1
IN THE COURT OF FAMILY-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE: PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE
Present: Sri V.Mohan Kumar
Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Ongole.
Tuesday, this the 12th day of April, 2016.
SESSIONS CASE NO.197 of 2013
(Cr.No.196/2012 of Tangutur P.S.)
Name of the Police station : Tangutur P.S.
Name & Description of the accused:
1.Chetti Venkata Seshamma @ Seshamma, W/o.Nageswara Rao, 27 Yrs, Pallekaru by Caste, Coolie, Pakala Village, S.Konda Mandal.
2.Maaka Rajamma W/o.Thataiah, 35 Yrs, Pallekaru by Caste, Coolie, Pakala Village, S.Konda Mandal.
.. ACCUSED
Deceased : Chetti Nageswara Rao S/o.late Veeraiah, 35 Yrs, Kamma by Caste, Cultivation, Pakala Village & S.Konda Mandal.
Charges:-: U/Sec.302, 201 of IPC.
Plea of the accused : Not guilty Finding of the Court : Found not Guilty
Sentence or Order:
In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable under sections 302, 201 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., for the charged offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of IPC.,
The bail bonds of Accused A1 and A2 will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.,
The case property M.O.1 cell phone is ordered to be confiscated to the state and M.Os.2 to 6 – Three Beedis, piece of shirt cloth, underware, knife, two sarees are ordered to destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
2
This case coming on 06.04.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
State/Complainant and of Sri Y.Kondareddy, Advocate for the
Accused, on perusal of material available on record, upon hearing the counsel for both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court pronounced the following: -
// J U D G M E N T //
1.The Inspector of Police, Singarayakonda Circle, filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 under section 302, 201 read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code in Crime No.196/2012 of Tangutur P.S.,
2.One Chetti Nageswara Rao, son of late Veeraiah, hereinafter referred to as “the Deceased” for the sake of brevity.
3.(a)The case of the prosecution is that the accused A1 and A2 are own sisters and they are the native of Musalareddypalem village of Indukuripeta Mandal of Nellore District. The accused A2 got married with one Maaka Thataiah of Pakala Village of Singarayakonda
Mandal and settled in Pakala village. About 12 years ago, the accused
A1 got married the deceased and stayed in Musalareddypalem for some years. About 6 years ago, the couple also migrated to Pakala.
The accused A1 and the deceased were blessed with a son and daughter. The deceased addicted to consume liquor, took loans in the village, to meet his vices and he failed to repay loans. In order to pay the debts the deceased was insisting the accused A1 to earn money in easy and quickly way by of doing prostitution, but the accused A1 refused the proposal made by the deceased and as such the 3 deceased was started harassing her both physically and mentally. The accused A1 informed her sister A2, about the harassment of the deceased by taking a promise from A2 that not to reveal the same to anybody. In spite of repeated warnings by the deceased to do prostitution, as A1 refused to do such a shameless activity, the deceased used to put the torched beedis on her body. Unable to bear of the torture of the deceased, Accused A1 went to the house of A2 and both of them had a talk with each other and they hatched up a plan to eliminate the deceased Chetty Nageswara Rao
(b) On 27.10.2012 at about 4.30 a.m. the deceased woke up the accused A1 and asked her to come to collect firewood. As the deceased was taking liquor at that time, the accused A1 went to the house of A2 and told A2 that it was the right time to execute their plan and asked her to come along with her. The accused A2 gave her consent to share her evil act and they both went to the house of A1.
The deceased allowed A1 and A2 to come with him. At about 5.00 a.m. the deceased took the knife which is being used to cut the firewood and started from the house by keeping liquor bottle in his navel and the accused A1 and A2 accompanied him. The same was noticed by P.W.2 Maka Kalyanarao and P.W.3 Kanna Sreenu. They reached Sabuku trees plantation about 3 kms., from Jetti in Sy.No.386 of Kesupalem and the deceased sat on the ground and asked the accused A1 and A2 to collect firewood. While the accused A1 and A2 were collecting firewood the deceased came to A1 by consuming liquor and had a quarrel with her by questioning her as what she had talked with A2 while they were on the way and beat her over the 4
Neck. While the deceased tried to give another blow on Accused A1 with knife, the accused A2 threw sand over the deceased and the sand fell in his eyes. On that, the deceased left the knife and clearing his eyes and in the meantime, accused A1 took the knife from the ground and hacked the deceased on the left side of the Neck. The deceased warned the accused A1 and A2 that he would see their end by today itself. Then, accused A2 took the knife from A1 and hacked the deceased twice on the left side of the neck. The deceased received bleeding injuries and collapsed on the ground and died instantaneously. The accused A1 and A2 dug a pit and buried the dead body of the deceased in a hurried manner with an intent to screen the evidence. The same was witnessed by P.W.4 Ponnadi
Sreenu and P.W.5 Kokkiligadda Rosaiah. Later, A1 and A2 went to the sea with the knife and had a both in a hurried manner and the same was witnessed by P.W.6 Maaka Krishna Rao and P.W.7 Maaka
Venkateswarlu. Further the accused A1 and A2 went to the house of
A2 and kept the blood stain-knife in the pit dug by them in front of the house and covered the pit with soil. Later both the accused removed their clothes which they wore and kept them in the house of A2 and wore other clothes.
