1
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE :: ANANTAPURAMU AT GOOTY
Present: SMT. A. MARY GRACE KUMARI, M.A., M.L., Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu (FAC) VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty FRIDAY THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
SESSIONS CASE No.639/2015
(On committal by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri in P.R.C.No.59/2015)
Name of the complainant:Inspector of Police, Pamidi Circle
Cr.No.& Name of the P.S. : Cr.No.141/2014 of Yadiki P.S.
Name and description of the :Rangarajukunta Ramanjineyulu, aged 22 years, S/o. accused Pedda Kullayappa, Uppara Street, Rayalacheruvu Village, Yadiki Mandal.
Offence: Charges u/s 302 and 201 IPC were framed against accused.
Plea of the accused :Accused pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Judge :Accused is found not guilty.
Sentence or order:In the result accused is found not guilty for the offences u/s 302 and 201 IPC and he is acquitted of said charge u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months. No property produced in this case and no property orders passed for disposal of case property.
The case coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.V. Mahesh Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the state and Sri C. Rameshnatha Reddy and Sri Z. Satheesh, Advocates for accused and upon hearing both sides, this court delivered the following: //JUDGMENT//
1.Inspector of Police, Pamidi Circle filed charge sheet in the Court of Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri against accused u/s 302 IPC in Cr.No.141/2014 of Yadiki
P.S. alleging as,
The deceased Venkataramudu who is none other than the father of P.W.1 and the accused had developed illegal intimacy with the daughter-in-law of the deceased.
Having knew the fact of illegal intimacy with the wife of P.W.1, the deceased bore grudge against the accused and then the deceased warned the accused as and when he come across him. The accused frustrated and disgusted with the attitude of the deceased and decided to kill him at any cost and waiting for an opportunity. While so on 05.04.2014 at 2 about 9.00 pm after completion of duty hours while he was at bus stand, the accused noticed the deceased has proceeding to Railway Station. On seeing the deceased, the accused followed him and when the deceased sat on a cement bench, the accused came on his back and dragged him towards loading rail track near the compound and beat the deceased with stone on his head, left ear and testicles and caused instantaneous death of the deceased. Thereafter the accused dragged the dead body of deceased on the railway track and left that place. On the report of P.W.1, L.W.16-V. Naga Manikyam, HC 37, CRP,
Gooty RPS, registered a case in Cr.No.22/2014 u/s 302 IPC and forwarded the body to
L.W.17 S. D. Siva Sankar Naik, Inspector of Police, GRP, Gooty RPS for investigation and he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.5, 2 and 3 and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. On 10.09.2014 at about 10.00 am the accused came to P.W.3 and requested him to produce him before Yadiki Police and confessed the offence, he reduced the confession into writing and placed before L.W.18 B.
Ramakrishna Reddy, SI of Police, Yadiki P.S. along with accused. On 27.08.2015 L.W.18 received the case file from Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu and registered a case in
Cr.No.141/2014 u/s 302 IPC of Yadiki P.S. and took up investigation. On 12.09.2014 P.W.5 produced the accused along with his confessional statement at Yadiki P.S. before L.W.18 and L.W.19 K. Ashok Reddy, Inspector of Police, Pamidi Circle and after receipt of the confessional statement placed by P.W.5, L.W.19 recorded the confessional statement of accused and arrested the accused and sent him for remand. L.W.15 Dr. K. Praveen Kumar,
CAS, Community Health Centre, Gooty conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem certificate and opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to injury to major vital organs mainly to brain, liver and spleen and to the kidneys, which leads to hemorrhage and shock. Hence the charge.
2.Considering the material on record, the Learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Tadipatri took the case on file u/s 302 IPC against accused as PRC No.59/2015
and furnished copies of documents on which prosecution proposed to rely, soon after the accused made his appearance and committed the case to the Sessions Division by his order
dated 09.11.2015 by adopting procedure contemplated u/s 209 Cr.P.C. as the offence u/s
302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions.
The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu took the case on file against accused u/s 302 IPC and made it over to this Court for disposal according to law.
3
3.On appearance of accused before this Court an opportunity was given to the prosecution and also defence to submit its version at the stage of framing charges.
Considering the material on record after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for state and defence counsel charges u/s 302 and 201 IPC against accused were framed read over and explained said charge to him in Telugu for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.To substantiate the case of prosecution totally 7 witnesses are examined as
P.Ws.1 to 7 apart from exhibiting 9 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9. As the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor gave up rest of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet prosecution side evidence was closed.
5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/s 313
Cr.P.C. putting incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6 is marked as Ex.D.1 on behalf of the accused.
6.Heard the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for complainant/state and defence counsel.
The leaned Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for accused left the mater to the discretion of the Court as the material witness not support the case of prosecution.
7.Now the point for determination is, “Whether the prosecution proved the charge u/s 302 IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubt, that on 05.04.2014 at about 9.00 pm near compound of loading rail track committed murder of deceased Venkataramudu by beating with stone on his head (front & back), left ear and testicles and dragged the dead body to the railway track with an intention to screen the evidence from legal punishment as alleged by the prosecution?
