1
BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS:: CHITTOOR DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, TIRUPATI
PRESENT: SRI Y. VEERRAJU
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Tuesday, the Eleventh (11th ) day of February, 2020
Sessions Case No. 271 /2017
Complainant:State represented by Inspector of police, Sathyavedu PS Accused:1. C. Moses, s/o Chinna, r/a D.No. 4, Bharathidasan street, Ambedkar nagar, Pattabhiram, Tiruvallur district.
2. Magi @ Maheswaran, s/o N.Chandran, D.No.35, PTMS road, Sastri nagar, pattabhiram, Chennai 72
3. Jana @ Janardhan, s/o masthan, d/o No. 18, Model street, Kakkangi nagar, Pattabhiram, Chennai 72.
P R C:Preliminary Register Case No.13 /2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu. Prosecution conducted by: incharge Additional Public Prosecutor, Tirupati. Accused defended by:Sri K.Subramanyam Advocate for A1 and 2 Sri D. Ramesh Advocate for A3
Charge:Charge under Sec. 120B, 302 r/w 34 IPC
Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the court: Found not guilty : In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 C.Moses, Maheswaran and Janardhan are found not guilty for the charge u/s 302 IPC. Accused No.3 Janardhan is found not guilty for the charge u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC. Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the Sentence or order charge u/s 120B of IPC. Accused 1 to 3 C.Moses, Maheswaran and Janardhan are acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused 1 to 3 if any shall be in force for a period of 6 months. MO1 Yamaha bike bearing No. TN 12 5652 shall be returned to Accused No.1 C.Moses s/o Chinna by committal court on due identification and on 2 proper acknowledgement after appeal time is over. MO10 scooty bearing No.TN 20 BR 5636 shall be returned to PW1 Usha (mother of deceased) by committal court on due identification and on proper acknowledgement after appeal time is over.
MO2 One readymade shirt MO3 knife with wooden handle MO4 knife with wooden handle MO5 blue brown and dark blue colour check shirt MO6 full hand shirt MO7 blue colour jeans phant
MO8 control soil MO9 blood stained soil shall be destroyed after appeal time is over by the committal court. Office is directed to send Mos 1 to 10 along with copy of judgment to the committal court forthwith to carryout the property order. Accused 1 and 3 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required to detain in other cases, however the bail bond of Accused No.2 shall be in force for a period of 6 months.
This case coming on 4122019 before me for final hearing and after hearing both sides, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. The Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu PS, filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 for the offence u/s 120B, 302 r/w 34 IPC in Cr. No. 79 /2016 of Satyavedu Police Station.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: The defacto complainant R.Usha is resident of Pattabhirama puram, Chennai and she is the mother of the deceased Sathya 27 years. The deceased was working as cable connection net worker in Sun TV net work. On 3.9.2016 at about 830 AM the deceased Sathya left the house on Hero Honda Aviator motorcycle bearing No.TN 20 BR 5636 to attend cable work and he did not return to the house. On the next day ie., 4.9.2015 at about 8.30 AM the dead body of deceased was found near zero point fields of Pudikuppam grampanchayat of Sathyavedu mandal, and having came to know about the same, the defacto complainant Usha visited the scene of offence and found the injuries on left year, cheek, nose, head and left wrist on the dead body of the deceased and they were caused 3 due to knife. Then LW1 Usha lodged complaint with Sathyavedu PS on 4.9.2016. On receipt of complaint the SI of police Sathyavedu PS registered case in Cr. No. 79/2016 u/s 302 IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, conducted inquest over dead body of the deceased Sathya, send the dead body for Postmortem examination, seized the material objects including the bike from the scene of offence.
3.On 10102016 at about 9.30 AM Accused 1 to 3 appeared before G.Vidyasagar, Village Revenue Officer Kolladam village of Sathyavedu mandal and made extra judicial confession admitting their guilt ie., committing murder of the deceased Sathya. LW15 Vidyasagar recorded the confessional statement of Accused 1 to 3 and produced the accused before the Inspector of police Sathyavedu along with report for taking necessary action. Then the Inspector of police secured the presence of mediators and arrested the accused and again recorded their detailed confessional statement and produced the accused before the court for judicial custody.
4.The accused confessed that they had illfeeling with the deceased as the deceased Sathya earlier attacked accused No.1 with the knife with the help of his friends and also on the ground that earlier the seceded Sathya had given information to police about committing theft of motorcycle by accused No.2, therefore accused 1 and 2 bore grudge against the deceased and hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased. In Accused No.3 Jana @ Janaardhan who is friend of accused 1 and 2 joined hands with them to eliminate the deceased. Infurtherance of their common intention and pre plan they all took room no. 124 in Thiruvillas lodge at Thiruvallur on 3.9.2016 and they conspired together and chalked out a plan to murder the deceased. Accordingly Accused No.2 purchased two knives from LW7 Shanmugam to kill the deceased. Accused No.2 called the deceased Sathya to wine shop and after consume liquor took the deceased to scene of offence ie., the fields near Zero point Pudukuppam village. Sathyavedu mandal followed by accused 1 and 2 in Yamaha FZ motorcycle bearing No. TN 12 F 5652. Accused No.3 Jana asked to wait at some distance to the scene of offence, A1 Moses went to the scene of offence, Accused 1 and 2 killed Sathya by hacking with knifes at different places on head. At that time both shifts of accused 1 Moses and A2 Magi stained with blood. After commission of offence accused 1 Moses and A2 Magi left the scene of 4 offence on Yamaha motorcycle along with A3Janardhan and escaped to Uthukota. There Accused No. Maheswaran purchased new shirt from LW6 Saleem Jaffar who is running Seemati Ready made textile and he issued receipt No.32. Accused No.1 Moses removed his blood stained shirt and kept in his house. The accused also thrown away blood stained knives on the road side and they all accused absconded.
5.During the course of further investigation and basing on the information furnished by the accused, the Inspector of police along with his staff along with accused 1 to 3 visited the Semati textile shop and examined LW6 Saleem Jaffar and he produced the computarised bill in respect of purchase of shirt by Accused NO.1 Moses . On the same day the accused also took the Inspector of police and his staff to Seethnjeri village junction Tiruvallur district and seized blood stained shirt of Accused No.2 Maheswaran under cover of mahazarnama. On the same day at about 5.30 PM they also went to thorny bushes situated Opposite to 50 mile stone on right side of Uthukota – Tiruvallur main road near Uthukota and Inspector of police seized two blood stained knives used by the accused for commission of offence under cover of seizer report.
6.On the same day at about 7 PM the Inspector of police secured the presence of Lw7 Shanmugam who was selling the knives in presence of accused and he identified that Accused No.2 Maheswaran is the person who purchased the knifes from him for Rs.600/.