(c)On coming to know that a dead body was found buried in
Sy.No.386 of Kesupalem, L.W.1 B.Abraham, Village Revenue Officer,
Ananthavaram of Tangutur Mandal and P.W.10 Thota Venkateswarlu,
Village Revenue Assistant, visited the spot, confirmed the matter and lodged a report in Tangutur Police Station on 02.11.2012.
5
(d)On the strength of the report of L.W.1 B.Abraham, P.W.15
Y.V.Ramanaiah, Sub Inspector of Police, Tangutur P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.196/2012 under section 174 of Cr.P.C., of Tangutur P.S.,
Basing on the requisition given by P.W.15, P.W.16 Smt.P.Mariyamma
Tahasildar, Tangutur, initiated proceedings to exhume the dead body in the presence of P.W.14 Dr.G.B.Rajkumar, Professor, Head of the
Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS Hospital, Ongole, P.W.8
Pasumarthi Bala Kotaiah, P.W.9 Maddirala Venkaiah exhumed the dead body in the presence of mediators, L.W.1 and P.W.10 T.Venkateswarlu.
As per the directions of P.W.16 a simless mobile phone, three Bavuta
Beedees and the clothes of the deceased were seized and were handed over to P.W.15, SI of Police, under cover of a proceedings.
P.W.15 inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and drafted observation report, got the scene photographed through
P.W.11 Pasupuleti Krishna. P.W.16 Tahasildar conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of B.Abraham, P.W.12
Karumanchi Vijayaram under cover of an inquest report in the presence of inquest panchayatdars. P.W.14 G.B.Rajakumar conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased.
(e)On the strength of the postmortem report of P.W.14
Dr.G.B.Rajakumar, who opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to Neck. P.W.15 ,SI of
Police altered the section of law from 174 of Cr.P.C., to 302, 201 of
IPC and submitted original FIR to the Court and copies to the concerned officers. On receipt of altered section of law FIR, P.W.17
P.Bala Murali Krishna, Inspector of Police, Singarayakonda took up 6 further investigation, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, established the identity of the deceased and culprits who involved in this offence. On 14.11.2012 L.W.1 B.Abraham Village
Revenue Officer, Ananthavaram, brought the accused A1 and A2 to
P.W.17 and produced them before the police along with his report and confession of accused recorded by him. P.W.17 examined L.W.1 and recorded his statement. Further, P.W.17 recorded the confession of the accused in the presence of mediators, L.W.1 Abraham and P.W.13
Mannam Rambabu.. The accused confessed their guilt and involvement in killing the deceased. In pursuance of the confession of the accused A1 and A2, P.W.17, the then Inspector of Police seized the knife which was used by the accused in the commission of the offence from the pit in front of the house of A2 in Pakala and also seized two sarees which they wore at the time of commission of the offence, in the presence of L.W.1 Abraham and P.W.13 Mannam
Rambabu under the cover of mediators report. After completion of investigation the Inspector of Police filed charge sheet under sections 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC.,
4.This case was taken on file by taking cognizance under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code against A1 and A2 vide
P.R.C.No.5/2013 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Spl. Mobile
Court), Ongole, Prakasam District.
5.On appearance of the accused A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 208 of Cr.P.C., as the offence punishable under section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble 7
Court of sessions and this case was committed to the Hon'ble Court of
sessions at Ongole, under section 209 of Cr.P.C., and the same was
made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.
