1 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
IN THE COURT OF THE V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.
Friday, the 11th day of October, 2019.
PRESENT: Sri V. SATYANARAYANA,
V-Addl. Sessions Judge, II-FTC, Warangal at Jangaon.
SESSIONS CASE NO.147 OF 2018.
(Preliminary Registration Case No.18 of 2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon – Crime No.2 of 2018 of Police Station Raghunathpally.)
1.Committed by :Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon.
2.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through complainantthe Circle Inspector of Police, Jangaon Rural.
3.Name and description of the :A1 Aruri Balaswamy, accused S/o. Late Yellaiah, Aged 28 years, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Agriculture.
A2 Aruri Aruna, D/o. Yadagiri, aged 26 years, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Student.
Both R/o. Madaram village of Raghunathpally mandal.
4.Prosecution conducted by:Sri A. Veera Mallaiah, I/C. Addl. Public Prosecutor.
5.Accused defended by:Sri S. Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate.
6.Offences charged:Section 302, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
7.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.
8.Finding of the Court:Found guilty.
9.Sentence or Order:Accused No.1 and 2 are convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C., and the accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentencedtoundergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, they shallundergosimple imprisonment for one month.
2 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
Further, the accused No.1 and 2 aresentencedtosuffer IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, they shallundergosimple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period already undergone by the accused No.1 and 2 shall be given set off U/s.428 of Cr.P.C..
This Sessions Case is coming on 10.10.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Veera Mallaiah, In-charge Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri S. Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate for both the accused; after hearing the arguments of both the sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were in love with each other and developed sexual relationship in between them. While so, the marriage of the accused No.2 was fixed with the deceased Gongalla Yakaiah against her will. As such, the accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired together to do away with the life of G. Yakaiah and the accused No.2 instigated the accused No.1 in that regard. Accordingly, on 18.02.2017 the accused No.1 went near to the house of deceased at 11.45 P.M., and was waiting. On the instructions of the accused No.1, the accused No.2 called the deceased over phone and requested him to come out of the house to discuss about the marriage issue. When the deceased came out of his house, the accused No.1 who was waiting outside the house, sprinkled the petrol on the body of deceased and set him fire with a match stick. Due to which, the deceased sustained burn injuries on his back, legs and other parts of body. Immediately, he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal and from there to Gandhi Hospital, 3 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
Secunderabad. On 24.02.2018 at 7.15 A.M., the deceased succumbed to burn injuries while undergoing treatment.
2.On receipt of complaint from the father of deceased, the S.I. of
Police, PS.Raghunathpally registered a case in Cr.No.22/2018 for the offence U/s.307 of IPC and issued FIR. During course of investigation, the
S.I. of Police, PS.Raghunathpally examined and recorded the statement of the PW.1 and visited MGM Hospital, Warangal, where he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. Upon requisition, the III Addl.
Junior Civil Judge, Warangal recorded the dying declaration of deceased.
Thereafter, the S.I. of Police, Raghunathpally visited the scene of offence place situated at the house of complainant in Kanchanapally village, where he conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators LWs.13 and 15 and drawn rough sketch. He also photographed the scene of offence place and seized mobile phone and burnt cloth pieces of the deceased. Thereafter, the call data records of the accused No.2 of cell phone No.8499891690 was secured. Basing on the call data particulars, the accused No.1 was apprehended on 21.02.2018 and on interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence in the presence of witnesses LWs.17 and 18 and seized his mobile phone NOKIA bearing No.9666111455 and blue colour passion pro motor cycle bearing No.AP-24-AD-4839 was seized under cover of panchanama. Thereafter, the accused No.1 led the police and mediators near to Yellamma Temple, where he produced one liter water bottle cut in the shape of jug and one match box and one blade from the bushes which were used in the commission of offence. Accordingly, the said case properties were seized in the presence of LWs.17 and 18 under cover panchanama. Thereafter, basing on the confession made by the accused No.1, the accused No.2 was apprehended and on interrogation 4 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
she confessed to have committed the offence along with accused No.1, as such, her confessional statement was recorded and Samsung cell phone was recovered from her possession in the presence of same mediators LWs.17 and 18 under cover of panchanama. Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were produced before the court for judicial remand.
