on the accused except for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code are ordered to run concurrently.
M.O.1-knife; M.O.3-Iron Kathuva; M.O.5-Teeth; M.O.8-Iron Kathuva; M.O.9-Iron rod and M.O.10- chappels (not in useful condition); M.O.12-four sticks, M.O.13-shirt; M.O.14-pant; M.O.15-banion and M.O.16-drawer shall be destroyed and M.O.2-TVS victor motor cycle bearing No.AP.30 D/5027, M.O.6- Pagadapu Gold ring, M.O.7-Block stone gold ring belonging to the deceased-Raminaidu shall be returned to his wife P.W.3-Gurugubelli Hemalatha Kumari (P.W.3) after expiry of appeal time.
This case was committed to the Court of the Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. by Smt.V.Lakshmi Rajyam, Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Rajam, as per order dt.03.10.2012 in P.R.C.No.19/2011.
5
J U D G M E N T
1.All the accused were charge sheeted for the offences under sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.58/2010 of Santhakaviti Police Station by L.W.25-S.Seshibushana Rao, Inspector of Police,
Rajam Circle.
2.The facts of the prosecution case as culled out from the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and from the prosecution case records are as follows:
(a) One Gurugubelli Raminaidu @ Rama Rao (here in after referred to as ‘deceased’) is resident of Gujjannapeta village of Santhakaviti Mandal.
Gurugubelli Kiran (L.W.1), Gurugubelli Ramana (L.W.6) and Gurugubelli
Kondayya (L.W.7) are the brothers of the deceased Raminaidu and their father is
Gurugubelli Appanna (L.W.4). Gurugubelli Hemalatha Kumari (L.W.5) is the wife of the deceased-Raminaidu.
(b)All the accused are residents of Gujjannapeta village. The deceased-
Raminaidu is the strong supporter of the ‘Telugudesam’ party where as the accused are the supports of ‘Congress’ party headed by accused No.1-Kurmana
Dharma Rao and accused No.3-Gurugubelli Trinadha Rao. There were ill-feelings and political rivalry between these two groups and disputes also arose between the deceased-Raminaidu and A.3-Trinadha Rao in respect of vacat site in an extent of
Ac.0.07 cents located in the backyard of the house of A.3-Trinadha Rao. A civil suit in O.S.No.61/1004 in respect of the vacant site was decreed in favour of A.3-
Trinadha Rao. There after when a tamarind tree situate in the said vacant site fell down and when A.3-Trinadha Rao tried to remove the said fallen tamarind tree, the deceased-Raminaidu objected for it. The deceased and his followers by forming into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons attacked and beat the group of A.3-Trinadha Rao which is the subject matter of Cr.No.61/2008 under sections 147, 148, 307, 324, 323 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code of 6
Santhakaviti Police Station and the Sessions Case No.151/2009 pending on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Srikakulam. Therefore, all the accused bore grudge against the deceased-Raminaidu and his family members and were waiting for an opportunity and do away the life of the deceased-Raminaidu.
(c) While so, on 26.09.2010 afternoon, the deceased and his brother
Gurugubelli Kiran (L.W.1) went to the house of in-laws of the deceased-
Raminaidu at Tolapi village on their TVS Victor motor cycle bearing No.AP.30 D 5027 and they were returning to their village after completion of their work.
Having come to know the same, all the accused were waiting by hiding in the bushes by the side of Narayanapuram canal bund between Panasapeta and
Buradapeta villages arming with knifes, iron rods and stout sticks. When the deceased-Raminaidu and his brother Kiran (L.W.1) reached near Narayanapuram canal bund near the field of L.W.10-Gurugubelli Ramachandra Rao around 07.30 p.m., night, all the accused suddenly way laid their motor cycle and attacked and beat the deceased-Raminaidu with knives, iron rods and stout sticks by forming themselves into an unlawful assembly. A.1-Kurmana Dharma Rao with a knife,
A.2 to A.4 with iron rods and A.5 to A.8 with stout sticks beat the deceased on his head and all over the body and caused severe bleeding injuries on his head and all over the body, due to which, the deceased-Raminaidu died on the spot. When all the accused suddenly way laid and attacked the deceased-Raminaidu with knives and iron sticks, L.W.1-Kiran out of fear of life, jumped from the motor cycle and hidden in the nearby bushes and witnessed the attack and beating to the deceased-
Raminaidu by all the accused in the motor cycle lighting. After causing the death of the deceased, all the accused went away on hearing the words of some people coming on the way. Then, immediately L.W.1-Kiran ran to their village and informed the said incident of causing the death of the deceased-Raminaidu to their family members.
(d) On the same night at about 11.00 p.m., on receiving the information through L.W.2-Ponnada Prasad of Vasudevapatnam village about lying of the 7 dead body of the deceased-Raminaidu with injuries and his TVS Victor motor cycle at the scene of offence, L.W.24-Y.Hari Krishna, the then Sub Inspector of
Police, Santhakaviti police station and L.W.25-S.Sashibushana Rao, the then
Inspector of Police, Rajam circle rushed to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased lying down in a pool of blood and also the TVS motor cycle, went to Gujjannapeta village by posting the constable to guard the scene of offence and reached the house of the deceased-Raminaidu and asked the family members of the deceased-Raminaidu to come to police station at Santhakaviti. On that, L.W.1-Kiran and the other family members of the deceased-Raminaidu due to fear of coming to Santhakaviti police station during that night informed
L.W.25-Sashibushana Rao, the then Inspector of Police that they would come to the police station in the early morning.
(f)On 27-09-2010 at about 05.00 a.m., early hours L.W.1-Kiran went to
Santhakaviti Police Station and lodged a written complaint against the accused and one Hanumanthu Kiran Kumar for causing the death of the deceased with L.W.24-
Y.Harikrishna, the then Sub Inspector of Police who registered a case in
Cr.No.58/2010 under sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302 read with 149 of the
Indian Penal Code and issued express first information report. L.W.25-
S.Sashibhushana Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Rajam took up investigation and reached the scene of offence in the morning, observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators namely Yellumahanti Anil Kumar and Tompala Rama
Rao (L.Ws.13 and 19) and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and got the scene of offence photographed and videographed. He also seized blood stained iron Kathuva boriga, TVS victor motor cycle, broken tooth, pair of chappals and two gold rings from the right hand fingers of the deceased-Raminaidu, hair, cell phone from the shirt of the deceased, controlled earth and blood stained earth during inspection of the scene of offence under the cover of scene observation report got drafted there. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased-Raminaidu in the presence of the inquest panchayatdars and in the 8 presence of the blood relatives of the deceased who were examined by him during the said inquest. Thereafter the dead body of the deceased was forwarded to
Government Hospital, Rajam for postmortem examination.
(g)L.W.22-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao, Medical Officer, Community
Health Centre, Rajam conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased on 27.09.2010 between 02.30 p.m., to 04.30 p.m., and issued postmortem examination report, final opinion opining that the cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury and hemorrhagic shock due to trauma.
(h)During the course of investigation, L.W.25-S.Sashibhushana Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Rajam arrested all the accused at Mallayyapeta bus stop on 03.10.2010 at about 07.00 a.m., morning and on their interrogation, all the accused confessed to have committed murder of the deceased-Raminaidu and further disclosed that they would show the weapons used by them in the commission of murder of the deceased-Raminaidu which was recorded by
L.W.25-S.Sashibhushana Rao, the then Inspector of Police in the confessional mediators’ report. Pursuant their disclosure statements, all the accused took
L.W.25-S.Sashibhushana Rao, the then Inspector of Police and mediators to jute crop field of Thammineni Sanyasi Rao near B.S.N.L., Tower, near Seshadripuram village at about 11.30 a.m., and accused No.1 produced a knife; accused No.2 produced Kathuva boriga; accused 3 and 4 produced two iron rods and accused
Nos.5 to 8 produced four stout sticks which were hidden by them in the said jute crop and which were seized by the Inspector of Police under the cover of seizure mediators report got drafted there and all the accused were forwarded to Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Rajam for judicial remand.
(i)During further investigation, L.W.25-S.Sashibhushana Rao, the then
Inspector of Police, Rajam forwarded all the material objects seized in this case and viscera and other items collected and preserved by the Medical Officer in the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased-Raminaidu to Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for analysis. On receipt of the 9 postmortem report and final opinion of the Medical Officer and on receipt of the reports of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Visakhapatnam and on completion of investigation, L.W.25-S.Sashibhushana Rao, the then Inspector of
Police, Rajam laid charge sheet against the accused 1 to 8 for the above mentioned offences on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam by deleting the name of Hanumanthu Kiran Kumar @ Kiran as his complicity in this crime is not established during his investigation.