7.On the same day at about 8.15 PM the Inspector of police visited Tiruvillas lodge, MGM nagar, Tiruvallur and seized three original papers of when he arrival and departure of hotel where the accused stayed there for a period of 3 days before implementation of plan to kill the deceased Sathya. On the same day at about 9.30 PM the inspector of police visited the house of Accused NO.1 Moses situated at D.No.4, Barathidasan st., Ambedkar nagar, Pattabhipuram , Tiruvallur and seized blood stained shirt produced by Accused No.1 Moses.
8.Thereafter the inspector of police forwarded the seized material objects, bloodstained clothes of accused 1 to 3 to the RFSL Tirupati for chemical analysis and received report. The Nodal officer of Bharathi AIRTEL circle ie., LW21 furnished the calldata record of customer of 5 application pertaining to mobile number used by the deceased and also in the name of deceased and his father Ravi and he seized the same. The tower location of mobile phone of accused 1 Moses and A2 Maheswaran on the particular day and the tower location of deceased on 3.9.2016 are tallied and thus accused 1 to 3 are in constant touch with each and assembled at one place and present the scene of offence and disburse after commission of murder. The Inspector of police examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The investigation discloses that all the accused who are close associates who involved in criminal case due to previous enmity with the deceased, and conspired together, hatched a plan and in furtherance of common intention kill the deceased brutally by attacking with knives and escaped. Therefore the inspector of police filed ;the final report.
9. Cognizance of case was taken by the learned Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Satyavedu against the accused 1 to 3 for the offence u/s 120B, 302, r./w 34 IPC and numbered as PRC 13 / 2017. On appearance (production) of accused and after furnishing the case copies, the learned
magistrate had committed the case to Sessions Division by following the
procedure contemplated u/s 209 Cr.P.C, the same is numbered as SC 271/2017 and made over to this court for disposal.
10. On appearance of accused 1 to 3 before this court and on hearing and basing on the prima facie material available on record, the charge U/s. 302 r/w 34 IPC, Charge u/s 120B against A1 to A3 are framed, the contents of the said charge are read over and explained to the accused for which the accused 1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
11 At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses as PW1 to PW18 and exhibited the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P43 and MOs 1 to 10 are marked. The mother and father of deceased was examined PW1 and PW2, brother in law of deceased was examined as PW3, The photographer was examined as PW4, the owner of Seemati Redymade textile was examined as PW5. The lodge manager Suresh was examined as PW6. The sister of Accused No.1 Sangeetha was examined as PW7, The worker in Bar BKR grand hotel by name Karthik was examined as PW8. According to prosecution PW8 is the owner of the SIM card and he lost his purse. The inquest panchayatdar by name Selvam was examined as PW9, 6 another of the SIM card ie., Kumaraguru who is working as auto driver was examined as PW10. Vidyasagar VRO who allegedly recorded the extra judicial confession was examined as PW11. To prove the calldat particulars Praveen kumar and Muralidhar was examined as PW12 and PW13. Dr. Ch.Ramesh who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased was examined as PW14. The SI of police Mallesh Yadav who issued FIR was examined as PW16. The Cable worker Selvakumar was examined as PW17, the Inspector of police Narasimhulu was examined as PW18. The Yamaha bike bearing No. TN 12 5652 and Scooty bearing No.TN 20 BR 5636 are marked as MO1 and MO10. The Garmants of accused and deceased are marked as Mos 2, 5 to 7. The two knives with wooden handle are marked as MO3 and MO4. The control soil and blood stained soil are marked as Mos 8 and 9. the description of the documents will be discussed herein after.
12After completion of evidence of prosecution the accused 1 to 3 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the material circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses are read over and explained to the accused for which they denied the same.. The plea of accused is one of total denial of entire incident.
13..Heard the arguments of learned incharge APP and learned counsel appearing for accused 1 to 3.
14Now the points that arise for determination are
1. Whether the prosecution has established and proved that on 3.9.2016 during night time the accused killed the deceased with knife at Zero point Pudukuppam village fields of Satyvedu mandal,?
2. Whether the prosecution has established and proved that the A1 to 3 conspired together and hatched up a plan to kill the deceased ?
4. Whether the prosecution has established and proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges u/s 120B 302, r/w 34 IPC?
P O I N Ts 1 7
15. According to prosecution the alleged incident was occurred on 3.9.2016 at Zero point Pudukuppam fields Pudikuppam village of Satyavedu mandal. It is the case of the prosecution that Accused 1 and 2 have got illfeelings against the deceased Sathya on the ground that earlier he informed to police that A2 committed theft of bike and also earlier deceased attacked A1 etc., therefore A1 and A2 along with A3 hatched up a plan to kill the deceased and accordingly on 3.9.2016 Accused No.1 had taken away the deceased to the scene of offence.
16.The learned incharge APP submitted that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly goes to show that the deceased Sathya left the house on 3.9.2016, on 4.9.2016 they came to know about the lying of dead body of the deceased at Zero point Pudukuppam fields at Pudikuppam village then immediately they lodged a complaint with the police and further the case rests on extra judicial confession and the evidence of PW11 G.Vidyasagar ie., VRO Kolladam village of Satyavedu mandal, clearly established and proved that on 10.10.2016 Accused 1 to 3 confessed before him and further submitted that the seizure of material objects like MO2 , MO3 and MO4 knives and other circumstantial evidence available on record clearly established and connected the accused to the crime and proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and finally submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
17.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused 1 to 3 submitted that there is no legal and convincing evidence on record to prove the charges framed against the accused and none of the witnesses depose about the involvement of the accused and there is no iota of evidence on record to connect the accused to the crime either circumstantial evidence or on last seen theory and there is no scientific evidence to connect the accused to the crime and PW11 VRO Vidyasagar is stranger to Accused 1 to 3 and therefore the question of accused 1 to 3 appear before him and gave extra judicial confession does not arise and finally submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to establish and prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
8
18.With this back ground now I would like to discuss the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to find out whether their evidence with stood in the test of cross examination inspire confidence and finally sufficient to prove the charges levelled against the accused or not. The family members of deceased ie., mother, father and brother in law are examined as PW1 to Pw3. PW1 R.Usha deposes that the deceased Sathya is her son, he was a bachellor and he was working as Dish TV cable operator and they were staying at Pattabiramapuram etc., Similarly PW2 S.Ravi deposes that the deceased Sathya is his son. The brother in law of deceased N.Gopi was examined as PW3. It is the say of PW3 that the deceased Sathya is his brother in law and he was working in Dish TV cable operator in Pattabhiramapuram.
