Sri V.sreenivasa Sivaram

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : KADAPA AT

PRODDATUR.

Present: Sri V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences

under S.Cs. & S.Ts. (P.O.A), Kadapa

FAC, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Friday, this the 20 th day of September, 2019

S.C.No.344 of 2018

1.Name of theState: Represented by Circle Inspector of Police, ComplainantKondapuram circle. & accused

...Complainant

Vs.

1. Patan Abdul Kalam S/o Mahaboob Khan, aged 65 years, Muslim, removed RTC Driver, Darga Colony, H.No.5-11, Chinna Mandem Village and Mandal, YSR District, Kadapa.

2. Shaik Mohammad Isak @ Isak, S/o Moulali, aged 65 years, D.No.8/10, behind the Mosque, Modampalle Street, Proddatur town and Mandal.

3. Vonipenta @ Shaik Ghouselazam, S/o Late Latheef Saheb, aged 56 years, Muslim, resident of D.No.7-64, Mosque Street, Kaderbad village, Proddatur mandal. … Accused

2.ChargesUnder Section Sections 302, 201, 302 r/w.120(B), 404 , 397 and 450 of I.P.C.

3.Finding of theIn the result, the A.1 to A.3 found not guilty for the offences

Judgepunishable under Sections 302, 201, 302 r/w.120(B), 404 ,

397 and 450 of I.P.C and thereby acquitted them U/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The A.1 and A.2 who are in Central Prison, Kadapa shall be released forthwith if they are not wanted in any other case. The bail bonds of the A.3 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The interim custody of M.O.1 with P.W.2 is made absolute. M.Os2 to7 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

4.Sentence or order ----

5.Prosecution M.Surendranatha Reddy, conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Kadapa.

6.Name of theSri G. Sai Vamsi Krishna, advocate forSri G. Rajesh Reddy, Advocates, Kaadapa. accused.

7.Cr.No.and55/2013 of Muddanur P.S name of the police station.

8.CommittedJudicial Magistrate of I Class, Jammalamadugu by.

2

This case coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri G. Sai Vamsi

Krishna, Sri G. Rajesh Reddy, Advocates for the accused and upon perusing the records, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Circle Inspector of Police, Kondapuram filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.55 of 2013 of Muddanur P.S, for the offence under Sections 120 (B), 452, 302, 394, 404, 201 r/w.34 of IPC., alleging that

A.1 was RTC driver and as he was addicted to bad vices, he was removed from service in the year 2002. The accused No.1 who stayed at Proddatur town met his old friend accused No.2. Later accused Nos.1 and 2 and the associate of accused No.2 i.e., accused No.3 hatched plans to commit thefts in dwelling houses and also in temples and to that effect cases also registered against them and they are facing trial. Accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired to commit the murder for gain and in order to implement their plan, on 28.04.2013, the accused Nos.1 to 3 went to Sri Ram Nagar, Proddatur in the auto of accused No.3 and searched for ladies who are standing alone in the street and noticed the deceased resident of D.No.5/1329, Dorasanipalli road,

Sreeram Nagar, Proddatur town which is situated opposite to Lord Sri Rama

Temple, and they have asked Sarada i.e., deceased that they were need of a rented house and ascertained some information and found that the Sarada was wearing gold ornaments then A.1 to A.3 left the house and all of them conspired to kill her. On the next day in order to execute the plan, A.1 to A.3 came to Sreeramnagar in Auto of A.3 at 5.30 p.m., and stopped the auto at some distance from the house of Sarada and initially A.1 and A.2 trespassed into the house of Sarada and when the deceased tried to questioned them about their entry, the A.1 closed the mouth and nose of said Sarada and A.2 3 caught hold of her hands and makes her to laid down on the cot and A.3 entered the house and closed the doors and caught hold of legs of Sarada tightly and when the movements of the body was stopped and they decided that Sarada has died. Then, A.1 removed the gold ear studs from deceased ears and gold chain from her neck and tied Sarada in a gunny bag and A.3 brought the auto near the house and A.1 to A.3 carried the body and kept in the auto and and locked the house and took the body in the Auto bearing

No.AP04-8517 and on the way they purchased one liter petrol bottle at Ana

Bunk and reached Muddanur via Rameswaram – Thermal and later crossed

Kammavaripalli on Tadipathri road and reached the cheeky bushes on the northern side of the road and they have burn the body by pouring petrol and set ablaze . Later A.1 to A.3 returned to Proddatur and disbursed the gold among themselves ie., A.1 got ear studs and A.2 got gold chain and A.3 got

Rs.2,000/- cash which was committed theft from the dead body of the deceased after her death. The husband of the deceased went to the house and found the deceased was missing and when other members of the groups also searched they could not traced Sara, due to which Chenna Sreerangadu gave a complaint to Proddatur I Town P.S., on 30.04.2013. On 30.04.2013, one

T. Jasmia, noticed the burnt dead body lying on the way to Mythas company on Tadiatpri – Muddanur road, and basing on the information, M. Yesob, V.R.A.

of Settivaripalli village went there and found the burnt dead body and informed the same to V.R.O. of Mangapatnam village and in turn he preferred a complaint in Muddanur Police Station. Basing on the complaint, a F.I.R. was issued in Cr.No.55 of 2013 U/s. 302, 201 of I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer observed the scene of offence and got inquest conducted and seized cloths, mud bangles of the deceased and other material objects and examined the scene of offence and recorded the statements of witnesses and seized cloths of the deceased and sent dead body for postmortem examination and basing on the paper article, the 4 parents and relation of deceased identified the dead body of the deceased as

Meruva Sarada. In spite of the best efforts, the Investigating Officer could not traced the offenders, due tow which with the permission of the

Superintendent of Police, Kadapa a final report was filed as the offence was undetectable and it was accepted by the Court. While so, on 31.5.2018 at 7.00 a.m the Inspector of police, Kadapa who was incharge of Yerraguntla circle on reliable information apprehended A.1 and A.3 at Venugopala Swamy temple on Potladurty- Proddatur road and during the proceedings, they confessed the offence in various cases including this case and A.1 and A.3 and A.1 and A.3 were arrested in Cr.No.15/2013 of Kalamalla P.S. and were sent to judicial custody.