3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Rajam had taken cognizance of the case against all the accused for the offence under sections 147, 148, 324, 341 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
4.On appearance of all the accused before the court of Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Rajam and after copies of documents as required under
section 207 of Cr.P.C., were duly furnished to all the accused and upon considering the material available on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Rajam committed this case to the Court of Sessions, Sessions
Division, Srikakulam under section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C., and on receipt of records from committal court, this Sessions case registered this case and issued summons to all the accused for their appearance before this court.
5.On appearance of all the accused before this court and upon hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused and after accused were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C., and after they denied the offences, charges under sections 148 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code against A.1, A.3 to A.8; charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against
A.1, A.3 and A.4; charge under section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal
Code against A.5 to A.8; charge under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against A.5 to A.8 and charge under section 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal
Code against A.1, A.3 and A.4) were framed and the contents of the said charges were read over and explained to all the accused in Telugu. All those accused pleaded not guilty of the said charges and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was 10 posted for trial. A.2 reported died on 26.06.2014 and hence, the case against A.2 is abated on 15.10.2014.
6.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, and to prove the above charges against the accused, 10 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and
Exs.P.1 to P.21 and M.Os.1 to 16 were got marked
7.After prosecution evidence was closed, all the accused (A.1, A.3 to
A.8) were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., upon the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the said incriminating material appearing against them and also the offences. They further stated that they have no witnesses to be examined on their behalf in defence.
8.Arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused have been heard.
9.Now, the following points that arose for consideration are; (1) Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1, 3 to 8 for the offences under sections 148 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?
(2) Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 for the offences under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the guilt of the accused Nos.5 to 8 for the offence under section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?
(3) Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused Nos.5 to 8 for the offence under section 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt? and to what result?
POINT Nos.1 to 3 :
10.In order to prove that the death of the deceased Raminaidu is an homicidal death, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.8-
Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centgre,
Rajam who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Raminaidu on 27.09.2010 between 02.30 p.m., and 04.30 p.m., He categorically deposed that during postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, the following injuries are found; 11
1. A lacerated injury of size 5 x 2inch x bone deep present horizontally over the middle of the occipital area.
2. A lacerated injury of size 3 x 1inch x bone deep present above the injury No.1.
3. A lacerated injury of size 1 x ½ x ½inch below the injury No.1.
4. An abrasion of size 1 x 1 inch on left arm medial side.
5. An abrasion of size 1 x 1 inch on left arm laterally.
6. An abrasion of size 5 x 1 inch on right leg laterally.
7. An abrasion of size 1 x 1 inch on right leg shin.
8. An abrasion of size 1 x 1 inch on the right leg laterally.
9. An abrasion of size 2 x 1 inch on the right ankle laterally.
10. An abrasion of size ½ x ½ inch on right dorsum foot.
11. Fracture of skull present over the occipital area in the region of injury No.1 and 2 which is of depressed in nature.
P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao also opined that all these injuries are ante-mortem in nature. His evidence further reveals that he issued Ex.P.15 postmortem report reserving his opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased pending Regional Forensic Science Laboratory’s report. P.W.10-S.Sashibhushana
Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Rajam deposed that he forwarded the viscera and other items collected and preserved by the Medical Officer i.e., P.W.8-
Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao during the postmortem examination to Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for analysis and he received Ex.P.21 Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory Report, in which the result of the chemical analysis of viscera and other items for analysis shows ‘no poisonous substance was found’ in them. Basing on the said Ex.P.21 Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report,
P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao issued his Ex.P.16 final opinion that the cause of death of the deceased to the best of his knowledge is due to head injury and hemorrhagic shock due to trauma. This evidence of P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna
Rao coupled with Ex.P.15 postmortem report and Ex.P.16, his opinion clearly established the fact that the death of the deceased Raminaidu is a homicidal one.
11.Now, it is to be seen whether all the accused caused the homicidal death of the deceased by forming into an unlawful assembly and by wrongfully restrained him (deceased) and by causing injuries on the head and other parts of the body with knife, iron rods and stout sticks etc. To prove the prosecution case 12 and the above charges framed against all the above accused, as I have state above, 10 witnesses are examined on behalf of the prosecution.
12.P.W.1-Gurugubelli Kiran is the younger brother of the deceased
Raminaidu. His evidence discloses that they belong to ‘Telugudesam’ p[arty where as the accused belong to ‘Congress’ party in their village and there were disputes between them and accused in respect of Ac.0.09 cents of land situate behind the house of A.3-Gurugubelli Trinadha Rao and in respect of that land,
A.3-Trinadha Rao filed a case against all their brothers including the deceased
Raminaidu and there was a tamarind tree in that Ac.0.09 cents of land and the said tree was fell down and when the accused was cutting the said tamarind tree, they obstructed them, on that, a galata took place among them and the accused filed a criminal case against his deceased brother and others who were acquitted by the court of Rajam. In his cross-examination, he denied the case of the accused that his father filed a civil suit in respect of that Ac.0.09 cents of land, but not A.3-
Trinadha Rao. However, P.W.1-Kiran admits that the said civil suit was decreed in favour of A.3-Trinadha Rao. He also admits that a criminal case was filed against them on the allegations that they all beat Hanumanthu Appala Naidu and others and some of these accused are witnesses in that case and his deceased brother was one of the accused in that case.
13.P.W.3-Gurugubelli Hemalatha Kumari, the wife of the deceased
Raminaidu also deposed corroborating the evidence of P.w.1-Kiran that they belongs to ‘Telugudesam’ party and the accused belong to ‘Congress’ party and there were disputes between them and the accused in respect of the Ac.0.09 cents of land situate behind the house of A.3-Trinadha Rao and the court decided the dispute in respect of the said Ac.0.09 cents of land in favour of the accused. She also deposed that there was a tamarind tree in that land and when the accused were cutting down the tamarind tree, they obstructed them, on that, a galata took place between themselves and the accused and a criminal case was registered against her husband and others.
13
14.P.W.4-Gurugubelli Kondayya, another brother of the deceased
Raminaidu also deposed corroborating the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 (Gurugubelli
Kiran and Gurugubelli Hemalatha Kumari) that they belongs to ‘Telugudesam’ party and the accused belongs to ‘Congress’ party and also deposed about the disputes between them in respect of Ac.0.09 cents of land and also about the criminal case filed against them by the accused. These disputes and party rivalry as spoken by P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 (Gurugubelli Kiran, Gurugubelli Hemalatha Kumari and Gurugubelli Kondayya) is not disputed by the accused as seen their cross examination. On the other hand, the accused also admit about these disputes between themselves and the deceased and his family members. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 clearly establish the political rivalry between the deceased and his family and the accused and also about both civil and criminal disputes filed against each other. It is therefore clearly establish that both the families of the deceased and accused are inimical terms having political rivalry.
15.It is therefore contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that due to the above disputes and political rivalry, the motive of the accused to do away the life of the deceased is established. Their disputes and political rivalry are not much disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the accused.
16.The evidence of P.W.1-Gurugubelli Kiran further shows that on 26.09.2010 himself and his deceased brother Raminaidu had gone to the in-laws house of the deceased in Topapi village on T.V.S.Victor motor cycle around 12.00 noon or 01.00 p.m., and they stayed there till 04.30 p.m., and both were returning to their house on their motor cycle and at about 07.30 p.m., night when they reached between Buradapeta and Panasapeta villages, all the accused came upon them from both sides of bushes and attacked them and that, his deceased brother
Raminaidu at that time driving the motor cycle and all the accused attacked them with knives and sticks and they were beating his deceased brother Raminaidu. His evidence further shows that he was hidden in the bushes and saw all the accused beating his deceased brother Raminaidu in the light of the motor cycle. He further 14 deposed that A.1-Kurmana Dharma Rao beat the deceased with a knife; A.3-
Gurugubelli Trinadha Rao, A.4-Tammineni Raja Rao and A.5-Gurugubelli Sridhar beat the deceased Raminaidu with iron rods and that A.6-Boddepalli
Udayachalam, A.7-Boddepalli Lokanadham and A.8-Pydi Mohana Rao beat the deceased with sticks and killed the deceased there itself and on hearing the sounds of some persons, all the accused went away. His evidence further disclosed that then he came to their house and informed about killing of the deceased Raminaidu by the accused to his father and his junior paternal uncle. His evidence also reveals that the Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police came to their house on that night and asked him to come to police station and he went to Santhakaviti police station at about 04.30 a.m., early hour and gave his Ex.P.1 report to the police. He further deposed that around 06.00 a.m., morning, they all went to the scene of offence and inquest was conducted on the dead body of the deceased there. Police examined him. He also deposed that he can identify the knife and sticks used in the commission of offence at the time of murder of the deceased if they shown to him. He further deposed that the registration number of the
T.V.S.Motor cycle is AP.30 D 5027 which is marked as M.O.2. He also identified the knife marked as M.O.1 as the same knife used by A.1-Dharma Rao in beating his deceased brother Raminaidu. His evidence further shows that his deceased brother was wearing gold colour half hand shirt, blue colour full pant, two gold rings to his right hand fingers, pair of chappals and the deceased was also having a
Nokio cell phone at that time.