8.POINT:-I have perused the material on record. In order to establish the charge u/ss 302 and 201 IPC the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7.
P.W.1 is son of deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 are independent witness who were present at the inquest held over the dead body of deceased by the investigating officer. P.W.4 who was present at the time of arrest by the investigating officer and attested the confessional statement of accused. P.W.5 who recorded the confessional statement of accused when the accused surrendered before and handed over him to the investigating officer at the time of inquest and he also attested the inquest report. P.W.6 is the wife of deceased who last seen her husband one day prior to his death and came to through P.W.7 that her husband was killed by somebody and the dead body was on the railway track and immediately she 4 rushed to the railway track situated at the Rayalacheruvu Railway Station and found the dead body of her deceased husband with full of blood with bleeding injuries. PW..7 is auto driver brother-in-law of P.W.1 and brother of P.W.2 came to know about the death of the deceased and rushed to the scene of offence and found the dead body of deceased.
9.Out of P.Ws.1 to 7 none of the witnesses are direct eye witnesses to the occurrence when the deceased killed by the accused or somebody. According to P.W.6 the wife of deceased one or two months after the marriage of her son his daughter-in-law eloped with the accused, on the complaint of her son the police pacified the matter and her daughter-in-law joined with her son and lead marital life for 8 months, as her deceased husband chastised the accused regarding illicit intimacy of jayamma thereby he suspected the accused that he might be killed her husband. During cross examination she categorically admitted that three months prior to the death of her husband her son P.W.1 separated from the joint family and residing along with his wife at Kasapuram Village. But they did not give any share to P.W.1 in their lands though they got landed properties as per
Ex.D.1 contradiction elicited from the evidence of P.W.6 her daughter-in-law Jayamma not given three tulas of gold at the time of marriage. As suggested to said witness there were disputes among P.W.1 and his parents regarding three tulas of gold and P.W.1 quarreled with his father and started living separately. As admitted by P.W.6 during cross examination the deceased in the habit of drinking alcohol and he is native of Chandana
Village and he had some landed properties from his father, further previously disputes arose between her deceased and P.W.1 regarding her deceased husband caught hold the hand of wife of P.W.1 Jayamma. Except the said oral testimony of p.W.6 that in one occasion the wife of P.W.1 eloped with the accused and that the deceased admonished the accused thereby the accused may grow wild against him and might be killed him, there is no corroborative iota evidence t osupport the said version of P.W.6 to inovlved the accused in the occurrence.
10.As admitted by P.W.6 in her evidence the differences arose between deceased and P.W.1, when the deceased caught hold the hand of wife of P.W.1 namely Jayamma.
Therefore unless the clinching evidence relied by the prosecution regarding the involvement of the accused in the incident the version of PW..6 that the accused might be killed her deceased husband no way helpful to the prosecution to establish the charge us/ 302 IPC.
Unfortunately the remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e., P.Ws.1 to 5 and 7 not supported the case of prosecution regarding the confession of accused before P.W.5 5 when the accused admitted the commission of offence and screen the evidence after commission of offence.
11.In this case the prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence to establish the charges leveled against the accused thereby the prosecution has to establish the motive of accused that he intended to kill the deceased admittedly the son, wife and brother-in-law of deceased are not direct eye witnesses to the occurrence and came to know about the death of the deceased and rushed to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased on the railway track. Since P.W.s.1 to 7 not supported the case of prosecution, the prosecution not bestow their attention to examine the investigating officers in this case as even they examine on behalf of the prosecution, there is no possibility to give conviction the accused basing on the evidence of investigating officers. Therefore the evidence relied by the prosecution does not establish any thing regarding the involvement of the accused and he caused for the death of the deceased.
Therefore it can be concluded safely that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences charged u/s 302 and 201 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to be acquitted of said charge by extending benefit of doubt. Accordingly this point is answered.
12.In the result accused is found not guilty for the offences u/s 302 and 201 IPC and he is acquitted of said charges u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of 6 months. No property produced in this case and no property orders passed for disposal of case property.
Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in
the open court this the 22nd day of September, 2017.
(FAC) VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Gooty.
Appendix of evidence Witness examined for Prosecution Defence P.W.1 Dasari Venkatesh -None- P.W.2 C. Gopal Naidu P.W.3 K. Bhaskar P.W.4 H. Suleman P.W.5 V. Ramesh P.W.6 Dasari Lakshmi Devi P.W.7 Dasari Ramesh 6 Exhibits marked for Prosecution Ex.P.1: Copy of complaint given to police by P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Signature of P.W.2 in scene observation mahazar Ex.P.3: Signature of P.W.2 in the inquest report Ex.P.4: Signature of P.W.3 in scene observation mahazar Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W.3 in the inquest report Ex.P.6: Signature of PW..4 in the confession-cum-arrest mahazar Ex.P.7: Signature of P.W.5 in the inquest report Ex.P.8: Signature of P.W.5 in the confession statement Ex.P.9: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7
Exhibits marked for the defence Ex.D.1: Portion in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6
Material Objects marked -Nil-
VI Addl. S.J.