19.According to the prosecution on 3.9.2016 Accused No.1 came to the house of deceased and he has taken away the deceased to liquor shop and there they consumed liquor and there from they proceeded to scene of offence ie., Zero point Pudukuppam fields at Pudikuppam etc., but PW1 to 3 categorically deposes in one voice that they did not know A1 to A3. It is not the case where that prior to the alleged incident Accused 1 and 2 used to attend the house of PW1 and PW2 on the ground that they are the friends of deceased Sathya. On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 to 3 clearly goes to show that they do not know the accused 1 to 3. in such a case basing on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 the identity of A1 and A2 cannot be established as that Accused 1 And 2 are the friends of deceased Sathya and also cannot establish the fact that the accused 1 and 2 consumed liquor at wine shop and there from they went to scene of offence on the bike etc.,
20.According to the prosecution the deceased Sathya left the house on 3.9.2016 and he did not return to the house and on 4.9.2016 PW1 and 2 came to know that the dead body of deceased Sathya was lying on Zero point Pudukuppam fields at Pudikuppam, immediately they rushed to the spot and found that the dead body of deceased was lying with injuries and the injuries might be possible with knife etc., and then PW1 lodged complaint to the police. Inspite of that PW1 maintains in his chief evidence that he did not lodge complaint with police but the signatures on the complaint dt. 4.9.2016 is marked as Ex.P1. It is further say of PW1 that 9 he does not know the cause of death of deceased Sathya and when the dead body was handedover to them, police obtained his signature etc.,
21.It is further say of PW2 that S.Ravi that on next day morning ie., at about 10 AM Pattabipuram police informed that the deceased Sathya died in an accident in Pudikuppam near Sathyavedu, immediately they went to the scene of offence which is at the border of Andhra and Tamilanadu ie., in Pudikuppam village and he went to the dead body and identified the same as that of the dead body of his son Sathya and he also found several hacked injuries on the dead body on head, nose, cheek etc., and his wife lodged complaint to the police. PW2 also deposes that he does not know the cause of death of deceased Sathya and he does not remember the cell phone number of deceased Sathya.
22.PW3. N.Gopi deposes in his chief evidence that on 4.9.2016 at about 8.30 or 9 AM when he was present at his house at Vellore, pattabipuram police informed him over phone that the deceased Sathya met with an accident at Uthukota near Sathyavedu, immediately they went to Sathyavedu police station and there from went to Government hospital and had seen the dead body of deceased etc.,
23.According to PW3 he did not visit the scene of offence and he directly went to Satyavedu police and there from to the hospital. Pw1 to 3 categorically depose that they do not know A1 to A3 and they did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile. Even though the learned Public Prosecutor further examined PW1 to PW3, they did not support the case of prosecution except marking of the earlier contradictory statements . On the other hand, PW1 to 3 categorically depose that they are not the eye witness to the incident.
24.It is elicited from cross examination of PW1 by the learned counsel
for Accused No. 3 that the deceased Sathya was handicapped person. It
was suggested to PW1 that the deceased was involved in several illegal activities and also selling ganja and several cases were pending against him and there are several enemies to him but he denied the same. It was suggested to PW2 Ravi that his son does not own TVS scooty. Even though PW1 to PW3 do not support the case of prosecution to some extent, they depose in their evidence that on 3rd day ie., on Sunday the deceased left 10 the house on Scooty to attend the dish TV operation work but he did not return to the house etc., At best the evidence of PW1 to 3 goes to show to some extent that the deceased Sathya left the house on 3.9.2016 on scooty. The said scooty bearing No. TN 20 BR 5636 is marked as MO10 through PW18.
25.The photographer by name K.Thirupal was examined as PW4. It is the say of PW4 that on 4.9.2016 Sathyavedu police asked him to obtain photographs of dead body of the deceased lying at Zero point Pudukuppam fields Pudikuppam village and accordingly he went to the spot and he has taken the photos and also video. The bunch of photos and negative 10 in number are marked as Ex.P5 and compact disk in respect of Ex.P5 is marked as Ex.P6. The compact disk containing video footage is marked as Ex.P7.
26.According to the prosecution after commission of the offence, Accused 1 and 2 had escaped from the scene of offence on MO1 Yamaha bike bearing No. TN 5652 and both the the shirts of Accused 1 and 2 were stained with blood, therefore they reached to Uthukota and went to Seemati Readymade textile and there accused No.1 purchased one new shirt from the said shop for Rs.255/ etc., To prove the same the owner of the Seemati readymade textile by name Saleem Jaffar was examined as PW5. It is the say of PW5 that on 3.10.2016 police came to the shop and seized 5 computarised bills relating to the business transaction held on 3.9.2016. PW5 categorically deposes that at the time of seizure of said bills under Ex.P8, the police personnel alone came to his shop and none else . PW5 did not depose anything against the accused or did not depose that Accused No.1 came to his shop on 3.9.2016 and purchased the shirt etc., Therefore basing on the evidence of PW5 it is very difficult to prove that Accused No.1 had purchased the shirt from Seemati textile under the receipt under Ex.P8.
27.According to the prosecution accused 1 and 2 are friends of accused No.3 and they conspired together and hatched up a plan to kill the deceased Sathya on the ground that earlier the deceased Sathya attacked on the accused No.1 and also there were illfeeling between them on the ground that the deceased reported the matter to police when accused No.1 committed theft of bike etc. and thus they decided to kill the deceased 11
Sathya with the help of accused NO.3 and they all together conspired in a hotel at Tiruvilas etc., To prove the alleged criminal conspiracy among the accused 1 to 3. The prosecution examined one N.Suresh who is receptionist of Tiruvilas hotel as PW6. According to the prosecution accused 1 to 3 had stayed in the said hotel for a period of 3 days and there they hatched up a plan and they conspired together etc., To prove that accused 1 to 3 booked a room in Tiruvillas lodge, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW6 coupled with Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 ie., arrivals and departure registers 3 in number.
28.It is the say of PW6 N.Suresh that on 2982016 at about 2.15 pm one Moses (accused No.1) along with two others total three persons came to his hotel and booked room No. 124 and Moses has deposited an amount of Rs. 1500/ towards caution deposit and they vacated the room No.124 on 3.9.2016. The signature shown to him on 3 leafs of arrival and departure register on 6 pages and admitted by him and arrival and departure register are marked as Ex.P9 to Ex.P11. PW6 further deposes that it is mentioned in Ex.P1 at Sl.No.CU59 dt. 2982916 about the name as Moses, his cell No. and aadhar card No. also mentioned, similarly it is mentioned in Ex.P10 and Ex.P11. PW6 also deposes that police seized Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 from him on 10102016. Even though PW6 maintains in his chief affidavit that one Moses along with 2 others came to his hotel and he did not identify the accused No.1 and remaining two persons. On the other hand, PW6 maintains in his cross examination that so many persons used to come and go to the hotel, therefore he cannot identify the persons who booked the room on particular day.
29.Therefore basing on the evidence of PW7 coupled with recitals of Ex.P9 to ExP11 it is very difficult to connect the accused or difficult to say that they booked the room in hotel Tiruvillas. It is not the case where that along with the Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 police also seized the photo ID cards of persons who booked the room on 2982016 and vacated on 3.9.2016. if really the prosecution had an intention to connect the accused to the fact that they booked the room in Tiruvillas, what prevented the investigating officer at least to secure the copies of ID cards of the persons who booked the room so as to establish their identity. If really the version of prosecution is true and correct, what prevented the investigating officer atleast to take necessary steps either to obtain the signatures of Moses 12 (accused No.1) and send the same along with Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 to expert for comparison of the signatures thereon against column Moses. But for the reasons best known to the Investigating officer, he failed to do so and he simply relied on the evidence of PW6.