17.In his cross-examination on 21.07.2015, P.W.1-Kiran admits that in his school records, in his adhar card, his election card, his name is mentioned as
Kurma Rao and recordedly his name is not Kiran. But, he volunteers that he is also called as Kiran Kumar. Relying upon this evidence of P.W.1-Kiran, the learned defence counsel contends that P.W.1-Kiran is not the brother of the deceased Raminaidu and therefore, the evidence of P.W.1-Kiran that he being the brother of the deceased accompanied the deceased Raminaidu to Tolapi and also 15 on his return and as such, P.W.1-Kiran cannot be said to be an eye witness to this incident. But, I am unable to accept this contention of the learned defence counsel that P.W.1-Kiran is not the eye witness to this incident, on that ground, though
P.W.1-Kiran admits in his cross-examination, recordedly his name is not Kiran and in all his records, his name is mentioned as Kurma Rao, the identity of P.W.1-
Kiran as another brother of the deceased is not at all disputed by the accused even though the name of P.W.1-Kiran is recordedly as Kurma Rao and as clarified by
P.W.1-Kiran that he is also called as Kiran Kumar. When there is no dispute with regard to identity of P.W.1 being the brother of the deceased Raminaidu, this contention of the learned defence counsel that this P.W.1-Kiran who cannot be said to be the brother of the deceased, is not an eye witness to this incident, has no much force at all and as such, the said contention of the learned defence counsel is untenable and on that ground, the evidence of P.W.1-Kiran cannot be thrown away.
18.P.W.2-Ponnada Prasada Rao of Vasudevapatnam village and Ex-
MPTC of that village deposed that on 26.09.2010 himself and one Gedela
Narayana Rao (L.W.3) on motor cycle and some other 20 persons in an auto rickshaw had gone to Waltair in connection with marital disputes and after settlement of the dispute, they were returning to their village between 07.00 p.m., and 08.00 p.m., night and he was driving the motor cycle where as the said Gedela
Narayana Rao was pillion rider and when they reached before Buradagedda village at one gedda gattu, they found a dead body of a person and on seeing the dead body, they stopped their motor cycle and identified the dead body of the deceased is that of the deceased Raminaidu @ Rama Rao and they went to the house of one Mula Ramachandra Rao, the then MPTC of Mallayyapeta village and from there they telephoned to Santhakaviti police station and informed about the death of the deceased Raminaidu to police and on the next day, he attended the inquest held on the body of the deceased Raminaidu.
16
19.P.W.3-Gurugubelli Hemalatha Kumari, the wife of the deceased apart from the disputes between themselves and the accused and their political rivalry, further deposed that about more than four years ago on that day around 12.00 noon her husband started from their house to go to her parents village along with P.W.1-Kiran and telephoned her that they would come back to their house lately and at that time all the accused who were present nearby heard the same.
She further deposed that on that night at about 07.30 p.m., P.W.2-Ponnada Prasad telephoned to her younger brother-in-law-Kondayya and informed that her husband was murdered and then, she went to her father-in-laws house and P.W.1-
Kiran came to their house and told them that all the accused murdered her deceased husband and on that mid night, Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of
Police came to their village and informed them that her husband was killed and in the morning, they all went to scene of offence place i.e., Gedda Gattu and found the dead body of her deceased husband lying down in a pool of blood and she also found two gold rings to right fingers of the deceased. She also deposed that
P.W.1-Kiran had gone to lodge a complaint.
20.P.W.4-Gurugubelli Kondayya, another brother of the deceased apart from the disputes and political rivalry with the accused also deposed that on the night of 26.09.2010 at about 08.00 p.m., P.W.2-Ponnada Prasad telephoned and informed him that his deceased brother was killed between Buradapeta and
Panasapeta villages at canal bund and at about 08.30 p.m., P.W.1-Kiran came to their house and informed them that all the accused attacked the deceased with knives and sticks, beat him and killed him and on that might night around 12.00
O’ clock police came to their village and they stated to police, they could not go to any place due to fear and in the early hours around 04.30 or 05.00 p.m., P.W.1-
Kiran and one Raja Rao went to police station and they went to scene of offence where the dead body of the deceased was found and inquest was conducted on the dead body of the deceased.
17
21.P.W.5-Gurugubelli Ramachandra Rao of Gujjannapeta village who knows the deceased and P.W.1-Kiran and all the accused deposed that on 20.09.2010 on Monday, he had gone to his fields around 03.30 or 04.30 p.m., and after fetching water to his field, he was at his field bund, there A.3-Gurugubelli
Trinadha Rao, A.5-Gurugubelli Sridhar, A.8-Pydi Mohana Rao and A.6-
Boddepalli Udayachalam met him and when he enquired them as to what purpose they came there, they replied that they had come to some purpose and he found
A.3-Gurugubelli Trinadha Rao holding a Chandana bag, in which some heavy articles were there and A.5, A.6 and A.8 were holding Kathuvas in their hands and then, he came back to his house and those accused came to canal bund near by his field. His evidence further shows that one week later during night time, P.W.1-
Kiran came to their village and told them that the deceased Raminaidu was killed by all the accused and in the morning, he went to the place where the dead body of the deceased was found.
22.P.W.6-Sirla Jayaram, photographer deposed that on 27.09.2010 he was called by Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police of Santhakaviti police station to the scene of offence and he went there around 06.30 or 07.00 a.m., and on the instructions of police, he had taken the photographs of that palce and the dead body and after developing those photos, he handed over them to police along with Cassette Disk (C.D.). Ex.P.2 is the photos, 14 in number and
Ex.P.13 is the said C.D.
23.P.W.7-Yellumahanthi Anil Kumar Patro, the then Village Revenue
Officer of Manthina village deposed that on 27.09.2010 as he was called by
Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police to act as mediator for observation of the scene of offence in connection with the murder of the deceased-Gurugubelli
Raminaidu, he went to the scene of offence which is at Narayanapuram canal between Buradapeta-Panasapeta villages at about 06.00 O’clock morning and that one Tompala Rama Rao, Village Assistasnt of Manthina villagewas also present along with him and that the Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police were 18 also present and they all observed the scene of offence and observed three injuries on the back of the head of the deceased Raminaidu and small injuries on the neck of the deceased. He further deposed that the upper lip was found protruded swelling and the dead body was found lying down towards the ground and they also found blood on the earth and two gold rings to the right fingers of the deceased which were seized by the police. They also found one teeth, Kathuva, hair of the head and Nokio cell phone in the pocket of the deceased. They also found that T.v.S.Victor motor cycle there and police seized all the above articles and the scene of offence was also got photographed and he drafted Ex.P.4 scene observation report. He also identified the said Kathuva found at the scene of offence seized by police as M.O.3, Nokio cell phone as M.O.4, tooth as M.O.5 and
M.O.2 T.V.S.Motor cycle. He also identified M.Os.6 and 7 gold rings, one wring studded with Pagadam and another gold ring with black stone respectively seized by police. He further deposed that later Inspector of Police and the Sub Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of himself and other panchayatdars namely Moola Ramachandra Rao, Gurugubelli
Ranapratap and two others and they all panchayatdars opined that due to political rivalry, the deceased might have been murdered by his political rivals of
Gujjannapeta village and he drafted Ex.P.5 inquest report.
24.P.W.7- P.W.7-Yellumahanthi Anil Kumar Patro, the then Village
Revenue Officer further deposed that on 03.10.2010 himself and another Village
Revenue Officer of Chittadapuram village namely Ramana were called by
Inspector of Police to act as mediators and then, Inspector of Police, Sub Inspector of Police, himself and another Village Revenue Officer went to Mallayyapeta bus shelter at about 07.00 a.m., morning and there all the accused on seeing the police were running away and then, the police apprehended them and the Inspector of
Police enquired them and then all the accused 1, 3 to 8 and another person while confessed to have committed murder of the deceased due to political rivalry and further disclosed that they had hidden the weapons with which the deceased was 19 murdered in the fields of Seshadripuram village and they (accused) further stated that if they followed them (accused), they would show the weapons and accordingly the confessional mediator report of the accused was drafted by him and they all signed on it and all the accused also signed on the said report. Ex.P.6 is the relevant and admissible portion of the confessional mediators report pertaining to the disclosure of the weapons used by all the accused to kill the deceased. His evidence also shows that these proceedings were concluded by 11.00 or 11.30 a.m.,
25.P.W.7-Yellumahanthi Anil Kumar Patro, the then Village Revenue
Officer further deposed that then they all including all the accused went to
Seshadripuram village and proceeded to the land situated near B.S.N.L., Tower where A.1-Kurmana Dharma Rao had shown one knife having wooden handle which is identified by him as M.O.1 and which was seized by Inspector of Police in their presence under the cover of Ex.P.7 seizure report dated 03.10.2010 at about 11.30 a.m., and then, they all signed on it and the signature of A.1-Dharma
Rao was also obtained on it.
