Upload
sampath-bulusu
View
81
Download
6
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.
Present: Sri K.V.Ramanaji Rao, M.A., B.L., I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Srikakulam. Monday, this the 30th day of April, 2012
SESSIONS CASE NO. 64/2011
(Cr.No51/2010 of Jalumuru Police Station)(P.R.C. 6/2011 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali)
Between:
The State of A.P., Represented by T.Panasa Reddy, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Srikakulam Sub Division.
. . . Complainant.And:
Metta Shankara Rao, S/o lt. Jaggappanna @ Jaggappadu, age 38 years, Kalinga by caste, Mettapeta Village, Nagirikatakam Panchayat, Jalumuru Mandal. (C.R.P.F. Constable No.941131616CT/DVR).
… Accused. Prosecution conducted by: Sri K.Jeevaratnam,
Addl. Public Prosecutor, Srikakulam.
Accused is/are defended by: Sri C.Narasimha Murthy, Advocate, Srikakulam.
Offence: U/Secs.302, 302, 302, 201, 302, 201, Sec.5 of Explosives Substance Act, 435 of IPC, 506(2) of IPC., 302, 201 of IPC, 4(a) of Explosives Substance Act, 506(2) of IPC., Sec.3 of Explosives Substance Act, Sec.450 of IPC., Sec.302 and 302 of IPC.
Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the Judge: The accused is found not guilty for the
offence punishable u/Sec.201 of IPC in three counts and u/Sec.435 of IPC and u/Sec.450 of IPC and accordingly the
accused is acquitted under section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences.
The accused is found guilty for the offence punishable
u/Sec.302 of IPC in seven counts and u/Sec.506(2) of IPC in two counts and u/Sec. 3, 4(a) and 5 of Explosives Substance Act and accordingly he convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences.
Sentence/order:
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in three counts and under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and also Under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences.
In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in seven counts and under section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code in two counts and under section 3, 4 (a) and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and accordingly the accused is convicted under section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences.
The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence before imposing sentence.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years for each count for the offence punishable under section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code for two counts which shall run concurrently.
A separate sentence need not be given for Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act since the offence is also inclusive of Section 4(a) of Explosive Substance Act for which, the separate sentence is not passed. Therefore, no separate sentence is necessarily be given to section 5 of Explosive Substance Act.
The accused is also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month for the offence punishable under section 3 of Explosives Substance Act.
The accused is also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month for the offence punishable under section 4(a) of Explosives Substance Act. The sentence imposed of 10 years for the offence under section 3 of Explosive Substance Act and the sentence imposed for Section 4(a) of Explosive Substance Act are ordered to run concurrently.
It is further ordered that the sentence imposed for the offence under section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code on two counts and the sentence imposed for the offence under section 3, and that of Section 4(a) of Explosive Substance Act are ordered to run consecutively.
It is further ordered that the period of remand undergone by the accused is ordered to be set off under section 428 (1) of Cr.P.C.,
The accused is sentenced to death and direct that the accused be hanged by the neck till he is dead for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for seven counts.
M.Os.1 to 26 material objects and unmarked property if any are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.
The accused is informed that he has got right of appeal to move before Honourable High Court of A.P., Hyderabad under Section 366 (4) of Cr.P.C.,
Since the death sentence is imposed against the accused, the office is directed to submit the entire proceedings duly indexed and duly translated, urgently to the Honourable High Court for confirmation of death sentence as required under section 366 (1) of Cr.P.C., with a covering letter, after certifying the same by Chief Ministerial Officer as per provision of 199 & 200 of Criminal Rules of Practice.
This Sessions Case coming on 27042012 for final hearing before me
and having stood over till this day for consideration and this Court delivered
the following
J U D G M E N T;
The State represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Srikakulam filed charge sheet in Cr.No.51/2010 of Jalumuru Police Station under
sections 302, 435, 450, 452, 427 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance
Act.