6.In support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined L.W.2 Saikam Subba Rao as P.W.1 ; L.W.3 Maaka Kalyanarao as P.W.2 ; L.W.4 Kanna Sreenu as P.W.3 ; L.W.5 Ponnadi Sreenu as
P.W.4 ; L.W.6 Kokkiligadda Rosaiah as P.W.5 ; L.W.7 Maaka Krishnarao as P.W.6 ; L.W.8 Maaka Venkateswarlu as P.W.7 ; L.W.9 Pasumarthi
Balakotaiah as P.W.8 ; L.W.10 Maddirala Venkaiah as P.W.9 ; L.W.11
Thota Venkateswarlu, Village Revenue Assistant as P.W.10 ; L.W.12
Pasupuleti Krishna, Photographer as P.W.11 ; L.W.13 Karumanchi
Vijayaram as P.W.12 ; L.W.14 Mannam Rambabu, Village Revenue
Officer as P.W.13 ; L.W.15 Dr.G.B.Raja Kumar, Professor, Head of the
Department, Forensic Medicine, RIMS Hospital, Ongole, as P.W.14 ;
L.W.18 Y.V.Ramanaiah, the then Sub Inspector of Police as P.W.15 ;
L.W.17 Smt.P.Mariyamma, Tahasildar, Tangutur as P.W.16 and L.W.19
P.Balamuralikrishna, Sub Inspector of Police as P.W.17, got marked
Exs.P1 to P25 and M.Os.1 to 6 and the prosecution has given up
L.W.16 B.Ramakrishna, Scientific Officer, RFSL, Guntur, L.W.20
T.Ashokvardhan, Inspector of Police, L.W.1 Birudula Abraham since died and prosecution evidence was reported closed.
7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused A1 and A2 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and they denied when explained the incriminating circumstances against themselves in the 8 evidence on record and pleaded their false implication in this case though they have not committed any offence.
They, however, did not lead any evidence in their defence.
8.Heard the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused A1 and
A2.
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17, got marked Exs.P1 to P25 and
M.Os.1 to 6 and proved its case against the accused A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt and they are to be convicted as per law.
10.The learned defence counsel contended that the evidence on record is not trustworthy and no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 17 to base a conviction, and the accused A1 and A2 are to be acquitted.
11.Now the point that arises for consideration is :
“Whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”
12.Point :
To bring home the guilt of the accused A1 and A2, the question is whether a case under section 302 and 201 of IPC has been made out by the prosecution against the accused A1 and A2.
9
Culpable homicide is Murderif the following essentials are there :
ESSENTIALS :
Firstly –The act is done with the intention of causing death,
Secondly -It is with the intention of causing bodiliy injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death ,
Thirdly - The bodily injury inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
Fourthly -The person knows that the act is so imminently dangerous that in all probability must cause death.
Thus, the prosecution has to establish that the accused committed murder intentionally or knowingly causing the death of the deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C.,
Section 201 “Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender” reads as follows :
Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false.
10 “If a capital offence” :- shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine
13.In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject to, of course, some statutory exceptions.
In the light of above statutory provisions and cardinal principles of criminal Jurisprudence what is the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case is to be looked into.
14.The evidence on record is the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 17.
15.To bring home the guilt of accused A1 and A2, prosecution has to establish that in furtherance of common intention of A1 and A2 they intentionally caused the death of Chetti Nageswara Rao by hacking him with a knife and thereby committed the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of IPC and further the prosecution has to establish that Accused A1 and A2 buried the dead 11 body of the deceased with intention to screen themselves from the legal punishment under section 201 of IPC.,
16.The case of the prosecution is that L.W.1 Birudula Abraham,
Village Revenue Officer, Ananthavaram, came to know that on 31.10.2012 a dead body was found buried in Sy.No.386 of Kesupalem and due to heavy rains, he could not reach the spot on the day itself and on 02.11.2012 himself and P.W.10 Thota Venkateswarlu, Village
Revenue Assistant, visited the spot, confirmed the matter and lodged a report in Tangutur Police on 02.11.2012 and on the strength of the report given by P.W.15 Y.V.Ramanaiah, the then Sub Inspector of
Police, Tantutur, registered a case at the inception under section 174 of Cr.P.C., and after exhumation, at the place where the dead body was buried, in the presence of P.W.16 Smt.P.Mariyamma, Tahasildar,
Tangutur, and P.W.14 Dr.G.B.Raj Kumar, Professor, Head of
Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS Hospital, Ongole, postmortem was conducted and on the strength of the post mortem certificate issued by him, P.W.15 altered section of law from 174 of Cr.P.C., to
Secs.302 and 201 of IPC and P.W.17 P.Bala Murali Krishna, the then
Inspector of Police, further investigated the case.
17. P.W.1 Saikam Subbarao was cited by the prosecution to prove that he made calls frequently to the deceased. As per the mobile phone of the deceased recovered from the scene of offence, P.W.17 got the cell number of the deceased and obtained the call record, and determined that P.W.1 made calls frequently to the deceased.