26.P.W.7-Yellumahanthi Anil Kumar Patro, the then Village Revenue
Officer further deposed that then A.2-Boddepalli Parvatha Rao had shown one
Kathuva which was seized by Inspector of Police under the cover of Ex.P.8 seizure report drafted at 12.05 p.m., and they all signed on it including A.2-
Boddepalli Parvatha Rao. He also identified the said Kathuva shown by A.2 and seized by Inspector of Police as M.O.8-iron kathuva.
27.P.W.7-Yellumahanthi Anil Kumar Patro, the then Village Revenue
Officer further deposed that then Gurugubelli Trinadha Rao (A.3) produced one iron rod which was seized by Inspector of Police in their presence, which he identified as M.O.9 iron rod under the cover of Ex.P.9 seizure report drafted at 12.35 p.m., and they all signed on it including Gurugubelli Trinadha Rao (A.3).
28.P.W.7-Yellumahanthi Anil Kumar Patro, the then Village Revenue
Officer further disclosed that then Tammineni Raja Rao (A.4) produced another 20 iron rod which was seized by Inspector of Police and which is identified by him as
M.O.10 under the cover of Ex.P.10 seizure report which was signed by all of them including the said Tammineni Raja Rao. But, he deposed that he cannot identify the said Tammineni Raja Rao from among the accused present in the court.
29.P.W.7-Yellumahanthi Anil Kumar Patro, the then Village Revenue
Officer further deposed that later Gurugubelli Sridhar (A.5), Boddepalli
Udayachalam (A.6), Boddepalli Lokanadham (A.7) and Pydi Mohana Rao (A.8) produced one stout stick each one after another and those stout sticks were seized by the Inspector of Police under the cover of Exs.P.11 to P.14 respectively drafted at 13.35 p.m., 02.05 p.m., 02.35 p.m., and 03.05 p.m., respectively and they all signed on all those seizure reports including those four persons who produced those stout sticks. But, he deposed that he could not identify those stout sticks produced by those four persons. His evidence further shows that then they all along with the accused came to Santhakaviti police station.
30.P.W.9-Y.Hari Krishna Rao, the then Sub Inspector of Police of
Santhakaviti police station deposed that on 26.09.2010 night around 09.00 or 09.30 p.m., he received telephonic information from P.W.2-Ponnada Prasad of
Vasudevapatnam village that the dead body of the deceased Raminaidu of
Gujjannapeta village was found lying dead at Narayanapuram canal between
Buradapeta and Panasapeta and a motor cycle was also lying down there and then, he informed the same to the Inspector of Police, Rajam through phone and that then P.W.10-S.Sashibhushana Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Rajam came to
Santhakaviti police station at about 11.30 p.m., night and then, himself, Inspector of Police and their staff went to the scene of offence and verified the scene of offence with the help of lights and found the dead body with head injuries and after posting guard there, they went to Gujjannapeta village and informed the same to the relatives of the deceased Raminaidu and when they asked them, they stated that they would give report in the morning. His evidence further shows that in the early hours around 5 O’ clock P.W.1-Kiran came to Santhakaviti police station 21 and present Ex.P.1 complaint and basing on the said Ex.P.1 complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.58/2010 under sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and issued Ex.P.17 express first information report and transmitted the said first information report and Ex.P.1 complaint to
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam and copies to all the concerned superior
officers and then, the Inspector of Police, Rajam took up investigation in this case.
31.P.W.10-S.Sashibhushana Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Rajam also deposed corroborating the above evidence of P.W.9-Y.Harikrishna Rao, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Santhakaviti police station and he further deposed that after the first information report was registered in this case by P.W.9, the then
Sub Inspector of Police, Santhakaviti police station, he took up investigation in this case and then, he along with the Sub Inspector of Police, their staff and
P.W.1-Kiran went to scene of offence which is at Narayanapuram canal bund between Buradapeta and Panasapeta villages and he inspected the scene of offence and the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators P.W.7-Anil Kumar
Patro, Village Revenue Officer and one Tompala Rama Rao and prepared Ex.P.18 rough sketch of scene of offence. His evidence also shows that the dead body of the deceased was found lying down towards the bund and they found knife injuries on the back side of the head of the deceased and on his neck and also injuries on his back and there were grown bushes on both sides of that bund and the motor cycle light was still switched on and some cutting hair of the head and one upper teeth was also found there and that he also found a pair of paragon chapels wearing to his foot; one iron Kathuva with wooden handle stick on the southern side of the dead body of the deceased and he got the scene of offence photograph and videograph. His evidence further shows that he seized M.O.3-iron kathuva boriga having blood stained; M.O.2-motor cycle; M.O.5-broken tooth; a pair of chapels (M.O.10); M.Os.6 and 7 two rings from the right fingers of the deceased; the hair; M.O.4-cell phone from the pocket of the shirt of the deceased; controlled 22 earth and blood stained earth during the inspection of the scene of offence and he got Ex.P.4 scene observation drafted and they all signed on it.
32.P.W.10-S.Sashibhushana Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Rajam further deposed that later he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased from 08.30 a.m., to 11.00 a.m., in the presence of inquest mediators and the witnesses namely Gurugubelli Kiran, Ponnada Prasad, Gurugubelli Hemalatha Kumari,
Gurugubelli Kondayya and Gurugubelli Ramachandra Rao (P.Ws.1 to 5) and during inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses present there including P.Ws.1 to 5 and as per the statements of those witnesses, the panchayatdars opined that the deceased was murdered by all the accused and he then got prepared Ex.P.5 inquest report attested by himself and inquest panchayatdars and later the dead body of the deceased was forwarded to
Government hospital, Rajam for postmortem examination.
33.P.W.10-S.Sashibhushana Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Rajam further stated in his evidence that on 03.10.2010 after receiving reliable information that all the accused were present at Mallayyapeta bus stand, he secured P.W.7-Yellumahanti Anil Kumar Patro and one Bevara Venkata Ramana
Murthy, Village Revenue Officers and along with them, Sub Inspector of Police and their staff proceeded and reached Mallayyapeta bus stop at 07.00 a.m., morning and on seeing them, all the accused present in court and another person were trying to run away and then, he caught those accused apprehended and interrogated and after confirming them as accused in this case, he arrested all those accused and on interrogation of all the accused one after another, all the accused while confessed to have committed murder of the deceased further disclosed that they would show the weapons used by them in the commission of offence if they follow those accused and accordingly the confessional mediators report was drafted there and he obtained the signatures of the mediators and all the accused on the said report and he also subscribed his signature on it and the proceedings 23 were completed by 11.00 a.m., morning. Ex.P.6 is the relevant portion in the said confessional mediators report.
34. P.W.10-S.Sashibhushana Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Rajam further stated in his evidence that then all the accused took them and both mediators to jute crop field of Thammineni Sanyasi Rao near B.S.N.L., Tower, near Seshadripuram village and they reached there at about 11.30 a.m., morning and the accused 1, 3 and 4 (Kurmana Dharma Rao, Gurugubelli Trinadha Rao and
Tammineni Raja Rao) produced M.O.1-knife; M.O.8-Kathuva Boriga having iron handle; M.O.9-iron rod and M.O.11-ioron rod respectively which were seized by him under the cover of seizure mediators reports Exs.P.7 to P.10 respectively. His evidence further disclosed that A.5 to A.8 (Gurugubelli Sridhar, Boddepalli
Udayachalam, Boddepalli Lokanadham and Pydi Mohana Rao) also produced one stick each which were seized by him in the presence of the same mediators under the cover of Exs.P.11 to P.14 respectively. Though P.W.10-S.Sasibhushana Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Rajam could not identify out of M.O.12-four sticks which stick was produced by which of the accused 5 to 8. He deposed that all those four sticks (M.O.12) are produced by A.5 to A.8 i.e., one stick each by one accused among accused Nos.5 to 8. His evidence shows that then all came back to
Santhakaviti police station along with the accused and weapons seized and after completion of formalities, all the accused were forwarded before Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Rajam on the same day for judicial remand. His
evidence also shows that on 06.10.2010 he received Ex.P.15 postmortem certificate and on 08.10.2010 he forwarded the material objects seized in this case by him and the viscera and other items collected and preserved by medical officer
P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao in the postmortem examination vide Ex.P.9 letter of advise dated 08.10.2010. His evidence also shows that he also examined
P.W.5-Gurugubelli Ramachandra Rao and Ponnada Seetharam on 05.10.2010 and he received Exs.P.20 and P.21 Regional Forensic Science Laboratory reports on 17.12.2010 and after receipt of Ex.P.16 final opinion issued by P.W.8- 24
Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao about the cause of death of the deceased and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case against accused 1 to 8 by deleting the name of Hanumanthu Kiran Kumar whose participation in this crime is not revealed during his investigation. During his evidence, M.Os.13 to 16 blood stained clothes of the deceased are also marked.