30.According to the prosecution the Accused No.1 C. Moses used the mobile No.7338913749 stands in the name of his younger sister Sangeetha, Accused No.2 Magi @ Maheswaran used mobile No. 8220959815 stands in the name of Kumara guru and Accused No.3 Jana @ Janardhan used the mobile No.7358467250 stands in the name of K.Karthik. The deceased used the mobile No.894082889 stands in the name of father of deceased Ravi. For better understanding the above particulars are mentioned hereunder in the tabular form.
Accused No.1 C. MosesmobileNo.stands in the name of his 7338913749younger sister Sangeetha AccusedNo.2Magi@mobileNo.stands in the name of Maheswaran8220959815Kumara guru AccusedNo.3Jana@Mobile No.stands in the name of Janardhan7358467250K.Karthik.
deceased SathyamobileNo.stands in the name of Ravi 894082889father of deceased
It is further case of the prosecution that the Inspector of police, Sathyavedu seized the said mobile numbers (SIM Cards) in the presence of mediators ie., Praveen kumar (PW12) and A Subramanyam Chetty (LW 18). The prosecution also collected calldata record so as to establish the tower location of mobile phones of Accused 1 to 3 and as per power location, at about 6 PM Accused 1 to 3 were at Zero. Pudukuppam ie., at the scene of offence and there are number of calls among the accused 1 to 3 on 3.9.2016 and also the deceased etc., 31 To prove the calldata particulars, the prosecution examined the Nodal Officer of Bharati Airtel by name Muralidharan as PW13. Similarly the alternative Nodal officer of Vodafone Idea limited by name P.Jayalakshmi was examined as PW15. During the course of evidence of PW7 the attested copy of application form for issuance of SIM card is marked as Ex.P12. The attested copy of application form for issuance of SIM card is marked as Ex.P17 through the evidence of PW10 and the attested copy of Aadhar card of P.Kumaraguru who is working as Auto 13 driver is marked as Ex.P18. During the course of evidence of PW12 R.Praveen kumar calldata particulars, compact disk, letter dt. 23.12.2016 are marked as Ex.P27 to Ex.P29. During the evidence of PW13 the certificate dt. 19122016 issued by Nodal Officer Bharati airtel limited is marked as Ex.P13. During the course of evidence of PW15 Vijayalakshmi, Nodal officer Vodafone the attested copy of customer application form along with ID proof, Vodafone calldata record in respect of SIM NO. 8940829889 for the period from 1.8.2016 to 11102016 is marked as Ex.P34. The certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is marked as Ex.P35 and the system generated ID proof is marked as Ex.P36.
32.Now coming to the evidence of PW8 K.Karthik, according to the prosecution the SIM card used by A3 Jana @ Janardhan ie. 7358467250 stands in the name of PW8 Karthik. It is the say of PW8 that he is working as worker in BKR grand hotel and Bar, PW8 categorically deposes that he never applied to Bharathi AIRTEL for issuance of SIM card. According to PW8 in the year 2004 he lost his moneypurse at bus stand containing his positive photo, ration card, election ID card, two days thereafter one conductor handedover his lost purse and on examination he found that an amount of Rs.2000/ was missing apart from the xerox copy of voter ID card and original photo etc., So from the evidence of PW8, now it is made clear that he never applied for issuance of SIM card and the mobile No. 7358567250 was not allotted to him and he never used the said mobile number. The positive photo are attested copy of application of issuance of SIM card is marked as Ex.P14. At the same time PW8 denied his signature across the positive photo on the application for issuance of SIM card etc., So basing on the evidence of PW8. it is highly difficult to come to conclusion that he applied for issuance of SIM card . In order words there is no convincing evidence on record to connect PW8 Karthik and accused NO.3 Janardhana. There is no iota of evidence to establish that there was a friendship or relationship between the accused No. 3 Janardhan and PW8 Karthik and accused No.3 Janardhan and used the SIM of Karthik. Therefore no much weight be given to the evidence of PW8.
33.The said Kumaraguru who is working as auto driver was examined as PW10. It is the say of PW10 at about 2 ½ years ago on one day when he was present at Tiruvallur railway station along with his auto and waiting for passengers, at that time one unknown person requested him to give his 14 cell phone to him so that he will make one call, accordingly he gave his cell phone and the said person used his cell phone and made a call and thereafter he left the place along with his cell phone and he has not returned his cell phone, subsequently he tried to traceout the said person and cell phone, but in vain and since then he has not been using the cell phone. So according to PW10 one unknown person has taken away his cell phone, the attested copy of aadhar card is marked as Ex.P18. During the course of cross examination of PW10 he maintains that he does not know who scribed the contents of Ex.P17 application form.
34. PW10 further deposes that he subscribed his signature, Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 at the time of issuance of SIM card. It was suggested to PW1 that he did not state before the police that one unknown person came to him and asked him to give cell phone etc., but he denied the same. Whereas the Investigating Officer ie.,. Pw18 deposes that PW10 did not state before him about the said fact. Therefore the statement made by PW10 that one unknown person came and asked him to give cell phone is nothing but improvement in the evidence of PW10. More over PW10 did not identify the said unknown person. Therefore basing on the evidence of PW10 it is very difficult to connect the accused No.2 Maheswaran that he used his cell phone.
35.Now coming to the evidence of PW13 Muralidharan, according to PW13 he is working as Nodal Officer Bharathi Airtel and on the requisition of Additional Superintendent of police (Admin) Chittoor, he furnished the calldata particulars of the mobile Nos. 7338913749, 7358467250 and 8220959815 stands in the name of Sangeetha, Karthik and Kumaraguru and he also furnished customer application details forms to obtain SIM cards etc., It is in the cross examination of PW`13 that the names of the parties have not been mentioned in calldata particulars and the mobile numbers of the parties referred as A and B.
36.Another Nodal officer of Vodafone by name Vijayalakshmi was examined as PW15. According to PW15 she also furnished the calldata particulars and information to the Additional Superintendent of police, Chittoor through the letter dated 23.12.2016 which is marked as Ex.P29. During the course of evidence of PW15 the attested copy of customer application form, Vodafone calldata records, system generated particulars 15 and the certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act are exhibited as Ex.P33 to Ex.P36.
37.As I already discussed supra about the evidence of PW8 and PW10 with regard to the SIM cards allegedly used by the accused. Similarly there is no convincing material or evidence on record to show that there was some acquaintance between the accused and PW7, PW8 and PW10 and thereby they used their cell phones etc., Therefore basing on the evidence of PW7. PW8, PW13 r/w evidence of Nodal officer ie., Ex.P13 and Ex.P15 it is very difficult to connect the accused to usage of those cell phones. Similarly it is also very difficult to establish the presence of accused at the scene of offence ie., zero point fields at Pudukuppam with reference to tower location etc., I can understand that if those three SIM cards stands in the name of accused, then there is some tenable force in the contention raised by the prosecution. On the other hand, there is no iota of evidence on record to show that Accused 1 to 3 used the said SIM cards etc.,Simply because there was some conversation through the said cell phones. It is highly difficult to connect the accused to the crime or to establish the presence of the accused at the scene of offence as stated supra. Under these circumstances no much weight be given to the calldata particulars and the related evidence.