2. The Inspector of police, Kondapuram Circle on coming to know about the arrest of A.1 and A.3 secured the necessary documents and after permission of the Court, he reopened the matter for further investigation and has taken judicial custody of A.2 and interrogated him which reveals that all the accused with common intention has killed Meruva Sarada on 29.04.2013 after noon by closing her mouth and nose and also holding her hands and legs and killed her and committed theft of gold jewelery and caused disappearance of offence by putting the dead body of the deceased in a gunny bag and carrying the same and poured petrol and set ablaze at the cheeki bushes at Kammavaripalli to Tadipathri road. Hence, the case.

3. This case was taken on file under Sections 120(B), 452,302,394, and 404 r/w.34 and 201 of IPC, against the accused. On their appearance copies of the documents were furnished to the accused. Later the accused were examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C, charge was framed against accused for the offenses under Sections, 302, 201, 302 r/w.120(B),404, 397 and 450 of

IPC and read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. They are defended by an Advocate.

5

4. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23 and M.O.1 to M.O.7 were marked and on behalf of the defence no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

5. After closure of the prosecution’s evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for consideration are:

1) Whether the accused have murdered or kill Sarada for wrongful gain?

2) Whether they have destroyed the evidence?

8. P O I N T S:- On this aspect , according to P.W.1 on 30.4.2013 when he was in his house one Jarima telephoned that a body of lady was there next the highway at Kammavaripalle village . Then he went there and found body of lady which was burnt and then he informed to V.R.O and the V.R.O gave complaint under Ex.P1 . P.W.2 who is father of the deceased stated that on 29.4.2013 his son -in-law informed him that his daughter was missing and inspite of searching he could not find her, while so on 01.5.2013 there was a news item about the body of burnt lady and he gave a complaint to I town

P.S, Proddatur which was registered as woman missing and then he went to

Muddanur police station where the police shown some articles and he identified those articles belongs to his daughter . Later, after one year his blood sample was taken for D.N.A test and he admitted in his cross- examination that he did not state that his daughter has taken away gold ornaments. P.W.3 was the husband of the deceased stated that on 29.04.2013 he went to cloth store at 9.00 a.m and returned for lunch and 6 again went to shop and when he returned at 9.15 p.m he found his wife missing , then he enquired his neighbors and in laws but he could not find her. While so, on 30.4.2013 he and P.W.2 went to Muddanur police station and gave report that his wife was missing . On 01.5.2013 there was News item about a body of lady was found at Kammavaripalle village . Then all of them went to Muddanur police station and there the police have shown cloths and mud bangles of the deceased and he identified them and further stated that after five years he had identified one pair of ear ring as belonging to his wife before the V. R.O and P.W.4 was the witness for inquest stated that on 30.4.2013, the police conducted inquest near Kammavaripalle village with respect to a lady which was burnt and that police have seized burnt ash, burnt gunny bag, broken bangles, burnt cloths under the cover of

Ex.P2 panchanama and Ex.P3 is the inquest report. The said evidence of the witnesses is not in dispute and according to P.W8 who is the investigating officer stated that on 30.04.2013 P.W.1 gave complaint which he registered as case in Cr.No.55/2013 under Ex.P15 and he has handed over the case to the Inspector of police and he admitted that as per Ex.P1 it is a suspicious death and denied that he fraudulently registered case under Sec.302 of IPC when it is suspicious death and P.W.10 who is the 2nd investigating officer and according to him on 26.1.2014 he has taken up investigation and got collected blood sample of P.W.2 and also burnt material of the deceased under requisition for D.N.A test and he also got forwarded viscera and hyoid bone for expert opinion and expert opinion was received from R.I.M.S,

Kadapa stating that no fracture of hyoid bone and he obtained Post -mortem report . According to it, the death is due to mechanical asphyxia and burnt injuries . Ex.P20 is initial opinion and Ex.P.21 is final opinion and he also stated that he received D.N.A report under Ex.P22 wherein it is stated that the deceased is the biological daughter of her parents and as he could not find the offenders , with the permission of the Superintendent of police, he 7 filed final report that the case was undetectable and the final report was accepted by the Court . Therefore, at the outset, there is no dispute about the death of deceased and evidence of witnesses and it is also not in dispute that the said Sarada was killed and her gold jewellery were taken . Now the crucial question is “ Whether the accused have killed the said Saradha . In this regard coming to the evidence of P.W.11, P.W.12 , P.W.5 and P.W.6 with respect to A.1 and A.3 and according to P.W.12 on 26.05.2018 he filed a requisition before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram for reopening the case. On 31.5.2018 on reliable information, he along with his staff and mediators reached at Sri Venugopala Swamy temple on Yerraguntla-

Proddatur road and found A.1 and A.3 and when they were questioned by them, A.1 and A.3 admitted the offence. From A.1 three pairs of ear studs were seized I.e one pair relates to this case and another pair relates to I town P.S, Proddatur and another pair relates to Kalamalla P.S which is seized from A.1 and he then recorded the confession and on leading by A.3, he went to his house at Khaderabad and recovered one gold ring under Ex.P5 and prepared rough sketch and arrested the accused and thus the evidence of

P.W.12 is supported by the evidence of P.W.5 but P.W.6 who is another V.R.O turned hostile with respect to the offense against A.2, the related witness are

P.Ws.7 and 9 and according to P.W.9 on 12.7.2018 he went to Muddanur police station and there A.2 was in police custody as per orders of the Court and on interrogation of A.2, he confessed the offence and on his leading, he along with his staff went to the house of deceased where he observed the scene of offence under Ex.P12 and he also prepared rough sketch under

Ex.P16 and from there they went to outskirts of Kammavaripalle village where the body was burnt and observed it under Ex.P13 and also drawn rough sketch under Ex.p17. In his cross-examination he admitted that A.1 and A.3 were already interrogated on 31.05.2018 and he denied that basing on earlier records, he conducted table investigation and P.W.7 who is 8 mediator supported the version of P.W.9. In view of the above evidence, the main aspect that has to be seen that Whether the alleged confession and recovery are true and correct.