On 24.02.2018 on receipt of death intimation of deceased from Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad, the section of law was altered from Section 307 of IPC into Section 302 of IPC. Thereafter, the LW.31 C.I. of Police,
Jangaon rushed to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators LWs.19 and 20 and subjected the dead body of deceased for autopsy. The LW.24 Addl.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon conducted the Test of
Identification Parade proceedings against the accused persons by the
LW.6 and he identified the accused No.1. The LW.25 Medical Officer who treated the injured issued wound certificate that she sustained simple injury. The LW.26 who held autopsy over the dead body of deceased opined the cause of death was due to “burns and its complications”.
After completion of entire investigation, the C.I. of Police, Jangaon filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences U/s.302 and 120(B) R/w 34 of IPC.
3.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, took the case on file under Sections 302, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused and furnished the copies of case documents to them on their appearance before the Court. Since the offences alleged against the accused are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned
Magistrate committed the case against the accused vide Preliminary
Register Case No.18 of 2018 to the Court of Sessions, Warangal division,
Warangal, for disposal of the same in accordance with law.
5 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
4.The Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, took the case on file and assigned the Sessions Case No.147 of 2018 and made over the same to this Court for disposal of the same in accordance with law.
5.After hearing the arguments submitted by both side counsel, charges under Sections 302, 120 (B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code were framed against both the accused, the same were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which, the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.To substantiate the charges, the prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 25 and Exts.P1 to P30 and marked Material Objects No.1 to 8. Thus after closure of the prosecution side evidence, both the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., confronting them with the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Upon which, both the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence but Exts.D1 and D2 portions in 161 Cr.P.C.
statement of PW.6 and Ex.D3 News paper cutting are marked.
7.Heard both sides.
8.The point for determination of this Court is, “whether the
prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2
beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code?”
9.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined and relied upon the oral evidence of the PWs.1 to 25 and got marked Exs.P1 to P30 and MOs.1 to 8. On the other hand the accused examined none on their behalf but got marked Exts.D1 and D2 portions in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 and Ex.D3 News paper cutting were marked.
6 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
10.The PWs.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased G.Yakaiah @
Yakub. The PWs.3 to 7 are the circumstantial witnesses. PW.8 is the photographer. PW.9 is the first owner of crime vehicle. PW.10 is neighbor of deceased. PW.11 is the present owner of crime vehicle. PW.12 is one of the panch witness for crime details form. PW.13 is one of the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama. PW.14 is one of the panch witness for inquest panchanama. PW.15 is the Police Constable who apprehended the accused No.1. PW.16 is the Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. PW.17 is the Medical
Officer who treated the injured and issued wound certificate. PW.19 is the medical officer who held autopsy over the dead body of deceased.
PW.22 is the investigation officer.
11.Now coming to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the
PW.1 who is the father of deceased G.Yakaiah deposed that the marriage proposal of his son was fixed with the accused No.2 and fixed the date of marriage as 21-02-2018. About twenty days prior to the marriage of his son, in the mid night hours one unknown person came to their house and throttled his throat on which day they performed house warming ceremony. He further deposed that the accused No.2 called their son over phone and insisted to come outside the house. Accordingly, when his son went out from the house, the accused No.2 poured petrol on her son and set fire. Thereafter, they shifted the injured to the MGM Hospital for medical treatment and from there to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he succumbed to burn injuries. The PW.2 who is mother of deceased also deposed in the similar lines as that of her husband and she further deposed that her son returned home with burn flames by shouting that Madaram villagers poured petrol on him and set fire.
Immediately, she tried to control the flames, due to which she too 7 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
sustained burn injury along with her son. She further specifically deposed that the accused No.2 is liable for death of her son as she disliked the marriage.