38.To know the cause of death of deceased, one B.R.Selvam who worked as MPTC member of Pudukuppam was examined as PW9. According to the prosecution the investigating officer conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of panchayatdars like PW9 Selvam etc., and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P16. It is the say of PW9 that on 4.9.2016 police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the scene of offence ie., at zero point fields in the presence of himself and another panchayatdar and during the course of inquest they examined the dead body of the deceased and found injuries and the panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to cut injuries on all over the body. Even though the evidence of PW9 was subjected to cross examination nothing is picked out from his testimony to doubt his statement except suggesting that he signed on the statement at the instance of police. The evidence of PW9 coupled with recitals of Ex.P6 clearly goes to show that the deceased died due to cut injuries.
16
39.Dr. Ch.Ramesh who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased was examined as PW14. According to PW14 he conducted PM examination over the dead body of deceased on 4.9.2016 in between 3 PM and 5 PM and found 4 external injuries and they are lacerated injuries on parietal region, nose and elbow etc., The Postmortem report is issued by PW14 is marked as Ex.P31. The doctor opinion given by PW14 is marked as Ex.P32. According to PW14 the cause of death of deceased was due to hemorrhage and shock due to head injuries. So by examining PW9 and PW14 the prosecution has established and proved that the deceased died due to the cut injuries etc.,
40.The then Sub Inspector of police Satyavedu PS by name Mallesh Yadav was examined as PW16. It is the say of PW16 that on 4.9.2016 at about 11.45 AM when he was present in the Satyavedu PS one person named Usha PW1 came to police station and presented a written report under Ex.P37 and he issued FIR under Ex.P38. It is in the cross examination of PW16 that as per Ex.P38 FIR at column No. 7 ie., details of accused, it is mentioned as suspect as Saravana. It was suggested to PW16 that the report under Ex.P37 was presigned on empty paper later they filled up to sue the case against him but he denied the same.
41.One Selvakumar Gadwin resident of Pattabhiram deposes that on 3.9.2016 at about 5 PM when he called deceased Sathya over phone, he asked him where he was, for which he stated that he was present along with 4 other persons at outside and he does not know the registration number of motorcycle of deceased Sathya. PW7 further deposes that on the next day the mother of deceased informed that the deceased Sathya died and he went to the hospital along with PW1 and PW2 and he had seen the dead body of the deceased. PW17 further deposes that he does not know the cause of death of deceased.
42.In the given case none of the witnesses deposes that accused 1 to 3 and the deceased were moving in and around at zero point fields at Pudukuppam and similarly there is no ioata of evidence on record to show that the accused 1 to 3 were escaping from the scene of offence in a hurried manner etc. In such a case in the absence of any such convincing evidence, it is highly difficult to place reliance on testimony of PW17 also. Even according to PW17 the place where the accused and 4 other persons 17 were present has not been mentioned by him. Therefore basing on the evidence of PW17 also it is very difficult to establish the presence of accused at a particular place ie., at the scene of offence.
43.The Investigating officer ie., the then Inspector of police Satyavedu PS by name P.Narasimhulu was examined as PW18. Pw18 has deposed on various aspects from the day one of registration of FIR till filing of charge sheet etc., It is the say of PW18 that after he received express FIR, he visited the scene of offence which is situated at zero point fields Pudukuppam and found the dead body was lying at scene of offence with cut injuries and secured the presence of witnesses and examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P39. According to PW18 he seized one Scooty bearing No. AP TN 20 BR 5636 and it is marked as MO10.
44. It is further say of PW18 that on 10102016 at about 11 AM when he was present at Satyavedu police station. PW11 Vidyasagar ie., VRO Kolladam village came to Sathyavedu police station along with Moses, Maheswaran and Janardhan and gave representation stating that all the said three persons appeared before him at his office and they confessed
before him and therefore he presented report under Ex.P19.
45.As I already stated supra that the case of the prosecution mainly rests on extra judicial confession. According to prosecution PW11 Village Revenue Officer by name Vidyasagar is a crucial witness to the case of prosecution before whom Accused 1 to 3 allegedly confessed about the their guilt etc., Before going to discuss about the evidence of PW11, I would like to refer the legal position and rulings relied on by both the learned counsel, in so far as the extra judicial confession is concerned.
The learned counsel for Accused No.3 relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh
1)Morigondi Sampurna Vs. State of AP rep.by its Public
Prosecutor, High Court of AP. Hyderabad. Reported in 2019(2)
ALT (crl.)186 (DB) (AP) the relevant passage from para 27 of the judgment is extracted hereunder.
27. From the admissions made by PW15 two things pop 18 up, namely, accused No.1 was a stranger to PW15 and secondly he was a stock witness of Markapur Town police station. Apart from that, even in the present case, he acted as a mediator to the observation of scene of offence, inquest report, panch for seizure of M.Os. 1 to 5 and also for arrest of the accused. Therefore, it is improbable to believe that accused No.1, who is a stranger and who has no prior acquaintance with PW15 would have gone to him and made an extra judicial confession admitting her guilt.
2)Boya Akuthota Nagaraju Vs. State rep. By Public
Prosecutor, High Court of AP Hyderabad and another reported
in 2018(2) ALT (crl) 290 (DB)(AP). The relevant passage from para 18 of the judgment is extracted hereunder.
18……… the accused came to his house on 17.04.2008 and he never came to his house earlier. It is clear from this piece of evidence that prior to 17.04.2008, the accused never visited the house of PW.12 for any purpose, he had no acquaintance and that too he is a resident of Kalyandurg, which is 2 kms away from Palavai Village
The learned counsel for accused 1 and 2 Sri K.Subramanyam also relied on following judgments.
1.Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of AP and others reported in
AIR 1990 Supreme court 79(1) The relevant passage from para 21 of the judgment is extracted hereunder.
[21] In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116: (AIR 1984 SC 1622), this Court has reiterated the above dictum and pointed out that the suspicion, however, great it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof and that "fouler the crime higher the proof."
2. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh and others reported in Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2001. The relevant passage from para 9 of the judgment is extracted hereunder.
9….. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that 19 miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.
3. Dhan raj @ Dhand vs. State of Haryana reported in Criminal
Apeal No. 703 of 2011.
17. In case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain without giving any chance of surmise or conjecture and must also be consistent with the guilt of the accused. None of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the High Court can be said to be the probability of the appellants’ guilt or involvement in the commission of the crime.