9.At the outset also with respect of confession of A.2, the said confession is inadmissible in evidence and nothing has been recovered from A.2 and in view of provision of Secs.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, as the confession is inadmissible there is no offence against A.2 and he is liable to be acquitted.

10.With respect to the confession of A.1 and A.3, admittedly, the confession of A.1 and A.3 is hit by Secs.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, and so far the confession is inadmissible in nature, no doubt under Sec.27 of

I.E.Act, the discovery of fact while in police custody is always admissible in evidence and in this regard as per the version of the prosecution one pair of ear studs relating to the deceased were seized from A.1 and gold ring was seized from A.2 and on perusal of charge sheet goes to show that A.3 has received some cash but from A.3 a ring has been recovered and the said ring is not related to this case and nothing related to this case has been recovered from A.3 and he is also liable to be acquitted and with respect to recovery of alleged ring from A.1, it is pertinent to observe that the offence has occurred in the year 2013 and the ring was recovered in the year 2018. It is unbelievable that the accused who has also killed some person five years back would keep ring in his packet and keep roaming on the road. It is pertinent to observe that as per the prosecution on 29.4.2013 at 5.30 p.m the accused went to Sriram nagar in the auto A.3, the accused carrying the dead body in the auto of A.3 and has burnt it at the outskirts of

Kammavaripalle village, the said fact is very difficult to believe as no body will carry the dead body in a vehicle in the evening when the village will be full of people and even it is alleged that on the way A.3 got filled diesel in the auto .

9

Generally sales men will be there in the petrol bunk, who will be notice the dead body but nobody is examined. P.Ws.2 and 3 have not mentioned in their statements as to the description of the gold ear studs and even as Per

P.W.3, after five years he identified ear ring/M.O.1 before the V.R.O and very peculiarly the V.R.O was not examined by the police and when there is no proper identification and when P.W.6 turned hostile, it is very difficult to believe that the contents of the Exs.P4 and P5 are correct and the prosecution has failed to prove that M.O1 was seized from A.1 and therefore, even A.1 is also entitled for acquittal. For the reasons stated above, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have killed the deceased and destroyed the evidence.

11. In the result, the A.1 to A.3 found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections.302, 201, 302 r/w.120(B), 404,397 and 450 of IPC., and thereby acquitted them U/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The A.1 and A.2 who are lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa shall be released forthwith if they are not wanted in any other case. The bail bonds of the A.3 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The interim custody of M.O1 with P.W.2 is made absolute. The M.Os.2 to 7 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Grade-1 Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20th day of September, 2019.Sd/- V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram

Spl. Sessions Judge for S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act Cases, Kadapa. FAC., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1: M.Yesobu.

P.W.2: C.Srirangadu 10

P.W.3: M.Vasudevudu

P.W.4: S.Obulesu .

P.W.5: N. Munenna.

P.W.6: T.Vijaya Bhaskar

P.W.7: P.Ramachandra Reddy, V.R.O

P.W.8: P.Bala Maddileti

P.W.9: B.Uma Maheswar Reddy, Inspector of police

P.W.10: T.Venkateswarlu, Inspector of police

P.W.11: V.C.Peddaiah, Inspector of police

P.W.12: D.Bhaskar Reddy, Inspector of police.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P.1: Hand writing of V.R.O in the complaint Dt.30.4.2013.

Ex.P.2: Panchanama

Ex.P.3: Inquest report

Ex.Ps.4 to P7: Panchanamas ( three in number)

Exs.P. 8 : Signature of P.W.6 in panchanama Dt.31.5.2018 at 7.00 a.m

Ex.P9: Signature of P.W.6 in panchanama Dt.31.5.2018 at 10.30 a.m

Ex.P.10: Signature of P.W.6 in panchanama Dt.31.5.2018 at 12.00 p.m

Ex.P.11: Signature of P.W.6 in panchanama Dt.31.5.2018 at 2-00 p.m

Ex.P.12: Panchanama Dt.12.07.2018 at 11.00 a.m

Ex.P.13: Panchanama Dt.12.07.2018 at 12.30 p.m

Ex.P14: Panchanama Dt.12.07.2018 at10.30 a.m

Ex.P.15: F.I. R in Cr.No.55/2013

Ex.P.16: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.17: Rough sketch

Ex.P.18: F.S.L. report Dt.25.5.2014

Ex.P.19: Hyoid bone report.

Ex.P.20: Initial opinion of post-mortem

Ex.P.21: Final opinion of post-mortem

Ex.P.22: D.N.A report

Ex.P.23: Rough sketch

WITNESSES EXAMINED AND

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:

11

NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1: One pair ear rings.

M.O.2: Blouse piece

M.O.3: Petty coat

M.O.4: Saree

M.O.5: Broken bangles .

M.O.6: Collected control earth

M.O.7: Burnt ash.

Sd/- V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram

Spl. Sessions Judge for S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act Cases, Kadapa. FAC., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : KADAPA AT

PRODDATUR.