02. The matrix of the prosecution case, as per the legal evidence let in
during the trial is as follows:
For convenience sake, the deceased persons are numbered as
Deceased 1 to 7 viz., Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1), Chy.Metta Divakar
(Deceased No.2), Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3), Sri Pyla Venkata
Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4), Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5), Smt.Oota
Parvathi (Deceased No.6) and Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7)
(a) The accused is a ExCRPF constable and he was convicted and
sentenced to undergo seven years imprisonment in S.C.No.72/2007 on the file of
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in 304B of Indian Penal Code
case for the dowry death of his wife and he was convicted on 30.03.2009. He was
also removed from service. The accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.64/2009
and got suspense of sentence order and was released on bail. While so, in the said
304B of Indian Penal Code case, Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12), who is
the husband of the deceased Smt.Boddepalli Damayanti (Deceased No.7), Sri
Voota Simmanna, who is the husband of deceased Smt.Voota Parvathi (Deceased
No.6), Sri Metta Appanna, who is the brother of Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased
No.5), Smt.Pyla Sarojini, wife of deceased Sri Pyla Venkata Rao (Deceased No.4)
are the prime witnesses. The prosecution also let in evidence in the present case
that the said prime witnesses also acted as mediators in the panchayat held with
regard to the property disputes among the accused and his family members and as
they made verdict against him in the said panchayat, he also bore grudge against
the panchayatdars who gave verdict against him. Therefore, the accused bore
grudge against the prime witnesses and decided to kill them. His preplan is put
into action on the night of 30.11.2011. He also felt resentment that his wife is no
more and that he also wanted to kill his daughter Chy.Metta Manasa, aged 7 years
(Deceased No.1) and his son Chy.Metta Divakar, aged 5 years (Deceased No.2) as
there will be no one to look after them in case of his death or imprisonment for
life.
(b) The accused made preparations to put his plan into action on the
night of 30.11.2010. As per the prosecution case, it is a chain of events causing
deaths of seven persons by the accused in the intervening night of
30.11.2010/1.12.2010 between 07.00 p.m., to 05.00 a.m. The accused made
preparations to put his plan into action and secured knives, blasting material etc
and decided to remove all the witnesses deposed against him and the
panchayatdars, who gave verdict against him and as a part of the plan of action, on
30.11.2010 evening at about 04.00 p.m., the accused went to Netaji Residential
School, where his minor children who are Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta
Divakar (deceased 1 and 2) were studying and met Sri Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das
(P.W.24), who is the Principal, of Netaji Residential School and obtained
permission from the Principal saying that there is a function in the house and took
his children with him on his motor cycle. The accused purchased whisky from the
shop of Sri Beri Srinivasa Rao (P.W.20), and also purchased two pepsi cool drink
bottles, bread and twine bundle from the shop of Sri Gudla Krishna Murthy
(P.W.21) and reached the house at 04.50 p.m. The accused provided supper to his
children Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1) and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased
No.2) and night meal, he gave the Pepsi drink mixed with the whisky to his
children and they went to deep sleep. The accused brutally hacked the heads
Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar and decapitated the heads with heavy
long knife (sword) relentlessly at about 7.30 p.m., in the middle room of his house
where they slept.
(c) The accused went to the house of Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao
(deceased No.3) at about 08.00 p.m., and brought Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao to the
backyard of his house and pounced upon him with a knife at about 08.00 p.m., and
chopped off the neck, as a result of which Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased
No.3) fell down and died on the spot and he covered the dead body of Sri Pyla
Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) with coconut leaves.