The learned counsel for accused 1 and 2 submitted that in a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to establish and prove all the circumstances should point towards guilt of the accused and the prosecution has to establish and prove the chain of circumstance and further submitted that there is no convincing material on record to show that the case comes under category of circumstantial evidence and therefore the evidence of prosecution is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of accused,
He relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Devi Lal Vs.
state of Rajasthan reported in Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2010
The relevant passage from para 14 of the judgment is extracted hereunder
14. The classic enunciation of law pertaining to circumstantial evidence, its relevance and decisiveness, as a proof of charge of a criminal offence, is amongst others traceable decision of the Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984(4) SCC 116. The relevant excerpts from para 153 of the decision is assuredly apposite:"
Finally the learned counsel for accused 1 and 2 relied on judgment of
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Pedakapu Kannayya vs
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Reported in Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2012. The relevant passage from para 19 of the judgment is extracted hereunder
19. On the date when the confession was made, PW.9 was in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mantada Mandal, and 20 the accused is said to have gone to Mentada Mandal and confessed about the offence. Definitely, the accused could not have imagined that PW.9 would have been there in the office of M.R.O., at Mentada. The said circumstance itself creates some suspicion in the mind of the Court. Further, there were no special reasons for the accused to confess about the commission of the offence. It is not even his case that the police were after him and if he is arrested, there is every likelihood of being tortured or beaten.
46.With this back ground and in view of settled proposition of law, now I would like to discuss the evidence of PW11 Vidyasagar who is crucial witness in this case. There is no rule of law that evidence of extra judicial confession cannot be taken into consideration. On the other hand, it is settled law that extra judicial confession shall also be taken into consideration subject to it inspire confidence of the court and the true version of the accused is mentioned etc.,
47.According to the PW11 that he worked as Village Revenue Officer
Kolladam village, on 10102016 at about 11 am when he was present at the office of Satyavedu Thasildar office, at that time the another Village Revenue officer by name Venkataramaiah was also present along with him and at that time Moses, Maheswaran and Janardhan ie., accused 1 to 3 came to him and they confessed before them that on 3.9.2016 that they killed one Sathya at zero point Teluguganga cannal Thondukudi village of Satyavedu mandal and they admitted their guilt and police are searching for them etc. According to PW11 he reduced the confessional statement of Accused 1 to 3 into report, then he informed to the inspector of police Sathyavedu and one constable came to them and there from they all went to the inspector of police Satyavedu and he handedover Accused 1 to 3 and presented their written report under Ex.P19.
48.It is further say of PW11 that in their presence the Inspector of police interrogated accused 1 to 3 and they seized Yamaha motorcycle bearing No. TN 12 5652 and again the inspector of police recorded the confessional statement of accused in the presence of PW1 and other witness and Yamaha bike is marked as MO1 and the relevant admissible portion in confessional cum seizure mahazarnama dt. 10102016 at 11 AM is marked as Ex.P20.
21
49.According to PW11 he has not only recorded the extra judicial confession of the accused but also acted as punch witness at the time of seizure of shirts, material objects etc., It is further say of PW11 that basing on the information furnished by the accused they all went to Seemati readymade shop and there the inspector of police seized 5 bunch of bills under Ex.P21 and there from they also went to bridge situated on the way to Mahalakshmi nagar, the accused Moses and Maheswaran had picked one bloodstained shirt underneath the bridge and produced before them and they identified the same as that of the shirt of A2Maheswaran and it is marked as MO2 and seizure mahazarnama is marked as Ex.P22.
50.It is further say of PW11 that they all proceeded to 8th mile stone at Uthukotai ie., state highway road and all the accused persons had picked up two knifes from the bushes from 8th mile stone and on examination of said two knives they identified that the said knives were used for commission of offence and also found bloodstained and in their presence the Inspector of police seized knives with wooden handle ie., MO3 and MO4 under the cover of Ex.P23. It is further say of PW11 that on 1010 2016 at about 9.30 PM they all went to the house of Moses situated at Ambedkar nagar, Pattabiram and he picked up one blue checked shirt and police identified the same as that of the shirt used by Moses at the time of incident and therefore the said shirt was seized and it is marked as MO5 and seized under cover of Ex.P25.
51.Now it has to be considered whether the alleged extra judicial confession made before PW11 is reliable can be taken into consideration and inspire confidence or not. According to the prosecution accused 1 to 3 are residents of Pattabhiram of Tiruvallu district. Whereas PW11 Vidyasagar is working as Village Revenue Officer Kolladam village and was working at Satyavedu MRO office and he is resident of Srikalahasthi. It is not the case where that PW11 is a relative or known person to accused 1 to 3. similarly it is not the case where that PW11 is residing adjacent to the village of accused. There is no convincing piece of evidence to show that earlier accused 1 to 3 appeared before PW11 Village Revenue Officer in connection with other crime or case etc., It is in the cross examination of PW11 that the distance between the Satyavedu police station and house of Moses is about 70 Kms, there is no prior acquaintance between himself and accused 1 to 3, prior to 10102016 he has not seen accused 1 to 3 22 and they have not seen him and for the first time he has seen accused 1 to 3 on 10102016 and again he has seen them before the court only.
52.PW11 further deposes that he did not record the confessional panchanama of Accused 1 to 3 separately and he did not obtain the signatures of accused 1 to 3 on his report under Ex.P19, at the first instance he scribed the report under Ex.P19 at his office and immediately after arrival to the office of inspector of police he handed over Ex.P19 to him and LW16 Venkataramana did not signe on Ex.P19. PW11 categorically deposes that the village of Uthukotai is within the limits of Tamilnadu state, from Uthukotai to Sathyavedu one has to pass invariably through the state of Tamilnadu for a distance of half kilometer.
53.During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.3, PW11 deposes that he did not obtain any permission from higher officials who are the readily available in his office on 10102016 about the alleged appearance of accused before him and also before recording confession etc., PW11 further deposes that there are several villages in between Thasildar office Sathyavedu and Uthukotai village, there are 6 to 7 village revenue officers or village Sarpanches are there in between in the said two places. It was suggested to PW11 that as he is residing in Sathyavedu, therefore police planted him as a witness to speak about the alleged confession that at the instance of police he is deposing false but he denied the same.
54.Now coming to the evidence of PW18 Investigating Officer he maintains in his chief evidence that on 1012016 at about 11 AM when he was present at Sathyavedu police station PW11 Vidyasagar came to police station along with accused 1 to 3 and presented report under Ex.P19 and then he interrogated the accused etc., PW18 also deposes about the seizure of other material objects as narated by PW11. It is in the cross examination of PW18 that on his dictation the constable has drafted the confessional statement at different places. PW18 deposes in his cross examination made by the learned counsel for accused 1 and 2 that in Ex.P38 FIR the defacto complainant has suspected one Saravana but it came to light that on 3.9.2016 the said Saravana was in jail. PW18 categorically deposes that the report under Ex.P19 given by PW11 does not contain signatures of accused 1 to 3.