12.The PWs.3, 4, 6 and 10 have deposed that on 18.02.2018 after completion of house warming ceremony of the PW.1, they went to their house and had slept. At about 11.30 P.M. they heard cries from the house of the PW.1, upon which they went to the house of the PW.1 and noticed that the deceased Yakaiah with flames and they tried to put off the flames, in which the PW.2 received burn injury. Thereafter, they shifted the injured to MGM Hospital, Warangal and from there to Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderbad, where the deceased died. They further deposed that the deceased informed him that the accused No.2 called the deceased over phone, upon which he went out of house, then one unknown person poured petrol on him and set fire. He further specifically deposed that the accused No.2 killed the deceased due to unlike marriage with him and that the accused No.2 also attacked twice on the PW.1. The PW.5 who is the circumstantial witness deposed that on 18.02.2018 there was a function in the village and some new persons came to his shop and purchased match box. The witness identified the accused No.1 who had purchased the match box and blade from his shop on 18.02.2018.
13.The PW.7 deposed that the PW.1 informed him about the attack made on him by some unknown persons by closing his mouth. He further deposed that on 19.02.2018 the LW.19 G.Ashok informed that an unknown person attacked on his cousin brother G.Yakaiah by pouring petrol, as such, he was sustained burning injuries and the PW.2 while tried to control the flames, she too received burn injuries and both of 8 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
them were shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal for treatment. Thereafter, he went to the hospital and noticed the injured person with burn injuries.
He further specifically deposed that Yakaiah intimated him that the accused No.2 had called him and he went out of house in the night hours, then on unknown person poured petrol on him, set fire and fled away. On 19.02.2018 on the advice of doctors they shifted the injured
Yakaiah to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he succumbed to injuries on 24.02.2018. The PW.8 deposed that on 24.02.2018 at request of police, he photographed the dead body of deceased in Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad and the Ex.P2 are the photographs. The PW.9 deposed that he purchased the motor cycle Passion Pro bearing
No.AP.24.AD.4839 from Laxmi Ganesh Bajaj Showroom, Bhongir and later he sold out the same to one Hari Nayak sold it in favour of third person. The subsequent purchaser of motor cycle deposed that he purchased the motor cycle No.4839 for sale consideration of Rs.17,000/- from LW.13 Venkataiah, but he has not registered the vehicle on his name. He further deposed that on one day the accused No.1 took his motor cycle to distribute wedding cards and after four days police informed about involvement of motor cycle in a crime.
14.PW.12 who is one of the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama deposed that on 19.02.2018 the police conducted panchanama in his presence and also recovered one NOKIA mobile phone, one IDEA sim card, cell phone battery separately. The police also found white colour burn cloth pieces from the scene of offence. Mo.1 is the Nokia mobile phone. MO.2 is the burnt shit piece which were seized under cover of panchanama Ex.P3.
15.PW.13 deposed that on 21.02.2018 upon instructions of his superior officer, himself and one P.Sudheer Reddy went to the police 9 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
station and found the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the custody of police. On enquiry, they confessed to have committed the offence and in pursuance of said confession of the accused persons, the police recovered the MOs.1 to 8 under cover of panchanamas under the Exs.P5 to P7. PW.14 deposed that in his presence the police held inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased and they opined the cause of death prior to ten days of incident, the marriage of his brother-in-law was settled with the accused No.2 and the marriage date was also fixed
as 21.02.2018, but the accused No.2 has not interested the marriage
with deceased, as such, the accused Nos.1 and 2 planned to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly, the accused No.1 came to the village of deceased and poured petrol on him and fled away.
16.PW.15 Police Constable deposed that on 21.02.2018 he went to
Madram village to apprehend the accused No.1 in connection with this case and on enquiry the accused No.1 revealed his identity and was sat on motor cycle. Immediately, he apprehended him along with his motor cycle and produced before the S.I. of Police. On interrogation, the accused No.1 confessed to have committed the offence along with the accused No.2, upon which himself and LW.22 went to Madaram village and apprehended the accused No.2 on the same day and produced
before the S.I. of Police.