(d) Thereafter, the accused went to the house of Sri Pyla Venkata Rao
@ Venkati (Deceased No.4) and invited him to consume liquor, who came out
from his house and took him on his motor cycle to his house and there, the
accused made believed the said Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4)
that his friends are coming to offer their prayers to Lord Someswara of
Srimukhalingeswara group of temples and as such, he has to place coconuts in
advance in the temple and took both the heads of the children which were cut off
and which were already packed in a polythene bag and made believed Sri Pyla
Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) that there are coconuts in it and took the
said packed bag containing the heads of (Deceased 1 and 2) Chy.Metta Manasa
and Chy.Metta Divakar to the Someswara Temple and they kept the said bag in
the sanctum (GARBHA GUDI) of Lord Someswara Temple idol and they returned
back to the village by 11.00 p.m., on that date. The accused thought that in future,
the said Sri Pyla Venkata Rao (Deceased No.4) would be a witness for keeping the
heads etc in further course of time and as such, he decided to kill Sri Pyla Venkata
Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) also and in that course, he took Sri Pyla Venkata
Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) to the paddy fields of Sri Metta Venkata Rao,
where the accused already secreted two bags in the bushes which contained two
knives, water bottle, jungle patched dress, 37 bombs, kerosene tin etc., and the
accused made Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) to sit there and
on the pretend of taking tumbler from it, he took out a knife and Sri Pyla Venkata
Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) attempted to take heels, but the accused pounced
upon him with a wild force and in order to kill him, chased Sri Pyla Venkata Rao
@ Venkati (Deceased No.4) to a little distance and Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @
Venkati (Deceased No.4) fell down and the accused chopped off him on the back
side of the neck with a knife, in a barbarian manner and killed him. After
confirming that Sri Pyla Venkata Rao (Deceased No.4) died due to cut injuries, the
accused secreted the dead body of Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased
No.4) in nearby bushes. As per the prosecution case, the accused wearing lungi
and shirt and after killing Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4), he
has changed that lungi and shirt and he wore the jungle patch military dress and he
has taken some country made bombs and secreted in the pockets and by holding
two knives in his hand and carried the bag which contains kerosene tin etc, and he
went to the thrashing floor of Sri Oota Ganapathi.
(e) The accused set fire to the hay heap, cattle shed of Sri Oota
Ganapathi (P.W.9) and bullock cart of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) which
he kept in the thrashing floor of Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9). The villagers after
noticing the flames, came in a mob in order to put off the flames and the accused
concealed in near by banana tope till 02.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010 and he also
switched off the transfer and cut off the electricity to the village. Some one called
fire engine, which came and also put off the fire.
(f) At about 02.30 a.m., on 01.12.2010, the accused returned back to the
backyard of his house, which was noticed by Smt.Karukola Manikyam (P.W.19)
who raised alarms, due to which, the accused disturbed and came to the street and
proclaimed and threatened that he would kill anybody who comes near to him. By
that time, Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9), Sri Yevvari Rama Krishna and Sri
Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) were returning to their house. The accused also
threatened to kill Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9), when he and his wife Smt. Oota
Sravani questioned about litting of fire to the hay heap, cattle shed and bullock
cart and he ran to a distance and meanwhile Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5),
who is nothing but the paternal uncle of the accused, also came there and
questioned the accused for his high handed behaviour and the accused confessed
that he set fire, but he did not damage the water pipe and took Sri Metta Yerrayya
(Deceased No.5) to his house and hacked Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5)
with a knife over his neck and Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) rushed out
from the house of the accused with injuries over the neck and by placing a cloth
over the bleeding injury and came to the house with the said injuries. The ladies
went to bring water to him from the bore well and Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao
(P.W.12) and the ladies made a phone call to 108 ambulance and he was shifted in
108 ambulance to the government hospital, Narasannapeta, where he died.
(g) The accused went to the house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao
(P.w.12) and challenged him to come out from the house if he got any guts, and
exploded bombs to the outer wall house of him and threatened to kill Sri
Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) to come out from the house either by hurling
bombs or with a knife. Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and his family
members due to fear ran out side the house through backyard site. The accused
hurled bombs over the house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and also
damaged the auto which was placed by the side of the house of Sri Metta Venkata
Rao and torn the seats and broke the glasses.
(h) Then, the accused left to the house of Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17)
at about 04.00 a.m., on 01.11.2010 in order to kill him and knocked the doors.
Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6), who is partially deaf, opened the doors and
the accused raised knife and on that, she requested not to kill and tried to escape
by taking heals, but the accused hacked her with a knife and dragged her even
though she requested not to kill her and then the accused dragged her to the
opposite house of Sri Oota Tavitayya, by hacking her where she died at the pial of
the house of Sri Oota Tavitayya.