23
55.Now it has to be considered whether the evidence of PW11 inspire confidence in so far as the alleged extra judicial confession is concerned. A careful perusal of the evidence of PW11 now it is also made clear that he could not properly identifiy the accused persons before the court. If really the version of accused is true and correct, it is the natural human conduct atleast to appear before the village elders or caste elders or relatives or person known to them so as to give statement of confession etc., But in the given case even according to prosecution accused 1 to 3 have choosen PW11 Village revenue officer who is not a relative or person known to him or neighboring village revenue officer to give confessional statement. Therefore the version advanced by prosecution that accused 1 to 3 has chooen PW11 is unnatural and unbelievable. It is not the case where that accused 1 to 3 came to PW11 in connection with some other work and while they were interacting with PW11 at that stage all of sudden they disclosed the information voluntarily about the extra judicial confession. But according to prosecution the accused all the way travelled to Sathyavedu ie., at a distance of 80 kM and they have choosen to PW11 and gave alleged extra judicial confession before him which version throws a serious doubt about the same. I can understand that there is prior acquaintance between accused and PW11, there may be some tenable force in the contention raised by prosecution to choose PW11 to give extra judicial confession.
56.Therefore taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of case on hand and in view of the reasons stated supra, I am of the opinion that as the accused are strangers to PW11 and he also acted as a mediator in other aspects about the alleged seizure of material objects, therefore it is improbable to believe that the accused could have gone to PW11 and made extra judicial confession admitting their guilt. In other words the version advanced by PW11 is quite unnatural and unbelievable and does not inspire confidence. In such a case I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish and prove the alleged extra judicial confession . In such a case no much weight be given to evidence of PW11.
57.In the given case there is no scientific evidence on record to connect the accused to the crime. Even though the investigating officer ie., PW18 24 had lifted the control soil and bloodstained soil, seized bloodstained shirt and failed to take blood samples of accused so as to send the same to expert to find out whether the bloodstains on those material objects and the blood samples of accused are one and the same. But the FSL report
dated 27.2. 2017 is marked as Ex.P43 by invoking section 293 Cr.PC. A
perusal of Ex.P43 It is made clear that human blood is detected on items 1 to3 , 5 to 8 but their blood group could not be determined. If really the version of prosecution is true and correct, what prevented the Investigating officer atleast to collect the blood samples of accused so as to send the same to FSL for comparison of the bloodstains on the shirt etc., so as to connect the accused to the crime. Similarly there is no scientific evidence on record to show that the material objects ie., the knives under MO3 contains the thumb impressions and they were matched with the thumb impression of the accused. In such a case I have no hesitation to come to conclusion that absolutely there is no scientific evidence to connect the accused to the crime.
58.In the given case even though the prosecution relied on extra judicial confession, circumstantial evidence, prosecution failed to establish and prove the presence of accused at the scene of offence and failed to prove the overt act made against the accused. In the given case none of the witnesses depose that they had seen the accused either at the scene of offence or when they were moving along with the deceased near the scene of offence or they left the scene of offence in a hurried and suspicious manner etc., In such a case it is also very difficult to establish the presence of the accused at the scene of offence or at the deceased at the time of incident by invoking last seen theory. Viewed from any angle, I am of the considered view that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the presence of accused at the scene of offence and failed to prove the overt acts made against the accused.
59.After careful scrutiny of both oral and documentary evidence available on record and in view of the reasons stated supra, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish and prove that on 3.9.2016 during night time the accused killed the deceased with knife at zero point fields at Pudukuppam of Sathyavedu mandal and accordingly point No.1 is answered.
25
POINT No.2
60.It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused 1 to 3 conspired together, hatched up a plan so as to kill the deceased. The motive for the offence is that Accused 1 and 2 bore grudge against the deceased since the deceased informed to police when the accused committed theft of motorcycle and earlier accused NO.1 attacked deceased etc., The prosecution made an attempt to prove that there was some conversation between the accused 1 to 3 and deceased but the evidence adduced by the prosecution more particularly the calldata particulars and the relevant evidence thereon is not at all sufficient to connect the accused to the crime or to prove that the accused conspired together and hatched up a plan to kill the deceased. In other other words there is no convincing legal evidence on record to show that the accused conspired together and hatched up a plan to kill the deceased. In such a case I havce no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish and prove that accused 1 to 3 conspire together and hatched up a plan to kill the deceased and accordingly point No.2 is answered.
POINT No.3
61.In view of my finding on points 1 and 2 and the reasons stated supra, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused 1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/s 302 r/w 34 and sec,120 B IPC and accordingly point No.3 is answered.
62. According to prosecution accused 1 to 3 appeared before the PW11 Village Revenue Officer and they gave extra judicial confession before him and at that time accused No.1 C.Moses came to PW11 on Yamaha bike bearing No.TN 12 5652 and it is marked as MO1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for accused 1 and 2 that accused No.1 Moses had obtain interim custody of MO1 from the committal court and on behalf of accused No.1 MO1 bike was produced before this court at the time of trial and it is marked as MO1 during the course of evidence of PW11 and now MO1 is in the custody of court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for accused 1 and 2 that at the time of obtaining interim custody of MO1, petitioner filed copy of certificate of registration which stands in the name of Accused NO.l Moses.
26 63,It is submitted by the learned incharge APP that MO10 Scooty bearing No. TN 20 BR 5636 belong to the deceased and it was seized by the Inspector of police ie., PW18 at the scene of offence. It is in the evidence of PW18 that during the course of examination of scene of offence he also found and seized one scooty bearing No. TN BR 5636 from the scene of offence.
64.There are no rival claims to claim MO1 and MO10. The accused is not claiming MO10 scooty as that of their personal property. At the same time accused NO.1 is claiming MO1 belongs to him and he obtained interim custody of the same from the committal court. Mos 1 and 10 are now in the court custody.
65.In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 C.Moses, Maheswaran and
Janardhan are found not guilty for the charge u/s 302 IPC.
Accused No.3 Janardhan is found not guilty for the charge u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC.
Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charge u/s 120B of IPC.
Accused 1 to 3 C.Moses, Maheswaran and Janardhan are acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of accused 1 to 3 if any shall be in force for a period of 6 months.
MO1 Yamaha bike bearing No. TN 12 5652 shall be returned to Accused No.1 C.Moses s/o Chinna by committal court on due identification and on proper acknowledgement after appeal time is over.
MO10 scooty bearing No.TN 20 BR 5636 shall be returned to PW1 Usha (mother of deceased) by committal court on due identification and on proper acknowledgement after appeal time is over.
MO2 One readymade shirt MO3 knife with wooden handle MO4 knife with wooden handle MO5 blue brown and dark blue colour check shirt MO6 full hand shirt MO7 blue colour jeans phant 27
MO8 control soil MO9 blood stained soil shall be destroyed after appeal time is over by the committal court.
Office is directed to send Mos 1 to 10 along with copy of judgment to the committal court forthwith to carryout the property order. Accused 1 and 3 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required to detain in other cases, however the bail bond of Accused No.2 shall be in force for a period of 6 months.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected
and pronounced by me in Open court, dated this the 11st day of February, 2020.