35.Relying upon the above evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of P.W.1-Kiran who is sole eye witness in this case clearly established that all the accused armed with deadly weapons, formed into an unlawful assembly, way laid and attacked the deceased with knife, kathuva boriga, iron rods and stout sticks which are deadly weapons and beat the deceased Raminaidu on his head and other parts of the body and thereby caused the instantaneous death of the deceased. He further contends that the evidence of P.W.3-Gurugubelli Hemalatha Kumari, the wife of the deceased
Raminaidu establishes the circumstantial fact that on that date of incident i.e., about 4 years ago around 12.00 noon, her husband and her younger brother-in-law i.e., P.W.1-Kiran started from their house to go to her parents village and her husband told her that they would come to the house lately and at that time, all the accused who were present nearby heard the same. He further contends that on hearing the words of P.W.1-Kiran on that day that he would come lately to their house, all the accused hatched up a plan and way laid at the scene of offence and attacked with the above deadly weapons and killed him (deceased). The learned
Public Prosecutor further contends that the evidence of P.W.4-Gurugubelli
Kondayya who is one of the accused in a counter case filed by the accused deposed about the conspiracy of some of the accused. He also contends that the evidence of P.W.7-Yellumahanti Anil Kumar patro, Village Revenue Officer further establishes the recovery of the crime weapons used by the accused in commission of murder of the deceased-Raminaidu at the instance of the accused and as per Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Report, the crime weapons containing human blood and the evidence of P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao, the 25
Medical Officer who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased-Raminaidu also establishes that all the injuries received by the deceased mentioned in Ex.P.15 postmortem report are ante-mortem in nature. He therefore contends that the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses including P.W.10-S.Sashibhushana Rao,
Inspector of Police, Rajam is cogent, trustworthy and proved the prosecution case and the guilt of all the accused for the offences with which they are charged beyond all reasonable doubt.
36.The learned counsel appearing for the accused strongly contends that as per the evidence of P.W.1-Kiran, the incident took place for 20 minutes and his conduct that he was in the bushes for such 20 minutes time is highly improbable and unbelievable since even though he was in the bushes for such a long time of 20 minutes, the accused not attacking him is highly unbelievable and it is not possible for P.W.1-Kiran to observe the overt acts of each and every accused in the light of motor cycle and P.W.1-Kiran had cell phone with him at that time and the Santhakaviti police station is only at a distance of 10 to 15 kilometers from the alleged scene of offence and had he really witnessed the incident, he would have informed to police station through his cell phone. He further strongly contends that without informing to police after the incident, P.W.1-Kiran went to
Gujjannapeta village and informed about this alleged incident to their family members; and even though the Inspector of Police P.W.10-S.Sashibhushana Rao, the Sub Inspector of Police P.W.9-Y.Hari Krishna Rao and other police staff came to their house on that might night and even though the police officers asked
P.W.1-Kiran and his family members to give a complaint, P.W.1-Kiran stated that he could not give report to police on that day as he was in confusing state which is unbelievable and on the other hand, he presented Ex.P.1 report with delay of 11 hours after due deliberations among their family members who implicated these accused who are their political rivals taking advantage of the death of the deceased that was occurred on that night. He therefore urged that on these grounds itself, all the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. He further contends that there is also 26 delay in reaching the First Information Report to the court, which is also unexplained.
37.In support of his contentions, the learned defence counsel relied upon the following rulings; (1) In a case of Joseph versus State of Keralareported in (2003) 1
Supreme Court cases 465, where in Their Lordships held that “Penal Code, 1860 – S.302 – Appreciation of evidence – Prosecution case based on evidence of solitary eyewitness – Evidence must be wholly reliable so as to record conviction on that basis – Though the witness was an injured witness and his presence at the time and place of occurrence may not be doubtful but his evidence found to be in conflict with other evidence – Held on facts, it would be unsafe to convict the accused-appellant solely on the basis of such witness.” “When there is a sole witness to the incident his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of the evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence as recorded. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact and, therefore, it is permissible for a court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eyewitness. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. By this standard, when the prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eyewitness, it should be wholly reliable. Even though such witness is an injured witness and his presence may not be seriously doubted, when his evidence is in conflict with other evidence, the view taken by the trial court that it would be unsafe to convict the accused on his sole testimony cannot be stated to be unreasonable particularly, when the trial court had given cogent reasons to acquit the accused, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same merely because another opinion is possible and not that the finding concluded by the trial court was impossible. The High Court did not follow the aforesaid standard but went on to analyze evidence as if the material before them was given for the first time and not in appeal.” (2) In another decision in a case of Marella Chalama Reddy and
others v. State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of
A.P.Hyderabad, reported in 2009 (3) ALT (Crl.) 271 (DB) (A.P.), where in
Their Lordships held that “CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, Section 154 – Penal Code, 1860, Sections 143, 302 r/w 149 IPC – Inordinate delay in lodging FIR and also FIR reaching the Magistrate”
The incident occurred at 6.30 p.m., on 17.04.2003, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1-report with the police at 3.00 a.m., on 18.04.2003 which is situated at 18 km from the place of occurrence. The first information report reached 27 the Magistrate at 10.40 a.m., on 18.04.2003 in the Court and admittedly, the police station where the FIR was lodged and the Court of the Magistrate are in the same campus. Thus, there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report and also the first information report reaching the
Magistrate.”
“CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, Section 154 – Delay of eight and half hours in lodging FIR not understandable – Not properly explained by prosecution – Delay of FIR reaching the Magistrate, more particularly when the court, residence of Magistrate and PS are in same compound, not properly explained.”
In the instant case, admittedly (according to P.Ws.1 and 2) P.Ws.1 and 2 escaped from the accused after the attack on D1 and D2 and came running to their village which is at a distance of 3 kms, thereafter they informed the incident to the villagers and returned back to the place of occurrence along with villagers and found the dead bodies lying in a pool of blood. Since D1 happened to be Sarpanch of the village,, who won the election against A1 there were number of people belonging to his group, some of whom rushed to the place of occurrence soon after receiving the information. It could not have been much difficult for any one of them to inform the incident to the police. But admittedly, no such attempt has been made either by PWs.1 and 2 or by any of the villagers. Further, the police station is at a distance of 18 km from the place of occurrence for which there is bus facility. One can reach the police station at least within 20 minutes by boarding any vehicle. Even if it is considered, PW.1 was under grief on account of the death of the deceased, the delay of eight and half hours is not understandable and has also not been properly explained by the prosecution. Further the delay of FIR reaching the Magistrate by 10.40 a.m., on 18.04.2003, more particularly when the court, residence of
Magistrate and the police station are in the same Compound has also not
been properly explained. Here it would be proper for us to mention about the conduct of the witnesses, who are related to D1 and D2.” (3) In another decision in a case of State of U.P. v. Preetam and others, reported in 2011 (2) ALT (Crl.) 420 (SC), where in Their Lordships held that “Section 154 – Delay in registration of FIR – No plausible explanation about the delay – High Court’s conclusion that there was a delay of 17 hours between alleged occurrence and registration of FIR – The only explanation given is that due to fear of respondents, the family of complainants kept sitting near the deadbody, not even called for doctor or medical assistance – Sequence of events leading to registration of FIR not believed by High Court – Name of P.W.3 not mentioned in FIR even though she was stated to be the only witness to prove as to how fight originated – Two ladies (daughter of informant and P.W.2) were withheld by prosecution though according to FIR they witnessed the incident – Manipulations and modulations, doubtful authenticity of P.W.3’s version – Prosecution version not proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
Their Lordships further held in para 16 that “The High Court, thereafter, notices that there seems to be no plausible explanation about the delay in registration of the FIR. The conclusion reached by the High Court is that there was a delay of 17 hours between the alleged occurrence and the 28 registration of the FIR. The only explanation given is that due to the fear of the respondents, the family of the complainants kept sitting near the dead body. They did not even call for a doctor or medical assistance. The High Court disbelieved the sequence of events leading to the registration of the FIR. It is noticed that according to P.W.1, the Chowkidar of the village had arrived at the spot soon after the incident. Even his help was not taken for the registration of the FIR. Noticing the technical terminology used in the FIR, the High Court has expressed the opinion that it has not been scribed by the rustic villager Punna. It was scribed by a professional, Ram Swaroop, PW7. It is further noticed that even though PW3 was stated to be the only witness to prove as to how the “marpeet” (fight) originated and where, yet her name was not mentioned in the FIR. On the other hand, the two ladies (daughter of the informant and wife of Bahadur, PW2) were withheld by the prosecution though according to the FIR, they had witnessed the incident that took place in the field of Hirwa. The prosecution also withheld Thakur Baba and Jageshwar, whose names had also been mentioned in the FIR. The High Court, taking serious notice of the manipulations and modulations doubted the authenticity of the version given by PW3. It is noticed by the High Court that even the most independent and important witness in the chain, PW4, Kunwar was in fact declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly, the last witness namely, Thakur Das, PW5, who completes the chain, was also declared hostile. From the above, it becomes evident that the prosecution version was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.” (4) In another decision in a case of Thummala Lovaraju v. State of A.P., reported in 2009 (2) ALT (Crl.) 135 (DB)(A.P.), where in Their Lordships of our
Honourable High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that
“Lodging of FIR is very important step, which sets the investigating agency into motion for prosecuting the persons responsible for the commission of an offence.