Present: Sri V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences

under S.Cs. & S.Ts. (P.O.A), Kadapa

Fac., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Friday, this the 20 th day of September, 2019

S.C.No.286 of 2019

1.Name of theState : Represented by Circle Inspector of Police, I town ComplainantP.S, Proddatur. & accused

...Complainant

Vs.

1. Patan Abdul Kalam S/o Mahaboob Khan, aged 65 years, Muslim, Chinna Mandem town and Mandal,

2. Shaik Mohamma Issak @ Issak, S/o Moulali, Modampalli, near mosque, Proddatur town.

3. Vonipenta @ Shaik Ghouselaazam, S/o Late Lateef Saheb, Muslim, resident of D.No.7-64, Mosque Street, Kaderbad village, Proddatur mandal N/o. Onipenta (V), Mydukur mandal. … Accused

2.ChargesUnder Section Sections 449,302,379 and 201 r/w.34 of I.P.C.

3.Finding of theIn the result, the A.1 to A.3 found not guilty for the offences

Judgepunishable under Sections 449, 302,379 and 201 r/w.34 of

IPC, and thereby acquitted them U/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The A.1 and A.2 who are in Central Prison, Kadapa shall be released forthwith if they are not wanted in any other case. The bail bonds of the A.3 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The interim custody of M.O1 with P.W.1 is made absolute. M.Os 2 to 5 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

4.Sentence or order ----

5.ProsecutionSri M.Surendranatha Reddy, conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Proddatur

6.Name of theSri G. Sai Vamsi Krishna, advocate forSri G. Rajesh Reddy, Advocates, Proddatur. accused.

7.Cr.No.andCr.No.168 of 2013 of I town P.S, Proddatur. name of the police station.

8.CommittedI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur. by.

2

This case coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri G. Sai Vamsi

Krishna, Sri G. Rajesh Reddy, Advocates for the accused and upon perusing the records, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, I town police station, Proddatur filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 168 of 2013 of I town P.S, Proddatur for the offence under Sections 449, 302,379 and 201 r/w.34 of IPC alleging that on 02-06-2013 at 9-00 p.m, G.Venkata Subbaiah came to I town police station, Proddatur and gave a written complaint that his mother G.Subba

Rangamma , aged 65 years residing at D.No.5/1365 of Sriram nagar ,

Proddatur along with her father left the house on 02.6.2013 at 8.00 a.m and did not return and the said complaint was registered as case in

Cr.No.168/2013 under woman missing. While so, on 03.6.2013, G.Venkata

Subbaiah again came to I town P.S, Proddatur at 8.30 a.m and gave a complaint stating that his sister K.Subbamma saw the cloths, bag bundle in a drainage channel in Sreeram nagar Proddatur and when he and she opened the bag , they found dead body of their mother with injuries and two gold jewels of her mother I.e two rows gold Talibottu chain, four gold bangles , two nose screws and one pair of gold ear studs and one gold ring worth of

Rs.1,80,000/- were missing and somebody killed her and committed theft of gold jewelery. Basing on the complaint, an altered F.I.R was issued in

Cr.No.168/2013 under Secs.302, 379 and 201 of IPC. During the course of investigation, G.Maheswara Reddy, Inspector of police observed the scene of offence and got inquest conducted and gold is seized and he informed to dog squad and examined the scene of offence and recorded the statements of witnesses and seized cloths of the deceased and sent dead body for post- 3 mortem examination and he has sent Viscera and also hyoid bone for expert opinion and inspite of his best efforts , he could not traced the offenders, due to which with the permission of the Superintendent of police, Kadapa a final report was filed as the offence was undetectable and it was accepted by the

Court. While so, on 31.5.2018 at 7.00 a.m the Inspector of police, Kadapa who was incharge of Yerraguntla circle on reliable information apprehended

A.1 and A.3 at Venugopala Swamy temple on Potladurty- Proddatur road and during the proceedings, they confessed the offence in various cases including this case and A.1 and A.3 and A.1 and A.3 were arrested in Cr.No.15/2013 of

Kalamalla P.S. and were sent to judicial custody.

2. B.V.Siva Reddy, Inspector of police, I town P.S, Proddatur on coming to know about the arrest of A.1 and A.3 secured the necessary documents and after permission of the Court, he reopened the matter for further investigation and has taken judicial custody of A.2 and interrogated him which reveals that all the accused with common intention has killed G.Subba

Rangamma on 02.6.2013 after noon by closing her mouth and nose and also holding her hands and legs and killed her and committed theft of gold jewelery and caused disappearance of offence by putting the dead body of the deceased in a gunny bag and carrying the same and throwing it in a drainage channel. Hence, the case.

3. This case was taken on file under Sections 302,379, 449 and 201 r/w.34 of IPC., against the accused. On their appearance copies of the documents were furnished to the accused. Later the accused were examined under

Section 228 of Cr.P.C, charge was framed against accused for the offenses under Sections 449, 302,379 and 201 r/w.34 of IPC, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. They are defended by an Advocate.

4

4. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.13 and M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked and on behalf of the defence no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

5. After closure of the prosecution’s evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for consideration are:

1. Whether the accused have killed G.Subbarangamma with common intention and committed theft of her gold articles and destroyed the evidence with common intention?

2. Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. P O I N T S:- On this aspect, according to P.W.1, his mother G.Subba

Rangamma and his father are separately staying from him and 02.6.2013, one Narayanamma has informed him that his mother is missing. Then he enquired his relatives and when he could not trace his mother, he gave a complaint to police under Ex.P1 and thereafter on the next day his sister

Subbamma informed him that a body was laying in the drainage canal near

Sriram nagar. Then he along with his sister went there and found the body of his mother in a bundle and gold ornaments of her mother were missing, due to which he again went to police station and gave complaint under Ex.P2 and he admitted that he did not mention about the gold articles worn by his mother in Ex.P1. Pl.W.2 who is one of the panchayatdar for the inquest stated that on 02.6.2013 the police have conducted inquest on the dead body of

Subbarangamma under Ex.P3 and the police have seized M.Os 2 to5 which 5 are clothing of the deceased, plastic bag and a rope which is not in dispute.