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
TIRUPATI
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: P.W.1R. Usha P.W.2S. Ravi P.W.3N. Gopi P.W.4K.Thirupal P.W.5Saleem Jafar P.W.6N. Suresh ) P.W.7C. Sangeetha P.W.8K. Karthik P.W.9B.R.Saleem P.W 10P.Kumaraguru P.W.11G. Vidyasagar P.W.12R. Praveen kumar P.W.13S. Muralidharan P.W.14Ch.Ramesh P.W.15`Smt. P.Jayalakshmi PW.16J. Mallesh Yadav PW 17Selvakumar Gadwin PW18T. Narasimhulu Inspector of police
For defence : Nil
Exhibits marked
For prosecution: Ex.P.1Complaint given by PW1
Ex.P.2Relevant red marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 28
Ex.P.3Relevant red marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1
Ex.P.4Relevant red marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3
Ex.P.510 photos
Ex.P.6Compact disk in respect of postive photos
Ex.P.7Compact disck containing video footage
Ex,P85 bills of Seemati Readymade shop
Ex.P9Arrivals and departures register sheet
Ex.P10Arrivals and departures register sheet.
Ex.P11Arrivals and departures register sheet.
Ex.P12Attested copy of application form for issuance of SIM card
Ex.P13Relevant contradictory portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW9
Ex.P14 Positive photos on attested copy of the form for issuance of SIM
Ex.P15Attested copy of ID card issued by Election commission of India
Ex.P16Inquest report
Ex.P17Attested copy of application form for issuance of SIM
Ex.P18Attested copy of aadhar card
Ex.P19VRO report dt. 10102016
Ex.P20Relevant portion in confessional mahazarnama
Ex.P21Case seizure mahazarnama dt. 10102016
Ex.P22Case property seizure mahazarnama
Ex.P23Case property seizure mahazarnama
Ex.P24Case property seizure mahazarnama
Ex.P25Case property seizure mahazarnama ` ` Ex.P26Seizure mahazarnama
Ex.P27Calldata `Ex.P28Compact disk
Ex.P29Letter dt. 23.12.2016
Ex.P30Original certificate dt. 19122016 29
Ex.P31Postmortem report dt. 4.9.2016
Ex.P32Postmortem certificate
Ex.P33Attested copy of customer application form along with ID proof
Ex.P34Vodaphone calldata
Ex.P35Certificate under section 65B (4)(c) of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P36System generated ID proof
Ex.P37Report dt. 4.9.2016
Ex.P38FIR
Ex.P39Rough sketch of the scene of offence
Ex.P40Police proceedings dt. 4.9.2016
Ex.P41Police proceedings dt. 5.9.2019
Ex.P42Police proceedings dt. 11.10.2016
Ex.P43FLS report dt. 27.1.2017
For defence: Ex. D1: relevant portion of Pw2.
Material objects marked.
MO1 Yamaha bike bearing No. TN 12 5652 MO2 One readymade shirt MO3 knife with wooden handle MO4 knife with wooden handle MO5 blue brown and dark blue colour check shirt MO6 full hand shirt MO7 blue colour jeans phant MO8 control soil MO9 blood stained soil MO10 scooty bearing No.TN 20 BR 5636
sd/- Y. Veerraju
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
TIRUPATI
Copies to:
1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
2. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.
3. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu
4. The Superintendent of Police, Tirupati.
30 …… fair judgment….
/// T.C.B.O. //
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT
TIRUPATI.
31
In support of the contentions of the learned APP, he relied on the following judgments.
1)Sahadevan and another vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 2012 (3)ALT (crl.) 482 (SC). Pleased to held and the relevant passage from para 26 of the judgment is extracted hereunder.
[26] Moreover, in their statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused have denied the very execution of Ext. P-4. In order to examine the veracity of this document, the court essentially has to find out the correctness and corroboration of the facts stated in Ext. P-4 by other prosecution evidence.
2) Anjan Kumar Sarma Vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 2017 SC 2617. Pleased to held and the relevant passage from para 21 of the judgment is extracted hereunder.
Para 21 ………..that the circumstance of last seen together would be a relevant circumstance in a case where there was no possibility of any other persons meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of crime in the intervening period. It was held in the above judgment as under:- "34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after (sic of) a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straitjacket 32 formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author of the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case." As we have held that the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and that the circumstances of last seen together along with the absence of satisfactory explanation are not sufficient for convicting the accused. Therefore the findings recorded in the above judgment are not applicable to the facts of this case. [22] Due to the lack of chain of circumstances which lead to the only hypothesis of guilt against the accused, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and acquit the Appellants of the charges of Section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC.
3) Parasa Koteswara Rao vs. Eede Sree Hari reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 1327. Pleased to held and the relevant passage from para 11, 12, 14 of the judgment is extracted hereunder.
[11] In our opinion, it seems that the motive for the crime has not been sufficiently made out. Indeed, the Sessions Court itself disbelieved a number of witnesses, and the very fact that PWs 1,2 and 4 were told about the so-called illicit relationship either immediately after the crime was committed or at that time would lend credence to what is stated by learned counsel for the respondents. Further, it 33 cannot be forgotten that PW-5, who was a witness, being a person who lived 80 ft. away from the house of the deceased, turned hostile and maintained his view that there was, in fact, nothing illicit between the deceased and the lady concerned. Motive, therefore, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. [12] The same goes for the last seen theory. PW-1, who alone is relied upon by the Sessions Court for this again only states that he has heard PW-3 telling him about the accused being last seen with the deceased. This also would be in the realm of hearsay, and "last seen" also cannot be said to be made out. [14] According to us, it does seem that PW-6 is a stock witness and the fact that the confession was made at the Police Station renders it inadmissible in evidence……...
4) Chanda Venkateswarlu vs. State of AP reported in 2011 (1) ALD (Cri) 538 AP . Pleased to held and the relevant passage from para 26 of the judgment is extracted hereunder.
[26] We, therefore, agree that Ex.P.15 is the postmortem report of the deceased, in view of the evidence of PW.12. However, the learned counsel for the accused also pointed out the other inconsistencies relating to the time of the death of the deceased and the opinion of PW.12 with reference to Ex.P.15. In Ex.P.15, it was stated that the death was about 23 hours to 24 hours prior to postmortem examination. PW.12 deposed that the deceased would appear to have died about 36 hours prior to postmortem examination. Thus, if the deceased died about 24 hours prior to the death as mentioned in Ex.P.15, the death was around 4 p.m. on 04.02.2006. By then, the body of the deceased was already traced. If the death was about 36 hours prior to the postmortem examination, the death must be around 4 a.m. on 04.02.2006 by which time the deceased was still in the bus. The time mentioned by PW.12 and Ex.P.15 thus do not point out that the accused died some time after 5.15 a.m. on 04.02.206 after she boarded the auto of the deceased.
5)