17.PW.16 Judicial Magistrate deposed that on 19.02.2018 upon receiving requisition from Out Post, MGM Hospital, Warangal he proceeded there and recorded the dying declaration of deceased under
Ex.P10. PW.17 who treated the injured / PW.2 and deceased deposed that on 19.02.2018 he examined both the injured persons and issued wound certificate under the Ex.P12 of PW.2 opining that she sustained 10 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
burn injuries on abdomen, front of neck and left hand. He further deposed that he has also treated the deceased Yakub who sustained 40% to 50% mixed flame burns and he was referred to Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad for better treatment. PW.19 who held autopsy over the dead body of deceased deposed about conducting post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased Yakub and he issued PME report under the Ex.P14. Pws.20 and 24 are the Nodal officers of AIRtel and Ideal cell service providers and they furnished the call records data of the accused No.1 and 2 on the requisition of the police. PW.23 is the
Scientific Officer of RFSL, Warangal and she deposed that after analyzing the items No.1 and 2, she issued report under Ex.P22. Further, PW.23 categorically deposed that there is a chance of absorption of petrol on cloth item but not in the item No.2 i.e., open bottle. Pws.21, 22 and 25 are the investigation officers in this case and they deposed about the manner of investigation done by them into this case.
18.Upon meticulous consideration of the evidence on record, it is observed that even though the witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to the deceased, their testimonies are to be considered with due care and caution coupled with the documentary evidence under the
Exs.P1 to P30 along with the evidence of the medical officers and investigation officer and their evidence cannot be rejected on the prima facie ground of them being interested witnesses. In the cross examination of the PW.1 he deposed that he has not lodged any police complaint when his throat was throttled by unknown persons and that he did not state before the police that the accused No.2 came to his house and called his son through phone and she poured petrol on his son and set fire to him. The PW.2 in her cross examination deposed that she cannot identify the person who poured petrol on her son. The PW.3 11 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
admitted that he has not disclosed about the age and physical features of person who purchased the blade and match box from his shop and about the said person having mole on his face. PW.13 in re-examination has categorically identified both the accused persons. PW.14 deposed in his cross examination that he put his signature on Ex.P8 panchanama at the instance of police and he cannot say the contents of said panchanama. The Medical Officer PW.17 deposed that there is possible to die with grievous burn (petrol) injury with 30% to 40%. However, the other prosecution witnesses denied the suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the accused and nothing worthwhile is elicited during course of their cross examination.
19.In the present case, the accused persons were charged with offences punishable U/sec.302 and 120-B R/w 34 of IPC. Section 302 of
IPC enumerates that ”whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine". In order to appreciate the evidence available on record in the light of offence charged against the accused, it would also be appropriate to refer to the provision contained in Section 300 IPC which reads as “except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
Secondly: If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or Thirdly: If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
Fourthly: If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily 12 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
20.The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 302 are as follows:-
1. Death of a human being was caused;
2. Such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused;
3. Such act was done;
(a) with the intention of causing death, or
(b) that the accused knew it to be likely to cause death, or
(c) that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
21.On careful perusal of the entire material available on record, the circumstances as relied by prosecution in the charge sheet for proving the offences punishable U/sec.302 and 120-B R/w 34 of IPC are that (i)
Death of deceased Gongalla Yakaiah @ Yakub was homicidal in nature;
(ii) That the dead body of deceased Gongalla Yakaiah @ Yakub was found in partially burnt condition; (iii) One NOKIA cell phone of deceased seized from the scene of offence; (iv) Recovery of NOKIA dual sim black colour mobile phone containing two SIMs of Airtel and another is empty at the instance of accused No.1; (v) Motorcycle bearing no.AP.24.AD.4839 used by accused No.1 during commission of offence;
(vi) Last seen evidence of PW.5 who sold match box and blade to the accused No.1 on the night of alleged incident; (vii) Use of mobile phone connection number 8499891690 issued in the name of the accused No.2 to the deceased mobile number 9133605351 (belongs to the brother of accused No.2 namely Aruri Ashok and also the phone calls in between the accused Nos.1 and 2 having mobile numbers 9666111455 to 13 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
8499891690 respectively; (viii) The factum of arranging the marriage of accused No.2 with deceased, (ix) the accused Nos.1 and 2 are in love with each other and developed sexual relationship, thereby, the accused
No.2 disliked her marriage with the deceased, (x) ultimately having prepared to eliminate the deceased by the accused Nos.1 and 2, visited the village of deceased on the day of house warming ceremony. (ix) other two incident of attacking on PW.1 by throttling his throat.