According to P.W.5 who is the doctor conducted post-mortem examination on 03.6.2013. He conducted post-mortem on the dead body of

G.Subbarangamma and found external and internal injuries and in his opinion the cause of death is due to asphyxia due to pressure on the neck and according to P.W.7 who is the first investigating officer stated that on 2.6.2013 on a complaint given by P.W.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.168/2013 and issued F.I.R under Ex.P9 as woman missing and on the next day on another complaint given by P.W.1, he altered section of law and issued another F.I.R under Ex.P10 for the offence under Secs. 302, 379 and 201 of IPC and then he visited the scene of offence and found the dead body in a drainage channel, then he secured the presence of witnesses and got conducted inquest over the dead body under Ex.P3 and he has seized M.Os 2 to 5 and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P4, he then secured the presence of dog squad and examined the scene of offence and sent the dead body for post- mortem examination and later he recorded the statements of witnesses and sent the cloths/ M.O2 to F.S.L for examination and similarly he also got forwarded viscera and hyoid bone for expert opinion and subsequently received expert opinion that there is no fracture of hyoid bone under Ex.P12 and that there is no poison present in the viscera under Ex.P13 and later filed final report. As he could not trace the offenders, he filed final report as undetectable.

9. The above said evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5, and P.W.7 is not in dispute and therefore from the above evidence it is clear that G.Subbarangamma was killed by unknown persons by pressing her neck and her gold jewelery were stolen, the next point that has to be determined is whether the accused killed Subbarangamma. On this aspect with regard murder by A.1 to A.3, the main evidence is of P.W.6 who is inspector of police, Kadapa urban circle and 6 who was incharge of Yerraguntla circle and according to him on 31.05.2018 when he was investigating in another case, on credible information he along with his staff and mediators went to Sree Venugopala Swamy temple and found there A.1 and A.3 and on questioning A.1 and A.3 admitted the offence and produced three pairs of ear studs and then he seized three pairs of ear studs from A.1 I.e pair relates to this case and another pair relates to Kalamalla P.S and another pair relates to Muddanur P.S and then he arrested A.1 and A.3 and recorded the confession and seizure under Ex.P7 and recovered M.O1 and on leading by A.1 , he went to the house of A.3 at

Khaderabad , Proddatur . A.3 has produced a gold ring from his house which was seized under Ex.P8 and then he informed to the circle Inspector of

Proddatur and Kondapuram about the arrest of accused and he denied the suggestion that the accused never confessed and nothing was recovered.

10. According to P.W.8 on 03.6.2018 he was informed by P.W.7 about the involvement of accused A.1 to A.3 in this case and he filed a petition to reopen the case before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur which was granted and in pursuance of the permission, he has produced A.1 and

A.3 in Court through P.T.warrant and he has also filed P.T.warrant for custody of A.2 in this case and produced A.2 in Court and on 13.07.2018 he filed a petition for police custody of accused and the Hon”ble Court granted custody of A.2 and dismissed the petition against A.1 and A.3 and on questioning A.2, he admitted the offence and has taken him to the house of deceased and also to drainage channel where the dead body of the deceased was found and he denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in this case.

P.W.4 who is V.R.O has stated in his evidence that on 20.07.2018 as per the directions of the Sub-Inspector of police, he conducted identification parade of articles and the P.W.1 has identified his mother’s ear rings which was recorded under Ex.P5 and in his cross-examination he admitted that he did not obtain 7 the signature of P.W.1 and admitted that he cannot write test identification report and he cannot say the names of jewelery shops from where the similar rings were secured. Therefore, with respect to the evidence of P.Ws6 and 8 admittedly, the confession made by A.1 and A.3 to P.W.6 and similar confession made by A.2 to P.W.8 is inadmissible in evidence in view of

Secs.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act which are as follows:-

Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:- Confession to police officer not to be proved.—No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence."

Sec.26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:- Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.—No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.

11. With respect to A.2, P.W.8 stated that on 18.7.2018 he has visited the scene of offence where the deadbody was found and house of the deceased.

It is not of much use as already says P.W.6 also the Investigating officer has visited it, and that the confession of A.2 is discarded as nothing is recovered from him. There is nothing to show the involvement of A.2.

12. With respect to the evidence of P.W.6 against A.1 and A.3 is that P.W.6, basing on the confession he recovered M.O.1 ie one pair gold studs from A.1 and gold ring from A.3 and with respect to property identification evidence of

P.W.4 who is V.R.O is unbelievable . According to him he does not know how to write identification report and he does not from which gold shop of persons, similar gold items like M.O.1 are secured. There were no unnecessary persons there at the time of identification and therefore the evidence of P.W.4 goes to show that so called identification by P.W.1 is sham 8 and cannot be believed and with respect to seizure from A.3 which is a gold ring, the said thing is not related to this case and when the confession is inadmissible the role of A.3 is also not proved and with respect to M.O.1 ie said to have been seized from A.1, it is pertinent to observe that the offence has occurred in the year 2013 and the alleged seizure is said to have been made in the year 2018 and the earlier investigating officer I.e P.W.7 has not detected the offence. Now what has to be seen is whether the alleged recovery is believable when it is contended by the prosecution that the accused are habitual criminals. No criminal will keep theft property for a period of five years when he has every opportunity to change the same in to cash and when there is no specific description either in Ex.P2 about the gold ornaments were there, except merely mentioning that ear studs, bangles were missing, how P.W.6 has come to conclusion that the articles belongs to the deceased is not believable. Moreover, P.W.6 is not the investigating officer in this case and he has seized the same with respect to another case and he handed over the same to the Inspector of police I.e P.W.8 and when the identification is sham , there is nothing to show that the recovery pertaining to this case and therefore the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused killed B.Subbarangamma for gain and destroyed evidence. For the reasons stated above, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

13. In the result, the A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302,379 land 201 r/w.34 of IPC and thereby acquitted them U/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The A.1 and A.2 who are lodged in

Central Prison, Kadapa shall be released forthwith if they are not wanted in any other case. The bail bonds of the A.3 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The interim custody of M.O1 with P.W.1 9 is made absolute. The M.Os.2 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Grade-1 Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20th day of September, 2019.Sd/- V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram

Spl. Sessions Judge for S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act Cases, Kadapa. FAC., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1: G.Venkata Subbaiah.