12
18.The prosecution cited and examined P.W.2 Maka Kalyanarao and
P.W.3 Kanna Sreenu to prove the fact of their noticing the Accused A1 and A2 and the deceased were going together on the early hours of 27.10.2012 and subsequently disappearance of the deceased in the village etc., facts, but the prosecution failed to establish the same as
P.Ws.2 and 3 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and were cross examined by the prosecution.
19.The prosecution also cited P.W.4 Ponnadi Sreenu and P.W.5
Kokkiligadda Rosaiah to speak to the facts of noticing the burying the dead body of the deceased by the Accused A1 and A2 at the scene etc., facts, but the prosecution failed to establish the same as P.Ws.4 and 5 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile and they were cross examined by the prosecution.
20.The prosecution cited P.W.6 Makka Krishna Rao and P.W.7 Makka
Venkateswarlu to speak to the facts of noticing the accused A1 and
A2 were taking a bath in the sea, in a hurried manner, after committing the murder and went towards Pakala Village but the prosecution failed to establish the same as P.Ws.6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile and they were cross examined by the prosecution.
21.The prosecution also cited P.W.8 Pasumarthi Balakotaiah by the prosecution to speak to the facts of coming to know burying an unknown male dead body, exhumed it in the presence of P.W.14
Dr.G.B.Raj Kumar, P.W.16 P.Mariyamma, Tahasildar and P.W.15 13
Y.V.Ramanaiah, SI of Police etc., facts but P.W.8 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile and he was cross examined by the prosecution.
22.P.W.9 M.Venkaiah deposed to the effect that about 3 years ago at the instance of SI of Police, Tangutur P.S., himself and P.W.8
P.Balakotaiah exhumed the dead body of one unidentified male person which is partly buried at a distance of 3 Kms., from Jetti of
Kesupalem village.
23.P.W.10 T.Venkateswrlu, V.R.A., of Kesupalem village, deposed to the effect that about 3 years ago at about 9.00 a.m. himself and
L.W.1 B.Abraham accompanied the SI of Police and visited the scene of offence which is situated at a distance of 3 Kms., from Jetti of
Kesupalem village, they have been informed that one dead body was buried at the place. The SI of Police observed the scene of offence under cover of observation report Ex.P9.
24.P.W.11 P.Krishna, Photographer, categorically deposed to the effect that 3 years ago at the instance of SI of Police, Tangutur, he photographed and videographed the scene of offence and Ex.P10 is the photographs 3 in number and Ex.P11 is the corresponding C.D.,
25.P.W.12 K.Vijayaram, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, deposed to the effect that on 02.11.2012 at about 10.00 a.m. P.W.16
P.Mariyamma, Tahasildar, Tangutur, exhumed the dead body of an 14 unidentified male person in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9 which was buried in Sy.No.386 of Kesupalem Village and Ex.P12 is exhumation proceedings and at that time the Tahasildar seized M.O.1 cell phone ;
M.O.2 beedies-3 in number ; M.O.3 Shirt ; M.O.4 underwear and the
Tahasildar conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under the cover of inquest report Ex.P13.
26.P.W.14 Dr.G.B.Rajkumar, Professor, Head of Department of
Forensic Medicine, deposed to the effect that on 02.11.2012 himself along with Dr.K.Sreeram Civil Assistant Surgeon, attended exhumation in Cr.No.196/2012 and conducted spot postmortem examination over the dead body of an unknown male person under cover of the exhumation-cum-postmortem report Ex.P16 and he opined that approximate time of death is about 5 to 7 days prior to their postmortem examination. The cause of death, to the best of his knowledge, was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to
Neck.
27.P.W.16 P.Mariyamma, the then Tahasildar, Tangutur, categorically deposed that on 02.11.2012 on receipt of requisition from SI of Police, Tangutur, she went to the scene of offence, got exhumed the dead body through P.Ws.8 and 9 under the cover of exhumation proceedings Ex.P12 and seized M.Os.1 to 4. She conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under the cover of inquest report Ex.P13 in the presence of P.W.12 K.Vijayaram and another.
15
Thus, on a careful consideration of the evidence of the above witnesses viz., P.Ws.2 and 3, who were cited to speak their noticing
A1 and A2 and the deceased last seen alive, did not support the prosecution case. P.Ws.4 and 5 who were cited to speak to the facts of their noticing the burying of dead body by A1 and A2, also did not support the prosecution case and the other witnesses P.Ws.6 and 7 who were cited to speak that the accused A1 and A2 were taking bath in the sea in a hurried manner after committing the murder of the deceased, but not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile.