Section 154 Cr.P.C., mandates that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an Officer in charge of Police Station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and when it is given in writing, the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such Officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
Prompt first information eliminates the chances of embellishment and false implication of accused persons – When the first information report is not issued at the earliest point of time and the Police Officer after visiting the scene of offence and after making some investigation registers a case certainly it causes delay and ultimately it may result in disbelieving the version of the witnesses, whose evidence is otherwise reliable. The delay may defeat the justice. The deliberate delay may result in burying the truth. The spontaneity is lost and if the FIR is issued after 5 or 6 hours on the ground of ascertaining the fact, the informant may not be able to explain the delay and his version may be viewed with suspicious eye. Therefore the Section 154 Cr.P.C., mandates the necessity of registering the case as soon as the information of a cognizable offence is furnished. The spontaneous version gives an assurance that it may be true. If the first information report is an outcome of investigation, the same cannot be treated as FIR and it always create a reasonable doubt about the prosecution version.
29
From the evidence on record, it is clear that the FIR was not at all prepared at the time alleged by the prosecution i.e., at about 1.30 a.m., In deed, in the instant case, the FIR was not the basis for the investigation as it should be. From the above discussion and from the facts and circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Ex.P.2 was prepared after the police started investigation and therefore, Ex.P.2 is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.,
Since the earliest version is suppressed in this case, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that after due deliberations, the FIR was brought into existence to suite the case of the prosecution. It has to be seen that the police waited till the arrival of P.W.6 who is the President of the Sangham. – Thus it is clear that only after consulting P.W.6 and P.W.7, Ex.P.2 was brought into existence. Therefore, it is clear that there is no spontaneous report in this case. – Admittedly, the name of one Valli Sreenu was shown as an eyewitness but subsequently it was struck off. This supports the allegation of defence counsel that the names of witnesses were chosen and mentioned in Ex.P.2 who were obliged to prosecution.”
38.The learned Public Prosecutor replied that since P.W.1-Kiran was in complete fear on seeing this ghostly incident of killing his brother (deceased), he could not give complaint immediately on that mid night and in the early hours of next day itself he lodged Ex.P.1 report with P.W.9-Y.Hari Krishna Rao, Sub
Inspector of Police, by going to Santhakaviti police station and therefore the said delay can be properly explained.
39.No doubt, in this case P.W.1=Kiran is only solitary eye witness according to the prosecution version. Therefore as observed by Their Lordships in the afore cited decision reported in (2003) 1 Supreme Court cases 465, before accepting his testimony, his evidence has to be scrutinized with utmost care and caution.
40.So far as the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 report by P.W.1-Kiran with
P.W.9-Y.Hari Krishna Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Santhakaviti police station, no doubt, the evidence of P.W.1-Kiran, P.Ws.9 and 10 (Y.Hari Krishna Rao, Sub
Inspector of Police, Santhakaviti police station and S.Sashibhushana Rao,
Inspector of Police, Rajam) shows that even though they had gone to Gujjannapeta village and asked P.W.1-Kiran and his family members to give report about this incident of causing the death of the deceased-Raminaidu by the accused, they stated that they could not come on that night due to fear and they would come to 30 police station in the morning. In this case, as I have stated above, P.W.1-Kiran is only solitary eyewitness and he had seen this ghostly and terror incident of killing his deceased brother (Raminaidu) by all the accused with deadly weapons like knives, kathuva borigas, iron rods and stout sticks. It is also established by the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 (Gurugubelli Kiran, Gurugubelli Hemalatha Kumari and Gurugubelli Kondayya), the brothers and wife of the deceased that there is a strong political rivalry between themselves and the accused as they belong to different parties and they have also disputes between them and this alleged incident of causing the death of the deceased by the accused was taken place night at around 07.30 p.m., which according to the prosecution version, P.W.1-Kiran witnessed the said incident and therefore it could be quite natural for him that he would be under fear and in view of these political rivalry and disputes between these parties, the conduct of P.W.1-Kiran and his family members that due to fear, they may not dare to go to police station Santhakaviti on that mid night from their village apprehending danger to their lives in the hands of the accused if they had gone to police station, Santhakaviti on that mid night. Therefore, their apprehension of fear for not going to police station, Santhakaviti on that might night can be quire natural. However, P.W.1-Kiran who is eyewitness to this incident had gone to police station, Santhakaviti in the early hours and presented his Ex.P.1 report at 05.00 O’ clock on 27.09.2010. Therefore, I am of the considered view that this delay of about 9 hours in giving Ex.P.1 report at
Santhakaviti police station by P.W.1-Kiran can be said to be properly explained and on that ground, the accused are not entitled for benefit of doubt.
41. So far as the delay in reaching Ex.P.17-First Information Report along with Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1-Kiran reaching to Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Rajam, no doubt the endorsement of Judicial Magistrate of First Class on
Ex.P.17 First Information Report shows that the First Information Report was received at 08.30a.m., on 27.09.2010 i.e., only delay of 3 hours which cannot be much delay remained unexplained. Therefore, this contention of the learned 31 counsel appearing for the accused that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the
First Information Report by P.W.1-Kiran with police and the delay of 3 hours in receiving the first information report by court entitle all the accused to get benefit of doubt, cannot be acceptable.
42. So far as the presence of P.W.1-Kiran as eyewitness at the time of incident, the learned defence counsel brought the admission of P.W.2-Ponnada
Prasad in his cross-examination to the notice of the court and contended that
P.W.1-Kiran did not accompany the deceased on that day and he was not present at the time of incident. P.W.2-Ponnada Prasad no doubt in his cross-examination admits that on that date of incident around 02.30 or 03.00 p.m., the deceased
Raminaidu telephoned to him and when he asked the deceased, he stated that he came to Tolapi and he would come to Waltair and he (deceased) further stated that he alone came to Tolapi village. Relying upon this admission of P.W.2-Ponnada
Prasad, the learned defence counsel has contended that P.W.1-Kiran did not accompany the deceased to Tolapi village and therefore P.W.1-Kiran cannot be said to be an eye witness to this incident. But, P.W.3-Gurugelli Hemalatha
Kumari, the wife of the deceased has categorically stated in her chief examination that on that date of incident around 12.00 noon her husband and her younger brother-in-law i.e., P.W.1 Kiran started from their house to go to her parents village. So when P.W.3 had seen the deceased-Raminaidu and P.W.1-Kiran started from their house to go to her parents village, this admission of P.W.2-Ponnada
Prasad in his cross-examination that the deceased told him that he alone came to
Tolapi village cannot be given much credence. This evidence of P.W.3-
Hemalatha Kumari that the deceased and P.W.1-Kiran both started from their house on that date of incident around 12.00 noon to go to her parents house, as seen her cross-examination remains undisturbed and unshaken and as such, her testimony that both the deceased Raminaidu and P.W.1-Kiran together had gone from their village on the date of incident around 12.00 noon to their parents’ 32 village of P.W.3 i.e., Tolapi can be accepted. Hence, this contention of the learned defence counsel that P.W.1 is not an eyewitness to this incident is unacceptable.