P.W.2: K.Anwar Basha

P.W.3: D.Lakshmi Narasimhulu

P.W.4: N.Raja sekhar Reddy.

P.W.5: Dr.A.prasad.

P.W.6: D.Bhaskar Reddy, Inspector of police.

P.W.7: C.Maheswar Reddy, Inspector of police.

P.W.8:B.V.Siva Reddy, Inspector of police.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P.1: Complaint given by P.W.1

Ex.P.2: Another complaint given by P.W.1

Ex.P.3: Inquest report

Ex.P.4: Panchanama.

Ex.P.5: Identification report.

Ex.P.6: Post-mortem report.

Ex.P.7: Panchanama Dt.31.5.2018 at 7.00 a.m

Ex.P.8: Panchanama Dt.31.5.2018 at 10.30 a.m

Ex.P.9: F.I.R.in Cr.No.168/2013

Ex.P.10: Altered F.I.R 10

Ex.P.11: Rough sketch

Ex.P.12: Expert opinion

Ex.P.13: R.F.S.L report.

WITNESSES EXAMINED AND

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:

NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1: Ear rings.

M.O.2: cloths

M.O.3: Plastic bag

M.O4: Cotton bag

M.O.5: Rope.

Sd/- V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram

Spl. Sessions Judge for S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act Cases, Kadapa. FAC., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : KADAPA AT

PRODDATUR.

Present: Sri V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,

Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences

under S.Cs. & S.Ts. (P.O.A), Kadapa

Fac., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 18 th day of September, 2019

S.C.No.261 of 2019

1.Name of theState : Represented by Circle Inspector of Police, ComplainantYerraguntla Circle. & accused

...Complainant

Vs.

1. Patan Abdul Kalam S/o Mahaboob Khan, aged 65 years, Muslim, removed RTC Driver, Darga Colony, H.No.5-11, Chinna Mandem Village and Mandal, YSR District, Kadapa.

2. Shaik Mohamma Isak @ Isak, S/o Moulali, aged 65 years, behind the Mosque, Modampalle Street, Proddatur town and Mandal.

3. Vonipenta @ Shaik Ghouselazam, S/o Late Latheef Saheb, aged 56 years, Muslim, resident of D.No.7- 64, Mosque Street, Kaderbad village, Proddatur mandal. … Accused

2.ChargesUnder Section Sections 302, 201, 120 (B), 397, 450 of I.P.C.

3.Finding of theIn the result, the A.1 to A.3 found not guilty for the offences

Judgepunishable under Sections 302, 201, 120 (B), 397, 450 of

IPC., and and thereby acquitted him U/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The A.1 and A.2 who are Central Prison, Kadapa shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The bail bonds of the A.3 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.Os.1 to M.O.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The interim custody of M.O.5 and M.O.6 is made absolute.

4.Sentence or order ----

5.ProsecutionSri M. Surendranatha Reddy. conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Proddatur.

6.Name of theSri G. Sai Vamsi Krishna, advocate forSri G. Rajesh Reddy, Advocates, Kaadapa. accused.

7.Cr.No.andCr.No.15 of 2013 of Kalamala P.S. name of the police station.

8.Committed-- by.

2

This case coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and Sri G. Sai Vamsi

Krishna, Sri G. Rajesh Reddy, Advocates for the accused and upon perusing the records, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Circle Inspector of Police, Yerraguntla Circle filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.15 of 2013 of Kalamala P.S., for the offence under Sections 120 (b), 452, 302, 394, 404, 201 r/w.34 of IPC., alleging that

A.1 was RTC driver and as he was addicted to bad vices, he was removed from service in 2002 and the accused planted to commit the murder for gain and in order to implement the plan, A.1 and A.2 went to by-lane located near the Bhavana Rushi Temple and searched for ladies who are standing alone in the street and noticed in house D.No.5/1048, Sreeram Nagar, Proddatur and they have asked B. Lakshmi Devi that they were need of a rented house and ascertained some information and found that the B. Lakshmi Devi was wearing gold ornaments then A.1 and A.2 left the house and informed to A.3 and all of them conspired to kill her. On the next day in order to execute the plan, A.1 to A.3 came to Sreeramnagar in Auto of A.3 at 7.30 a.m., and stopped at some distance for the house of the B. Lakshmi Devi and initially

A.1 and A.2 trespassed into the house of B. Lakshmi Devi and A.3 was kept waiting in the auto and when they entered the house and B. Lakshmi Devi informed that they were no rented house and then A.1 closed the mouth and nose of B. Lakshmi Devi and A.2 caught hold of her hands and made her to lay down on the cot and A.3 entered the house and closed the doors and caught hold of legs of B. Lakshmi Devi tightly and A.1 throttled her neck and when the movements of the body was stopped and they decided that B.