So, the main witnesses to the prosecution with regard to the fact of the deceased last seen alive with the accused and the deceased and burying the dead body by accused A1 and A2, and their talking bath in the sea hurriedly, is not established by the prosecution in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.
28.Evidently P.W.1 Sykam Subbarao is not an eyewitness to the incident, but he is only making phone calls to the cell phone of the deceased.
P.W.8 Pasumarthi Balakotaiah who was attend at the time of exhumation of the dead body also did not support the prosecution case.
29.Then, the other evidence on records is the evidence of P.W.9
Maddirala Venkaiah, P.W.10 Thota Venkateswarlu, P.W.11 Pasupuleti
Krishna, photographer and P.W.12 Karumanchi Vijayaram, M.R.I ;
P.W.14 Dr.G.B.Rajakumar ; P.W.16 P.Mariyamma Tahasildar. Evidently 16 they are not eyewitness to the incident. As per the evidence of P.W.9 he was present at the time of exhumation of the dead body by the
Tahasildar and the evidence of P.W.10 discloses that he visited the scene of offence along with the SI of Police and acted as mediators for observation of scene and report. The evidence of P.W.11, photographer, discloses that he took photographs of the scene of offence and the evidence of P.W.12 M.R.I., discloses that he was present at the time of inquest as Inquest Panchayatdar as stated above. P.W.14 Dr.G.B.Rajakumar conducted postmortem and opined with regard to the cause of death. P.W.16 P.Mariyamma, the then
Tahasildar, conducted exhumation and inquest over the dead body of the deceased and they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. They did not state anything against the accused and their evidence is not at all useful to connect the accused with the crime, basing on their evidence.
30.Then the remaining evidence on record is the evidence of
P.W.13 M.Rambabu, the then V.R.O., Tangutur ; P.W.15 Y.V.Ramanaiah, the then SI of Police and P.W.17 P.Balamuralikrishna, the then
Inspector of Police, Tangutur.
31.P.W.15 Y.V.Ramanaiah, the then Sub Inspector of Police,
Tangutur P.S., categorically deposed to the effect that on 02.11.2012
L.W.1 B.Abraham, presented a written report under Ex.P17. Then he registered the same in Cr.No.196/2012 under section 174 of Cr.P.C., and submitted FIR Ex.P18. Then he recorded the statement of L.W.1 17
B.Abraham, sent requisition to the Tahasildar for exhumation of the dead body of an unidentified male person. He was present along with
L.W.1 B.Abraham and P.W.10 Thota Venkateswarlu at the time of exhumation by the Tahasildar, and observed the scene of offence under cover of observation report Ex.P9. He prepared the rough sketch under Ex.P19. The Tahasildar seized the M.Os.1 to 4 from the scene of offence and handed over to him. On receipt of the postmortem report, he altered the section of law from 174 of Cr.P.C., to 302 and 201 of IPC and sent the FIR under Ex.P20 to the Court and he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.8 to 11 and got photographed the scene of offence through P.W.11. Evidently P.W.15
Y.V.Ramanaiah, the then SI of Police is also not an eyewitness to the incident and he only registered the FIR and recorded the statements of some witnesses and investigated into.
32.P.W.13 Mannam Rambabu, the then V.R.O., of Tangutur, categorically deposed to the effect that on 14.11.2012 at 9.30 a.m.
the Inspector of Police, Singarayakonda, called him to Tangutur P.S., and asked him to act as mediator. At that time, L.W.1 B.Abraham, accused A1 and A2 were present. When the Inspector of Police enquired A1 and A2 about the commission of offence, they confessed
before them that they have killed the deceased Nageswararao by
hacking him with knife on his Neck near Pakala-Pallepalem. The
Inspector of police recorded the confession statements of accused A1 and A2 under the cover of confession report Ex.P14, in pursuance of the confession made by the accused, the inspector of police took A2 to her house which is situated in Pakala-Palle palem village. Himself 18 and Abraham also accompanied them. A2 brought one knife and two sarees from the premises of her house and handed over the same to the inspector of police stating that they have killed the deceased with the said knife and they worn the sarees at the time of incident. M.O.5 is the knife and M.O.6 are the sarees-2 in number.