22.In the instant case, through the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has been able to establish on record that death of
Gongalla Yakaiah @ Yakub was homicidal in nature in view of unassailed testimony of PW-17 Dr.Ashwini who had treated the deceased while suffering with burn injuries and the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased opined that the cause of death was due to “BURNS”. Nevertheless, prosecution has also established its case that the accused Nos.1 and 2 had hatched conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased G.Yakaiah @ Yakub and that they had committed his murder and had caused his dead body burnt by pouring petrol and by setting him on fire. The prosecution had examined and relied upon the evidence of the PWs.1 to 14 and they all in one voice deposed that as the accused No.2 disliked the marriage with the deceased, and she is responsible for the death of deceased. The PW.15 categorically deposed that on 21.02.2018 he apprehended the accused who was sat on motor cycle and produced the accused No.1 along with motor cycle before the S.I. of Police. The Nodal Officers of Telecom
Services have issued the call data records of accused Nos.1 and 2 and of deceased with the respective cell phone numbers and the said documentary evidence is supporting to the case of the prosecution in toto. The prosecution claimed that the accused used the motor cycle in 14 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
commission of offence and the evidence of the PWs.9 to 11 is totally corroborating in respect of using the motor cycle by the accused in commission of the offence.
23.It is well settled law that in a case based upon circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance and importance. It is all the more essential for the prosecution to establish motive which led the accused to commit the offence of murder. Absence of motive would put the Court on its ground and cause it to scrutinize in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjectures do not take place of proof. In the present case the motive for the murder of deceased as the accused No.2 disliked the marriage with deceased, since she is in love with the accused No.1. All the prosecution witnesses have firmly deposed supporting the case of prosecution and their evidence is not shaken in any manner in respect of the motive for commission of offence by the accused persons against the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons hatched conspiracy with each other to commit murder of deceased. It is well settled law that in order to prove the charge of conspiracy, prosecution is supposed to establish that there was an agreement between accused persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. Thus, there must be meeting of minds resulting into an ultimate position taken by conspirators regarding the commission of crime. Conspiracy can be inferred even by the circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible influence of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. The circumstances in a particular case, when taken together on the face value who indicate the meeting of minds between the conspirators for an intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by an illegal means. It has to be shown that all 15 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of object of conspiracy hatched between the accused persons. A systematic role played by each accused should be high lightened. Each circumstance should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and such circumstances proved, must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion of guilt of accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis is possible. Offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law where intention alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence. The question for consideration in a case is did all the accused have the intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence to conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, that offence be committed.
Conspiracy has to be proved by leading substantive evidence.
24.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused there is no documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution that as per the call data records collected during course of investigation, the cell phones MOs.1 and 8 are not standing in the name of the accused and thereby the accused are no way concerned with the same and they are falsely implicated in this case. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution failed to establish the active role of the accused Nos.1 and 2 in commission of murder of the deceased. It is further contended that there is no direct cogent evidence against the accused to commit the murder of the deceased and that the entire case depended upon circumstantial evidence and that the PWs.1 to 4 deposed that the accused No.2 poured kerosene and lit fire to the 16 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
deceased, but the case of prosecution is totally different that the accused No.1 poured kerosene and set fire the deceased. It is further contended that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the accused No.2 is the fiancee of the accused No.1 and none of the witnesses identified the accused. It is further contended by the accused that the witnesses have not disclosed the cell phone numbers of accused Nos.1 and 2 and that the PWs.9, 10 and 11 stated that one
Yakub admitted in the hospital but whereas the deceased name is
Yakaiah. It is further contention of the counsel for the accused that the deceased fell in front of the house of one Venkataiah and whereas the case of prosecution reveals that the deceased fell in front of his house.