Lakshmi Devi has died. Then, A.1 removed the gold ear studs from ears, gold 3 chain, gold ring and tied B. Lakshmi Devi in a gunny bag and A.3 brought the auto near the house and A.1 to A.3 carried the body and kept in the auto and and locked the house and took the body in the Auto bearing No.AP04-8517 to a place where some bushes are there by the side of RTPP Sirigepalli road, beyond the Gopulapuram village near G. Rama Reddy fields, on the way at

Ana Bunk, the accused brought the one liter petrol bottle and they have burn the body at about 9.00 a.m., on 26.02.2013. Later A.1 to A.3 returned to

Proddatur and disbursed the gold among themselves ie., A.1 got ear studs and A.2 got gold chain and A.3 took gold ring and M. Bagyalakshmi who is the member of the Dwakra Group noticed that the B. Lakshmi Devi was not available from 28.02.2013 for taking old age pension and when other members of the groups also searched they could not traced B. Lakshmi Devi, due to which Y. Rama Chandraiah and M. Bhagya Lakshmi gave a complaint to

Proddatur I Town P.S., on 05.03.2013. On 26.02.2013 at about B. Lakshmi Devi who was returning for her home from her agricultural fields found a body which was burnt besides in the bushes on the side of RTPP Sirigepalli Road and she informed the same to D. Mohan who informed the same to B.

Lingamaiah and the said B. Lingamaiah visited the scene of offence and found a burnt body and he gave to a complaint to Kalapama P.S., at 12.30 p.m.

Basing on which the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.15 of 2013 and which was investigated into. Hence, this case.

2. This case was taken on file under Sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC., against the accused. On his appearance copies of the documents were furnished to the accused. Later the accused were examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., charge was framed against accused for the offences under

Sections, 302, 201, 120 (B), 397, 450 of IPC., and read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. They are defended by an Advocate.

4

3. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 and M.O.1 to M.O.6 were marked and on behalf of the defence no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

4. After closure of the prosecution’s evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.

5. Heard both sides.

6. Now the point for consideration are:

1) Whether the accused have murdered or kill B. Lakshmi Devi for wrongful gain?

2) Whether they have destroyed the evidence?

7. P O I N T S:- On this aspect, according to P.W.3, B. Lakshmi

Devi is his sister and she has been missing from 25.02.2013 and after searching for one year he gave complaint to Proddatur I Town P.S., and later after 10 days he was called by Yerraguntla Police who showed some photos and dress and he identified them as belonging to his sister and that his blood sample was taken for DNA test and in his cross examination he admitted that basing on the photos he was not able to confirm his sister’s identity.

8. P.W.1 who is the VRA has stated in his evidence that on 26.02.2013 at about 9.30 a.m., he was informed by telephone by one Mohan that a body of lady is burnt near the fields of Ramareddy and he immediately went there and found a burnt body and one liter kinley water bottle and he gave a complaint to the police under Ex.P.1.

5

9. P.W.2 who is a mechanic stated in his evidence that A.3 has an auto and he never sold any spare parts to him nor ever repaired the auto of

A.3 when the cross examination by Spl. Public Prosecutor did not discredit his evidence.

10. According to P.W.6 on 26.02.2013 the police have conducted inquest over the body of lady and he signed in the inquest report marked as

Ex.P.13 and that the police have recovered the one liter kinley bottle, burnt clothing, strained soil and control earth under M.O.1 to M.O.4 which is not in dispute.

11. According to P.W.8 on 26.05.2018 he filed a requisition before the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kamalapauram for reopening the case and investigation officer has filed a report that the case was undetectable and on 31.05.2018 on reliable information he along with staff and mediators went to

Sree Venugopala Swamy Temple near Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Yerraguntla and found A.1 and A.3 on suspicious circumstances and on questioning them,

A.1 and A.3 admitted the offence and 3 pairs of ear studs from the possession of A.1 ie., one pair relates to this case and another pair relates to Muddanur

P.S., and another pair relates to Proddatur I Town P.S. Then he arrested A.1 and A.3 and recorded confessional and seizure under Ex.P.9 and recovered

M.O.5. On leading by A.3 they went to the house at Khaderabad of Proddatur where A.3 brought a gold ring ie., M.O.6 which was seized under a panchanama under Ex.P.10 and he prepared a rough sketch under Ex.P.16 with respect to the house of A.3 and then on leading by A.1 and A.3 they went to the place where the deceased was killed ie., at Sreeram Nagar, Proddatur and panchanama and rough sketch were prepared under Ex.P.14 is the panchanama and Ex.P.17 is the rough sketch and from there on leading by the accused they went to the place where it was burnt which was observed under a panchanama under Ex.P.15 and rough sketch was marked as Ex.P.18 and 6 then he arrested the accused and produced them before the Court and thereafter he has examined some witnesses and later secured the presence of

A.2 through P.T. Warrant and produced him to the Court and on 28.06.2018 and he obtained police custody for A.2 who also admitted the offence and on 03.08.2018 he visited the spot where the deceased was killed and also the place where the deceased was burnt.

12. This evidence of P.W.8 is supported by the evidence of P.W.7.

13. P.W.4 who is another mediators turned hostile and did not support the version of P.W.5 and P.W.8.

14. P.W.9 is the final investigating officer. According to him on 26.02.2013 on a complaint given by P.W.1 First Information Report was registered under Ex.P.19 in Cr.No.15 of 2013 and then Inspector G. Nageswara

Reddy took up investigation and conducted the inquest and examined P.W.1,

D. Mohan and P.W.3 and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.20 and seized

M.O.1 to M.O.4 and thereafter P. Ramakrishnudu, Circle Inspector of Police took up investigation and recorded the statement of P.W.3, P.W.6, Prameela,

Sreenivasa Reddy, Bhagya Lakshmi, Rajya Lakshmi, Renuka Devi and

Nageswaramma and seized the photograph of the deceased from P.W.3 under

Ex.P.21 and forwarded the material objects to FSL and thereafter another

Inspector Kesava Reddy took up investigation and has sent to P.W.3 to FSL through Court for DNA test and after receiving the report and final report has filed as undetectable and thereafter he verified the investigation done by the predecessors and filed charge sheet and Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23 are the FSL reports dt.09.05.2013 and 20.07.2013 and Ex.P.24 is the DNA report dt.01.06.2015, Ex.P.25 is the postmortem report, Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.27 are the panchanama dt.03.08.2018 and in his cross examination he admitted that as 7 per the DNA report under Ex.P.24 the scientist has opined that the DNA of the deceased is not related to P.W.3.