33.No doubt P.W.13 Mannam Rambabu, the V.R.O., supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the confession made by accused A1 and A2 and recording of their confession by the Inspector of Police and recovery of M.Os. 5 and 6 in pursuance of their confession. But, evidently, P.W.13 is also not an eyewitness to the incident. During the course of cross examination, P.W.13 categorically admitted that his name was not mentioned in Ex.P14 proceedings. If really P.W.13 acted as mediator from the beginning, with regard to the confessional statement recorded by the Inspector of Police, his name would have been prominently mentioned in the body of the mediators report/confessional statement so as to show that a confession was made before him by the accused. Absence of his name in the body of the mediators report materially detracts the authenticity of his presence at the time of recording the confessional statement and it is not unreasonable to infer that P.W.13 was asked to sign subsequently after preparing the confessional statement as contended by the learned counsel for the accused. In the contest of the above discussion it casts a doubt in the mind of the Court whether the accused gave the confessional statements before the
Inspector of Police in the presence of P.W.13 in the manner as alleged by the prosecution and it also casts a doubt with regard to the 19 recovery of M.Os.5 and 6 in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.
34.Then the remaining evidence on record is the evidence of
P.W.17, the then Inspector of Police and the investigating officer who categorically deposed to the effect that, the then SI of Police registered the FIR at the inspection under section 174 Cr.P.C., in this crime and later, after receipt of the postmortem certificate, altered section of law from 174 Cr.P.C., to 302 IPC and he took up investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 of Cr.P.C., He visited the scene of offence on 14.11.2012. When he was present at Tangutur P.S., L.W.1 Abraham, V.R.O., came to the
P.S., and produced A1 and A2 before him, handed over the confessional statements of A1 and A2 -- Ex.P21 and P22 -- along with his report Ex.P23. Then he secured another mediator P.W.13 Mannam
Rambabu and in the presence of the mediators he interrogated and recorded the confessional statements under Ex.P14 and in pursuance of the confession made by the accused, he seized M.Os.5 and 6.
35.Thus, as discussed above, the prosecution established that a male unidentified dead body was buried and exhumed and postmortem was conducted at the spot and on receipt of the postmortem report, section of law was altered to 174 Cr.P.C., to 302
IPC and as discussed above, the eyewitnesses for the circumstances of last seen alive and the burial of the dead body by the accused A1 and A2, did not support the prosecution case. Then except the confessional statements before the Inspector of Police as stated by 20
P.W.13, there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused
A1 and A2 with the crime.
36.Now the next point to be determined is whether the accused A1 and A2 committed the offence of murder in furtherance of their common intention and committed the offence of screening themselves from legal punishment punishable under section 201
IPC ?
37.The case of the prosecution centre rounds on the strength of the report given by L.W.1 B.Abraham, V.R.O., Ananthavaram, who produced A1 and A2 before the police and handed over their confessional statements Exs.P21 and P22, but they were not proved unfortunately. L.W.1 B.Abraham is no more and there is no other evidence on record to establish that fact except the evidence of
P.W.13 and P.W.17, the other mediator and the investigating officer.
38. As discussed above the presence of P.W.13 at the time of the recording of confessional statements is not free from doubt.
39.No doubt P.W.17, the then Inspector of Police supported the evidence of P.W.13. Evidently P.Ws.13 and 17 are not the eyewitnesses for commission of offence of murder by A1 and A2 or for the commission of offence of causing disappearance of the evidence of murder by A1 and A2 with the intention of screening of the accused from legal punishment.
21
40.Another important aspect is evidence of P.W.13 who categorically deposed that there is a V.R.O., to the village Pakala-Palle
Palem. Neither of them was advised to summon the VRO of the village nor the Inspector of Police summoned the VRO to act as mediator. P.W.13 categorically deposed that Ex.P15 where by M.Os.5 and 6 were seized i.e., knife and sarees, does not contain the signature of A2 on Ex.P15 proceedings. The absence of signature of
A2 on the mediators report detracts materially from authenticity and reliability of the disclosure statement and the alleged seizure of
M.Os.5 and 6 in the manner as alleged by the prosecution is not free from doubt.
40.Further, as seen from the evidence of P.W.17, the Inspector of
Police, who categorically deposed that he tried to secure the presence of local mediators but, nobody came forward to act as mediators.
41.It is needless to say failure of police to join any independent witness of that locality create a doubt about the seizure of M.Os.5 and
6. One can not loose sight of the fact that the police officials did not to join any independent witness of that locality and made an attempt to create an impression in the mind of the Court by stating that nobody came forward to act as mediators.
42.In Jackarain Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1995
Crl.L.J. 3992 (SC) while dealing with Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act and the credibility of disclosure statement it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
22
“Even the recovery memo of the revolver does
not bear either the signature or thumb
impression of the accused. The absence of the
signatures or the thumb impressions of the
accused on the disclosure statement recorded
under section 27 of the Evidence Act detracts
materially from the authenticity and reliability
of the disclosure statement.”