43. So far as the conduct of P.W.1 in hiding himself in the bushes when all the accused attacked the deceased with knives, kathuba borigas, iron rods and stout sticks it cannot be said to be improbable because any prudent and reasonable man would hide himself nearby bushes on seeing all the accused attacking the deceased with the deadly and dangers weapons to kill him in order to protect himself and would not come out to run away from that place since if he did so, he would also be chased by the accused and killed to cause disappearance of the eyewitness evidence. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel that the conduct of P.W.1-Kiran by hiding himself in the bushes for such a long time of 20 minutes would be improbable and unbelievable has no force at all. Further, the learned defence counsel contends that it would not be possible for P.W.1 to observe overt acts of the accused for causing injuries to the deceased with which weapon. No doubt, to some extent, it would be impossible for P.W.1 to observe the overt acts of each and every accused by using which weapon in the light of that motor cycle when the incident happened on that night around 07.30 p.m. But his (P.W.1) evidence clearly shows that all the accused armed with knives, kathuva borigas, iron rods and stout sticks and attacked the deceased and caused injuries resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased Raminaidu. Therefore, it may be stated that the evidence of P.W.1-Kiran attributing overt acts to each accused in beating the deceased with which weapon to some extent is impossible to be believed. But that cannot be a ground to disbelieve the other testimony of P.W.1-
Kiran that all the accused armed with knives, kathuva borigas, iron roads and stout sticks attacked the deceased and beat the deceased on his head and other parts of body and murdered him on that spot. As such, this contention of the learned defence counsel to throw away the testimony of P.W.1-Kiran completely cannot be acceptable.
33
44. The learned defence counsel further contends that P.W.1-Kiran in his chief examination evidence itself stated that A.1-Dharma Rao with a knife; A.2 to A.5 (Boddepalli Parvathi Rao, Gurugubelli Trinadha Rao, Tammineni Raja Rao and Gurugubelli Sridhar) with iron rods and A.6 to A.8 (Boddepalli Udayachalam,
Boddepalli Likanadham and Pydi Mohana Rao) with sticks beat the deceased
Raminaidu. But he has not stated on which part of the body of the deceased which accused beat with those weapons. He further contends that P.W.8-
Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao who conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased categorically admitted that he has not found sharp edged cut injuries on the body of the deceased and lacerations i.e., injuries 1 to 3 cannot be possible with sharp edge of knife and if M.O.1 knife is used with its sharp edge with heavy force, cut injuries or insized injuries can be possible. But, he denied the suggestion of the learned defence counsel that the injuries 1 to 3 which are lacerated injuries on the head of the deceased cannot be possible with blunt portion of M.O.1-knife and that injury No.11 cannot be possible with M.O.1-knife or iron rods. He therefore contends that the evidence of P.W.1-Kiran that A.1-
Dharma Rao beat the deceased with knife is contrary to the medical evidence of
P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao and when there is inconsistency between ocular evidence and medical evidence, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. For this contention, he placed reliance in a case of Amar Singh and others,
Appellants v. State of Punjab, Respondents, reported in AIR 1987 Supreme
Court 826, where in His Lordship held that “Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 – Murder case – Inconsistency between testimony of sole eyewitness and medical evidence – Eye-witness deposing that several injuries were caused on ribs and abdomen of deceased by sharp weapons – Not a single incised wound was found on the body of deceased as per medical report – There were contusions, abrasions and fractures – Evidence of eye-witness as to place of incident also found inconsistent – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.”
His Lordship also held in para 12 that “Upon an analysis of the evidence of P.W.5, it appears that her evidence is not only not corroborated by the evidence of any witness, but is contrary to the medical evidence as to the injuries that were found on the body of the deceased. Apart from the fact that the appellants cannot be convicted under sections 148 and 149 IPC, it 34 is difficult to convict them on any charge on the basis of the evidence of P.W.5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in holding that the guilt of the appellants had been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. In our opinion, the evidence of P.W.5 who turns out to be the only eye-witness in the case casts a great doubts as to the commission of any offence by the appellants and, consequently, the benefit of that doubt must go to the appellants.”
45. On perusal of the oral evidence of P.W.1-Kiran it is very clear that
A.1-Dharma Rao beat the deceased Raminaidu with a knife. But it is not his evidence that A.1-Dharma Rao beat the deceased with sharp edge of that knife.
P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao denied the suggestion of the learned defence counsel that injuries 1 to 3 lacerated injuries found on the head of the deceased cannot be possible with blunt portion of M.O.1-knife. It shows that if the blunt portionof M.O.1-knife was used the lacerated injuries mentioned in Ex.P.15- postmortem report i.e., the injuries 1 to 3 can be possible. Therefore, the contention of the learned defence counsel that as cut injury or incised injury is not found on the head of the deceased, the evidence of P.W.1-Kiran that A.1-Dharma
Rao beat the deceased with M.O.1-knife is contrary to the medical evidence of
P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao cannot be said to be correct. The medical evidence of P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao clearly shows that if the blunt portion of M.O.1- knife used the injuries 1 to 3 i.e., lacerated injuries found on the occipital area and above and below the said occipital area lacerated injuries can be caused.
46. Further, P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao also admitted in his cross- examination that if the stout sticks are used for causing abrasion injuries with heavy force, there will be corresponding stick marks, but he has not found the sticks marks on the body of the deceased-Raminaidu. The medical evidence of
P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao also shows that the injuries 4 to 10 abrasion injuries are found on the left arm, right leg, right ankle and right dorsum foot and the evidence of P.W.1-Kiran shows that A.6 to A.8 (Boddepalli Udayachalam,
Boddepalli Lokanadham and Pydi Mohana Rao) beat the deceased with sticks. No doubt, those abrasion injuries found on the legs and hands of the deceased are not sufficient in the ordinary course for causing death of the deceased. Mere absence 35 of corresponding stick marks on the above abrasion injuries found on the left arm, left leg, left ankle and right dorsum foot of the deceased as observed by P.W.8-
Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao during postmortem examination still those injuries can be said to be caused by iron rods and stout sticks. Further, the contention of the learned defence counsel that these Material Objects (M.Os.1, 8, 9, 11 and 12) i.e., knife, iron rods and sticks seized during investigation were not confronted to the
Doctor is no ground to disbelieve the prosecution version or the injuries found on the head and body of the deceased as observed by P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao.
Therefore, the contention of the learned defence counsel that because there is inconsistency and contradiction between the ocular evidence of P.w.1-Kiran and medical evidence of P.W.8-Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao, the lacerated injuries found on the head of the deceased cannot be believed to have been caused by either A.1-
Kurma Rao or A.2 to A.5 (Boddepalli Parvathi rao (died), Gurugubelli Trinadha
Rao, Tammineni Raja Rao and Gurugubelli Sridhar) with knife and iron rods; has no force at all.
47. Now, coming to recovery of the weapons used by the accused in this case for causing injuries on the head and other parts of the body of the deceased and causing instantaneous death of the deceased, the prosecution examined P.W.7-Yellumahanti Anil Kumar Patro, Village Revenue Officer,
Manthina group. The learned defence counsel pointed out that P.W.7-Y.Anil
Kumar Patro, VRO of either Gujjannapeta village to which both parties belong to or the VRO does not belong to either Panasapeta or Buradapeta villages between which villges this incident took place and P.W.7-Anil Kumar Patro, VRO has not identified the accused that from which accused which stick was seized and therefore the seizure or recovery of material objects knife, iron roads and sticks cannot be said to be proved by the evidence of P.W.7-Anil Kumar Patro, VRO.
He further submits that the alleged confession of the accused, recovery of the weapons at their instance is not videographed and no slips are also affixed on the
Material Objects (M.Os.1, 8, 9, 11 and 12) i.e., knife, iron rods and sticks and he 36 mainly pointed out that Ex.P.6, the relevant admissible portion of disclosure statement of all the accused to the affect that all the accused stated that they would show the weapons used for commission of this offence is subsequently inserted.
Evidently Ex.P.6, the admissible and relevant portion of the accused in their confession mediatorsnama dated 03.10.2010 at 07.00 a.m., that took place at
Mallayyapeta bus stop is appeared to have been written subsequently. But P.W.7-
Anil Kumar Patro, VRO in his evidence categorically deposed that while all the accused confessed to have committed the offence of the murder of the deceased further disclosed that they had hidden those weapons with which the deceased was murdered, in the fields of Seshadripuram village and they would show those weapons if they (mediators and police officers), follow them (accused).