Per contra, the learned APPO contended that the prosecution has proved its case by way of adducing oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the chain of link is not broken at anywhere. On perusal of the case records, the death of deceased is not disputed and the marriage of accused No.1 was fixed with the deceased and that the accused No.2 is the fiancée of the accused No.1. The prosecution witnesses have not identified the accused Nos.1 and 2. In support his contention, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon a judgments reported in (i) 2019 (1) ALD (Crl.) 377 in the case of Thota Panakalu @ Panaiah v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, (ii) 2019 (1) ALD (Crl.) 132 in the case of
Ponna Prathapa @ Aasin v. State and (iii) 2019 (4) Supreme 143 in the case of Balaji v. The State of Maharashtra.
25.Coming to the name of deceased as Yakub instead of Yakaiah, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class mentioned the name of deceased as Yakub, as per the requisition given by the police and on minute perusal of dying declaration of deceased, it clearly reveals that the deceased stated his name as Yakaiah in the dying declaration. Thus, 17 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
the dispute with regard to the name of deceased cannot brush aside the core case of prosecution. The another point with regard to pouring kerosene on the person of deceased either by the accused No.1 or by the accused No.2 by the prosecution witnesses, the incident alleged was occurred on 18.02.2017 and whereas the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is recorded after a gap of two years, therefore, it is natural for the human memory to depose each and every facts by recollecting all those facts and depose the same before this court. In such course, there will be certain omissions which cannot be viewed meticulously. However, the learned counsel for the accused has not got marked any contradicting versions on behalf of the accused. All the prosecution witnesses, including the Medical Officer have firmly deposed supporting the case of prosecution and thereby the case of prosecution is stands proved against the accused.
26.In the instant case, the prosecution has produced substantive evidence which has come on record to prove that the conspiracy was hatched between the accused persons. Moreover, the dying declaration of the deceased which was recorded by the PW.16 under the Ex.P10 clearly reveals the involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 in commission of murder of the deceased. There is positive and concrete evidence available on record which show that accused Nos.1 and 2 are already in love with each other and they had sexual relationship in between them.
During such course, the marriage of the accused No.2 was fixed with the deceased and thereby the accused Nos.1 and 2 hatched a plan and in execution of such plan, they visited the village of the deceased on the day of house warming ceremony and the accused No.2 intentionally made phone call to the deceased to come outside of the house in the late hours and soon after the deceased came out, the accused No.1 who 18 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
was ready to commit murder having prepared, sprinkled petrol on the person of deceased and set fire, due to which, the deceased was caught on flames and went towards his house. The mother of deceased / PW.2 who tried to extinguish the flames of deceased, had also, unfortunately caught by flames and she too was treated medically by the Medical
Officer. Thus, the accused persons are previously known to each other and had close sexual relationship amongst themselves and the last seen of together with is also established with which the offence of conspiracy charged against them is said to have been proved beyond doubt through the cogent, proper and convincing evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In view of the above circumstances, the citations relied upon by the counsel for the accused are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
27.For the reasons stated above, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court came to a conclusion that the prosecution proved facts of the case on hand which clearly attracts the ingredients of Section 302 and 120-B R/w 34 of IPC against the accused
Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/sec. 302 and 120-B R/w 34 of IPC against the accused. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused and they are liable for conviction for above said proved offences.
28.In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence U/s. 302 and 120-B R/w 34 of IPC and convicted U/s.235(2) of
Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stands cancelled subject to
Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months. The Mos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time after expiry 19 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
of appeal time. The MO.4 motor cycle is ordered to be given to its owner after expiry of appeal time.
(Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to my Stenographer Gr.III, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of October, 2019.)
V-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
WARANGAL AT JANGAON.