43.When L.W.1 B.Abraham the star witness to unfold the prosecution story is died and no more, there is no other independent or direct evidence on record to establish the fact that A1 and A2 approached him and confessed their guilt before him and recording of their statements Exs.P21 and P22 by him, to establish the charges leveled against the accused A1 and A2 and to connect them with the crime.
No doubt there is no prohibition to act on the uncorroborated testimony of investigating officer P.W.17 to base a conviction if his evidence is trustworthy.
In Kavili Venkataiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Public Prosecutor as reportedin 2011 (3)
ALT (Crl.,) 158 (AP) when the material witnesses did not support the prosecution case, it was observed in 11 of the Judgment that :
“- - - The eyewitnesses for the case are P.Ws.1
and 2. The main material witnesses are P.Ws.1 to
5. None of them supported the prosecution story.
Merely because other witnesses and official
witnesses supported the prosecution case, I
23
consider that the trial Court was incorrect in
concluding that there was other substantial
evidence pointing out the guilt of the accused
much less beyond reasonable doubt. - - - -”
44.In the context of the above discussion it is B.Abraham, L.W.1, on whose statement and on whose production of accused A1 and A2
before the Inspector of Police, the investigation was ignited. But,
unfortunately, the said L.W.1 Abraham is no more and there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.13 and 17 on material particulars, then it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of P.Ws.13 and 17 to base a conviction against accused A1 and A2.
45.When the evidence on record is not cogent, clear and convincing, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused as they are entitled for it.
46.Anyhow, the prosecution mainly relied on the motive with regard to the harassment of the deceased to A1 both physically and mentally and forcing repeatedly to A1 to do prostitution, which made the A1 to hatch up a plan for the commission of murder of the deceased with her sister A2.
47.No doubt,it appears that motive is very strong in this case, but where there is no direct evidence on record, basing on circumstantial evidence with regard to the recoveries of material objects and the confessional statements made by the accused, some 24 how, it is not desirable to rely on the prosecution story as alleged because “Motive may create a very strong suspicion, but can not take the place of proof.”
48.Further in the absence of direct evidence when the prosecution is going to prove on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circusmtances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. Such chain of events are absent in the evidence of the prosecution case
“Graver the offence, stricter is the proof, is a
universal law of legal jurisprudence.”
49.Thus, in view of the discussion made above and on the touch stone of the principles laid down in the decision referred supra, the prosecution failed to establish the necessary ingredients that the accused A1 and A2 committed the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of IPC and further the prosecution failed to establish the necessary ingredients of Section 201 IPC causing disappearance of the evidence to screen the accused from the legal punishment, as the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused in the manner as alleged by the prosecution, this Court is not inclined to accept the evidence on record to base a conviction for the charged offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 and 201 of IPC as the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused A1 and 25
A2, therefore, can not be held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 and 201 of IPC., The point is answered accordingly.
50.In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of
IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235 (1) of
Cr.P.C., for the charged offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of IPC.,
The bail bonds of accused A1 and A2 will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.,
The case property M.O.1 cell phone is ordered to be confiscated to the state and M.Os.2 to 6 – Three Beedis, piece of shirt cloth, underwear, knife, two sarees are ordered to destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant of this Court, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of April, 2016.
Sd/- V.Mohan Kumar,
Judge, Family Court-
cum-VIII A.D.S.J.,Ongole.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined For Prosecution :
P.W.1 Saikam Subba Rao P.W.2 Maaka Kalyanarao P.W.3 Kanna Sreenu P.W.4 Ponnadi Sreenu P.W.5 Kokkiligadda Rosaiah P.W.6 Maaka Krishnarao P.W.7 Maaka Venkateswarlu P.W.8 Pasumarthi Balakotaiah P.W.9 Maddirala Venkaiah P.W.10 Thota Venkateswarlu, VRA., P.W.11 Pasupuleti Krishna, Photographer P.W.12 Karumanchi Vijayaram, MRI, Tangutur P.W.13 Mannam Rambabu, VRO., Tangutur-1 26