15. Therefore, in view of the categorical material under Ex.P.24, it can be said that the deceased is not B. Lakshmi Devi, but some body else and very peculiarly P.W.8 who is the main investigating officer on what basis he asked for reopening the case on 26.05.2018 is not at all understood as on that day there is no piece of evidence before P.W.8 due to which and when there was no evidence Kesava Reddy, Circle Inspector has filed the final report as undetectable and as seen from the evidence of P.W.8 only on 31.05.2018 he came across A.1 and A.3 who confessed the offence and no doubt the evidence of P.W.8 is supported by the evidence of P.W.5 and the said evidence ie., confessional statement of A.1 and A.3 under Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 are not admissible in evidence, except to the point of seizure of ear studs and gold ring ie., M.O.5 and M.O.6 and more over P.W.8 did not make any efforts to get them identified to show that they belongs to the deceased and when the deceased person is not B. Lakshmi Devi, the whole case of the prosecution false flat as the confessional statement under Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 are not correct and even with respect to P.W.14 and P.W.15 which are the panchanams as per Ex.P.8 after taking the A.2 into the police custody, he has again visited the same place as under Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 and why there was no need for police custody and admittedly the place where the deceased was killed and where the deceased was burnt was already investigated into and the alleged confessional under police custody is a false. No doubt the presence of the dead body is always not mandatory in view of the principles corpus delicti.

But in the instant case police investigation should discloses that who has died and the evidence of P.W.3 clearly shows that he was not able to identify from the photographs that the person was his sister and the DNA report also confirms that the person who died is not the sister of P.W.3 and when the 8 confessional statement categorical to the extent that A.1 to A.3 killed B.

Lakshmi Devi and have taken her gold articles seems to be false statement made by the police and there is absolutely no evidence that the accused have caused death of person and even after five years the investigation have not been able to come out as to the identify of the body and in the absence of any identity and when there is no incriminating material to connect the accused, the death of a person, the case of the prosecution false flat and the accused are entitled for clean acquittal and the police are liable for malicious prosecution as without any evidence, they have falsely arrested the accused filed a false charge sheet for the reasons best known to them.

16. In the result, the A.1 to A.3 found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120 (B), 397, 450 of IPC., and and thereby acquitted him U/s. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The A.1 and A.2 who are Central

Prison, Kadapa shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

The bail bonds of the A.3 shall be in force for a period of six months as per

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.Os.1 to M.O.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The interim custody of M.O.5 and M.O.6 is made absolute.

Dictated to the Grade-1 Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18th day of September, 2019. Sd/- V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram

Spl. Sessions Judge for S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act Cases, Kadapa. FAC., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Kadapa at Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1: B. Lingamaiah.

P.W.2: S. Nageswara Reddy.

P.W.3: Y. Rama Chandraiah.

P.W.4: T. Vijaya Bhaskar.

9

P.W.5: N. Munenna.

P.W.6: A.Jaya Ramaiah.

P.W.7: P. Narayana.

P.W.8: D. Bhaskar Reddy.

P.W.9: T.V. Konda Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P.1: Complaint of P.W.1.

Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.3: Signature of P.W.4 in panchanama dt.31.05.2018 at 7.00 a.m.

Ex.P.4: Signature of P.W.4 in panchanama dt.31.05.2018 at 10.30 a.m.

Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W.4 in panchanama dt.31.05.2018 at 12.00 p.m.

Ex.P.6: Signature of P.W.4 in panchanama dt.31.05.2018 at 2.00 p.m.

Ex.P.7: Signature of P.W.4 in panchanama dt.03.08.2018 at 7.00 p.m.

Ex.P.8: Signature of P.W.4 in panchanama dt.03.08.2018 at 8.45 p.m.

Ex.P.9: Panchanama dt.31.05.2018 at 7.00 a.m.

Ex.P.10: Panchanama dt.31.05.2018 at 10.30 p.m.

Ex.P.11: Panchanama dt.31.05.2018 at 12.00 p.m.

Ex.P.12: Panchana dt.31.05.2019 at 2.00 p.m.

Ex.P.13: Inquest report.

Ex.P.14: Signature of P.W.7 in panchanama dt.03.08.2018 at 7.00 a.m.

Ex.P.15: Signature of P.W.7 in panchanama dt.03.08.2018 at 8.45 a.m.

Ex.P.16: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.17: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.18: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.19: First Information Report.

Ex.P.20: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.21: Police proceedings.

Ex.P.22: FSL report dt.09.05.2013.

Ex.P.23: FSL report dt.20.07.2013.

Ex.P.24: DNA report dt.01.06.2015.

Ex.P.25: Postmortem report.

Ex.P.26: Signature of P.W.9 in panchanama dt.03.08.2018.

Ex.P.27: Signature of P.W.9 in panchanama dt.03.08.2018 10

WITNESSES EXAMINED AND

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:

NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1: Water bottle kinely.

M.O.2: Burnt clothing.

M.O.3: Strained soil.

M.O.4: Control earth.

M.O.5: One pair of ear studs.

M.O.6: Gold ring. Sd/- V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram

Spl. Sessions Judge for S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act Cases, Kadapa. FAC., II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.