29.The accused Nos.1 and 2 are heard about the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon them, for which they prayed mercy of this court stating that they are innocents and have not committed any offence. Further, A.1 pleaded that he has parents, sisters and if he is sent to jail, his family members will suffer for livelihood. However, this court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of the P.O. Act against the accused, as the offences are proved against the accused in brutal murder of innocent just because for agreeing the marriage proposal with the accused No.2, who is having love and sexual affair with the accused
No.1. On considering the request of the accused and taking into note of the nature of the offences committed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to suffer IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE each and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Further, the accused
No.1 and 2 are sentenced to suffer IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period already undergone by the accused 20 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
No.1 and 2 shall be given set off U/s.428 of Cr.P.C.. The certified copy of the judgment is given to the accused on free of cost and they are also apprised of his right to prefer appeal against this judgment within limitation period. The accused are also appraised about taking Legal Aid
Counsel in preferring appeal also.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of October,
2019.)
V-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1 G. Sammaiah-None- PW.2 G. Yadamma PW.3 Gade Kumar PW.4 G. Venkataiah PW.5 Aitha Sridhar PW.6 G. Bixapathi PW.7 Ch. Nagaraju PW.8 K. Sathish PW.9 V. Chandrashekar PW.10 G. Yadaiah PW.11 G. Narsaiah PW.12 K. Venkatesh PW.13 T. Ramulu PW.14 P. Naresh PW.15 Ch. Rajkumar PW.16 K. Ajesh Kumar, JFCM PW.17 Dr. Ashwini PW.18 A. Nirmala, JFCM PW.19 Dr. G. Lavanya Kowsil PW.20 Deepak, Nodal Officer PW.21 P. Ranjith Rao, SI of Police. PW.22 B. Thirupathi, CI of Police. PW.23 Y. Neeraja, I/C Officer RFSL PW.24 B. Santhosh Kumar, Nodal Officer PW.25 Y. Chandrashekher, CI of Police.
21 of 21 SC No.147 of 2018/V-Addl. SJC, Jangaon.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1 Complaint given by PW.1.Ex.D1 Relevant portion in 161 Ex.P2 Photographs of deceased (4) along with Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. CD.Ex.D2 Relevant portion in 161 Ex.P3 Signatures of PW.12 on Crime details form. Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P4 Rough Sketch.Ex.D3 News Paper cutting. Ex.P5 Confession and recovery panchanama of A1 Ex.P6 Recovery panchanama of A.1 Ex.P7 Confession and recovery panchanama of MO.8 mobile phone of A2. Ex.P8 Inquest panchanama. Ex.P9 Requisition for recording dying declaration. Ex.P10 Dying declaration of deceased. Ex.P11 MLC No.41276. Ex.P12 MLC of PW.2. Ex.P13 TI Proceedings. Ex.P14 PME report of the deceased. Ex.P15 Requisition filed by Addl. DCP, Warangal. Ex.P16 Certificate dt.26.04.2018 issued by AIRTEL Ex.P17 Information submitted to Addl. DCP. Ex.P18 Customer Application form with data (9 pages) Ex.P19 First information report. Ex.P20 Statement of Victim u/s.161 (3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P21 Section Alteration Memo. Ex.P22 RFSL report. Ex.P23 Letter addressed to Addl. DCP of Police (Admin). Ex.P24 Another letter issued by Addl. DCP (Admn). Ex.P25 Covering Letter dt.27.04.2018. Ex.P26 Certificate dt.27.04.2018 issued by IDEA. Ex.P27 Customer Application form along with call records data (6 pages) Ex.P28 Covering letter dt.27.04.2018. Ex.P29 Certificate dt.27.04.2018 issued by IDEA. Ex.P30 Customer Application form along with call records data (7 sheets)
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO.1 is Nokia mobile phone black colour with Idea Sim card. MO.2 Partly burned shirt pieces which was containing white colour. MO.3 is Black colour Nokia Cell phone along with Airtel sim. MO.4 Passin Pro motor cycle bearing No.AP-24-AD-4839. MO.5 One liter plastic bottle. MO.6 Match box (Deer). MO.7 Super Max blade. MO.8 Samsung company mobile phone with Idea sim.
V-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
II-FTC, WARANGAL AT JANGAON.