P.W.14 Dr.G.B.Raja Kumar, Professor, Head of the Department, Forensic Medicine, RIMS Hospital, Ongole, P.W.15 Y.V.Ramanaiah, Sub Inspector of Police P.W.16 Smt.P.Mariyamma, Tahasildar, Tangutur P.W.17 P.Balamuralikrishna, C.I.of Police, S.Konda
For Defence : None Exhibits Marked For Prosecution : Ex.P1 / - : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1 Ex.P2 / - : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2 Ex.P3 / - : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3 Ex.P4 / - : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4 Ex.P5 / - : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5 Ex.P6 / - : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6 Ex.P7 / - : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.7 Ex.P8 / - : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.8 Ex.P9 / - : Scene observation report Ex.P10/ - : 3 Photographs Ex.P11/ - : C.D., Ex.P12/ - : Exhumation proceedings Ex.P13/ - : Inquest report Ex.P14/ - : Signature of P.W.13 in confession report Ex.P15/ - : Mediator report Ex.P16/02.11.2012: Exhumation-cum-P.M. Report Ex.P17/31.10.2012: Report Ex.P18/ - : FIR Ex.P19/ - : Rough Sketch Ex.P20/12.11.2012: Altered FIR Ex.P21/ - : Confession Statement of A1 Ex.P22/ - : Confession Statement of A2 Ex.P23/ - : Report of L.W.1 Ex.P24/26.11.2012: Letter of advice Ex.P25/12.02.2013: RFSL Report
For Defence : Nil. M.Os. Marked M.O.1 Cell phone M.O.2 Three beedis M.O.3 Piece of Shirt M.O.4 Underwear M.O.5 Knife M.O.6 Sarees 2 in number Ild/-V.M.K.,
VIII A.D.S.J.,
Copy submitted to : The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
Copies to:
1. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole
2. The Director of Prosecutions, Hyderabad
3. The Additional Public prosecutor, Ongole 27
IN THE COURT OF FAMILY-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE: PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE
Present: Sri V.Mohan Kumar
Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Ongole.
Tuesday, this the 12th day of April, 2016.
SESSIONS CASE NO.197 of 2013
(Cr.No.196/2012 of Tangutur P.S.)
Name of the Police station : Tangutur P.S.
Name & Description of the accused:
1.Chetti Venkata Seshamma @ Seshamma, W/o.Nageswara Rao, 27 Yrs, Pallekaru by Caste, Coolie, Pakala Village, S.Konda Mandal.
2.Maaka Rajamma W/o.Thataiah, 35 Yrs, Pallekaru by Caste, Coolie, Pakala Village, S.Konda Mandal.
.. ACCUSED
Deceased : Chetti Nageswara Rao S/o.late Veeraiah, 35 Yrs, Kamma by Caste, Cultivation, Pakala Village & S.Konda Mandal.
Charges:-: U/Sec.302, 201 of IPC.
Plea of the accused : Not guilty Finding of the Court : Found not Guilty
Sentence or Order:
In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable under sections 302, 201 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., for the charged offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of IPC.,
The bail bonds of Accused A1 and A2 will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.,
The case property M.O.1 cell phone is ordered to be confiscated to the state and M.Os.2 to 6 – Three Beedis, piece of shirt cloth, underware, knife, two sarees are ordered to destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
28
DATES OF
Occurrence : 27.10.2012 Complaint : 02.11.2012 Apprehension of accused : 14.11.2012 Commencement of trial : 18.01.2016 Closure of trial : 30.03.2016 Hearing : 11.04.2016 Judgment : 12.04.2016
Explanation for the delay:-
On 02.12.2013 entire case record was received in this Court as made- over from the Court of Sessions. On 29.01.2014 A1 and A2 were present. On 25.02.2014 heard on charges. On 19.03.2014 charges framed and posted from time to time for fixing of trial schedule. Finally on 04.12.2015 trial schedule was announced. On 18.01.2016 P.Ws.1 and 2 examined and Ex.P1 and P2 were marked. On 19.01.2016 P.Ws.3 to 5 were examined and Exs.P3 to P5 were marked. On 20.01.2016 P.Ws.6 to 8 were marked and Exs.P6 to P8 were marked. On 21.01.2016 P.Ws.9 to 11 were examined and Exs.P9 to P11 were marked. On 22.01.2016 P.Ws.12 and 13 were examined, Exs.P12 to P15 and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked. On 27.01.2016 P.W.14 examined and Ex.P16 marked. On 28.01.2016 P.W.15 examined and Exs.P17 to P20 were marked. On 09.02.2016 P.W.16 examined. On 30.03.2016 P.W.17 examined and Exs.P21 to 25 were marked, thereby prosecution closed. On 04.04.2016 accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., On 06.04.2016 heard arguments. On 12.04.2016 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.
Sd/- V.Mohan Kumar,
Judge, Family Court-cum-
VIII Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy submitted to
The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
Copies to:
1.The Superintendent of Police, Ongole 2.The Director of Prosecutions, Hyderabad 3.The Additional Public prosecutor, Ongole
// True Copy //
Judge, Family Court- cum-VIII A.D.S.J.,
Ongole.