48.The evidence of P.W.7-Anil Kumar Patro, VRO further shows that pursuant to the confession made by all the accused, all the accused and both the mediators, police officers proceeded to the land situated at B.S.N.L., Tower where
A.1-Kurma Rao had shown M.O.1-knife; A.2-Boddepalli Parvatha Rao (died) had shown one Kathuva; Gurugubelli Trinadha Rao produced one iron rod marked as
M.O.9; Tammineni Raja Rao had shown another iron rod; Gurugubelli Sridhar had shown stout stick; Boddepalli Udayachalam had shown another stout stick;
Boddepalli Lokanadham had shown another stout stick and Pydi Mohana Rao had also shown another stout stick under the covers of seizure mediators reports marked as Exs.P.7 to P.13 respectively. No doubt, P.W.7-Anil Kumar Patro, VRO had not identified A.3 to A.8 (Gurugubelli Trinadha Rao, Tammineni Raja Rao,
Gurugubelli Sridhar, Boddepalli Udayachalam, Boddepalli Lokanadham and Pydi
Mohana Rao) but he has stated their names very specifically with their surnames and the weapons produced by them. Since all the four sticks said to have been produced by A.5 to A.8 (Gurugubelli Sridhar, Boddepalli Udayachalam,
Boddepalli Lokanadham and Pydi Mohana Rao) are appearing to be similar, it may not be possible for any one including P.W.7-Anil Kumar Patro, VRO to identify which stick was produced by which of the accused. Further, P.W.10- 37
S.Sashibhushana Rao, investigating officer who interrogated all the accused and recorded their confessional mediators report which includes Ex.P.6 admissible and relevant portion of disclosure statement of all the accused leading to recovery of
M.Os.1, 8, 9, 11 and 12, the weapons at the instance of all these accused categorically deposed the said fact and corroborated the evidence of P.W.7-Anil
Kumar Patro, VRO on those material aspects. As seen the cross examination of
P.Ws.7 and 10 (VRO and Inspector of Police, Rajam) on this aspect, nothing material is elicited or extracted to discredit their testimony so far as the prosecution case of recovery of M.Os.1, 8, 9, 11 and 12, crime weapons at the instance of A.1 to A.8. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing
for the accused that the alleged recovery of the crime weapons i.e., M.Os.1, 8, 9,
11 and 12 at the instance of all the accused are not at all proved cannot be accepted and as such, the said contention of the learned defence counsel is rejected.
49.The learned defence counsel further contended that the deceased has got enemies in and around his village and he had got lot of illicit contacts with the women of neighbouring villages and therefore, he might have been killed by those persons who have got inimical towards him, which cannot be accepted as absolutely there is no evidence or material elicited either in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing the evidence to prove the said contention.
50.For the foregoing reasons and findings given by me while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in relation to the contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, I am of the considered view that all those contentions raised by the learned defence counsel have no force at all and the evidence of P.W.1-Kiran, the eye witness and the circumstantial facts that are proved by the evidence of P.W.3-
Gurugubelli Hemalatha Kumari, the wife of the deceased that all the accused heard the words of the deceased when the deceased and P.W.1-Kiran started from their house on the date of incident around 12.00 noon to go to Tolapi village, the in- 38 laws house of the deceased that they would come lately to their house on that night and the recovery of the crime weapons i.e., M.Os.1, 8, 9, 11 and 12 at the instance of all the accused which is proved by the evidence of P.W.7-Anil Kumar Patro,
VRO, one of the mediators and P.W.10-S.Sashibhushana Rao, investigating officer under Exs.P.6 to P.14 the confessional mediatornama of all the accused and seizure mediators reports are proved that all the accused 1 to 8 formed into an unlawful assembly on that date, time and place of incident, armed with deadly weapons like knife, kathuva boriga, iron rods and stout sticks, way laid and wrongfully restrained by him (deceased) by stopping his motor cycle at the scene of offence i.e., between Panasapeta and Buradapeta villages and in pursuance of their common object of killing the deceased, caused severe injuries on his head and other injuries on other parts of his body with those weapons and thereby killed the deceased on the spot and thereby all the accused committed the offences under sections 148 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 along with A.2 (since died) committed the offence under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and the accused Nos.5 to 8 committed the offence under section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also established from the above evidence that the accused Nos.5 to 8 caused injuries by using stout sticks to the deceased and thereby committed the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal
Code and the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 along with A.2 (since died) committed the offence punishable under section 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
51.I therefore hold that the prosecution could successfully prove the guilt of the accused (1, 3 to 8) for the offence under sections 148 and 341 of the
Indian Penal Code; the guilt of the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal
Code and the guilt of the accused Nos.5 to 8 for the offence under section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 324 read with 149 of the 39
Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused Nos.1, 3 to 8 are found guilty for the above mentioned offences.
Dictated to the Stenographer-Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court this the 7th day of December, 2015.
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SRIKAKULAM.
52.When the accused Nos.1, 3 to 8 are questioned under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C., about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on them for the offences with which they are found guilty, they all pleaded that they have not committed these offences.
53.Having regards to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that this is not a rarest of rate cases and hence capital punishment of death is not required to be imposed on these accused in stead sentences of life imprisonment for the offence under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and under section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code in addition to payment of appropriate fines and imposition of appropriate sentences for the offence under sections 148, 341, 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal
Code which sufficient to meet the ends of justice in this case.
54.In the result, the accused Nos.1, 3 to 8 are convicted under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C., and they are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000-00 (Rupees two thousand only) each and in defrault of payment of fine amounts, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. They are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of
Rs.200-00 (Rupees two hundred only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) days each. The accused
Nos.1, 3 and 4 are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000-00 (Rupees ten thousand only) each and in 40 default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months each for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code.
The accused Nos.5 to 8 are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for Life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000-00 (Rupees ten thousand only) each in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months for the offence under section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused 5 to 8 are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of one year each and shall also pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine,
simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) months for the offence under
section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused 1, 3 and 4 are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of one year each and shall also pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine,
simple imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) months for the offence under
section 324 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The substantial sentences of imprisonment for the above mentioned offences imposed on the accused except for the offence under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and under section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code are ordered to run concurrently.
56.M.O.1-knife; M.O.3-Iron Kathuva; M.O.5-Teeth; M.O.8-Iron
Kathuva; M.O.9-Iron rod and M.O.10-chappels (not in useful condition); M.O.12- four sticks, M.O.13-shirt; M.O.14-pant; M.O.15-banion and M.O.16-drawer shall be destroyed and M.O.2-TVS victor motor cycle bearing No.AP.30 D/5027,
M.O.6-Pagadapu Gold ring, M.O.7-Block stone gold ring belonging to the 41 deceased-Raminaidu shall be returned to his wife P.W.3-Gurugubelli Hemalatha
Kumari (P.W.3) after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer-Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 7th day of December, 2015.
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE,
SRIKAKULAM.
Appendix of evidence.
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution:- For Defence:
PW.1: Gurugubelli Kiran. - NONE - PW.2: Ponnada Prasad. PW.3: Gurugubelli Hemalatha Kumari. PW.4: Gurugubelli Kondayya. PW.5: Gurugubelli Ramachandra Rao. PW.6: Sirla Jayaram, Phtographer PW.7: Yellumahanti Anil Kumar Patro, VRO, Manthina group. PW.8: Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao, Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Rajam. PW.9: Y.Hari Krishna Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Santhakaviti Police Station. PW.10:S.Seshibhushana Rao, Inspector of Police, Rajam Circle.
Documents Marked.
For Prosecution:For defence : NIL.
Ex.P.1/27.09.2010: Report of P.W.1-G.Kiran given to the police. Ex.P.2/--: Photos 14 in number. Ex.P.3/--: C.D., Ex.P.4/27.09.2010: Scene observation report at 06.30 a.m., Ex.P.5/27.09.2010: Inquest report at 08.30 a.m., Ex.P.6/03.10.2010: Mediators report at 07.00 a.m., Ex.P.7/03.10.2010: Mediators report at 11.30 a.m., Ex.P.8/03.10.2010: Mediators report at 12.05 p.m., Ex.P.9/03.10.2010: Mediators report at 12.35 p.m., Ex.P.10/03.10.2010 : Mediators report at 13.05 p.m., Ex.P.11/03.10.2010 : Mediators report at 13.35 p.m., Ex.P.12/03.10.2010 : Mediators report at 02.05 p.m., Ex.P.13/03.10.2010 : Mediators report at 14.35 p.m., Ex.P.14/03.10.2010 : Mediators report at 15.05 p.m., Ex.P.15/27.09.2010 : Postmortem certificate of Gurugubelli Raminaidu issued by Dr.I.Mallikharjuna Rao, Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Rajam. Ex.P.16/27.09.2010 : Final opinion on postmortem examination issued by Dr.I.Mallikharjana Rao, medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Rajam. Ex.P.17/27.09.2010 : Original First Information Report in Cr.No.58/010 of Santhakaviti Police Station. Ex.P.18/27.09.2010 : Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.19/08.10.2010 : Letter of advice sent by Inspector of Police, Rajam Circle. Ex.P.20/29.01.2011 : R.F.S.L., Report.
42
Ex.P.21/13.12.2011 : R.F.S.L., Report.
MATERIAL OBJECTS.
MO.1: knife. MO.2: TVS Voctor motor cycle No.AP.30 D/5027. MO.3: Iron Kathuva attached to bamboo stick. MO.4: Nokio Cell Phone. MO.5: Teeth of deceased-Gurugubelli Raminaidu. MO.6: Pagadapu Gold ring. MO.7: Block stone gold ring. MO.8: Iron Kathuva. MO.9: Iron Rod. MO.10: Chappals. MO.11: Iron rod. MO.12: Four sticks. MO.13: Gold colour half hands shirt. MO.14: Blue colour pant with small stripes. MO.15: Cut bunion. MO.16: Drawer.
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.