(i) Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7), who is the wife of Sri
Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12), also ran away from the house and hided for
some time. She lurked at the terrace of the house of Sri Pyla Suryanarayana,
which was witnessed by the accused. The accused noticed the same and went on
to the terrace and without showing any mercy, although Smt.Boddepalli
Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) made leg appeal to the accused and made humble
request to leave her, the accused butchered Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased
No.7) with a knife around the neck till her death and killed her.
(j) The accused at about 04.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010, came to the house
of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16), who is one of the targeted person, by
possessing of bombs, knives and acid bottle etc. The accused came to the house
and called him out from the house, but he did not come out due to fear and the
accused hurled bombs over his house causing damage and later left the place
saying that he will come again.
(k) In the early hours at about 05.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010 when the
Village Revenue Officer, Sri Dasari Rambabu of Nagirikatakam (P.W.1) was
present in his village, Talayari Sri Talasamudram Raja Rao (not examined) came
to him and informed that the accused killed seven persons and on knowing about
the information, Sri Dasari Rambabu (P.W.1) informed it immediately to his
superior officers and went to Mettapeta village and noticed the dead bodies of
Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1), Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.2), Sri
Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3), Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati
(Deceased No.4), Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) and Smt.Boddepalli
Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) and later Sri Dasari Rambabu (P.W.1) along with
Talayari Sri Talasamudram Raja Rao went to Jalumuru Police Station and he
presented a report (Ex.P.1) to the Sub Inspector of Police Sri Nalli Sai (P.W.47) at
about 06.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010, who registered the same as a case in
Cr.No.51/2010 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sent the express
FIR (Ex.P.50) to the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali and copies to the
higher officials and intimated to the investigation officer, who is Deputy
Superintendent of Police Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), by phone and as per the
instructions of Sub Divisional Police Officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), he
proceeded to Mettapeta village. The Sub Divisional Police Officer Sri T.Panasa
Reddy (P.W.48) received the message and informed by phone about the
occurrence of murders and instructed the Sub Inspectors of Police, Jalumuru,
Gara, Amadalavalasa, Sarubujjili, Laveru and Narasannapeta and Inspector of
Police, Amadalavalasa to go to Mettapeta village to assist him and he left to
Mettapeta village and meanwhile informed to bomb detection and diffusal team
and clues team. All the Sub Inspectors and Inspector of Police reached Mettapeta
village by 07.00 a.m., The Sub Divisional Police Officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy
(P.W.48) secured the copy of FIR and distributed the work of conducting inquests
over the dead bodies of seven deceased persons, by giving instructions to all the
Sub Inspectors and to prepare rough sketches and also distributed the work to get
scene observation reports prepared for all the scene of offences and seizure of
properties through the Village Revenue Officers of different villages, deputed by
Mandal Revenue Officers for the said purpose. The Sub Divisional Police Officer
Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), also took the assistance of Sub Inspector of
Jalumuru and observed the entire scene of offences and also prepared entire rough
sketch of scene of offences (Ex.P.15). The work entrusted to the Sub Inspectors of
Police and Inspector of Police who got prepared the scene observation reports and
held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased. The Sub Divisional Police
Officer, Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) later arranged to dispatch all the dead
bodies to government hospital for postmortem examination. The Sub Divisional
Police Officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) orally examined the witnesses
available at the scenes of offence on that day and as there is havoc situation in the
village, he attended the inquests of all the dead bodies through the Sub Inspectors
of Police of various stations and send the dead bodies to postmortem examination
and returned to the police station in the evening after 07.00 p.m.,
(l) Dr.H.Aruna Kumari (P.W.30), Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Narasannapeta conducted postmortem examination over the trunk and head of
deceased Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1), aged 7 years and noted the
internal and external injuries and gave opinion that the death of the deceased is
due to the effects of the injuries which are in antimortem in nature and the
duration is 6 to 8 hours prior to her examination and issued postmortem certificate
(Ex.P.26).
(m) Dr.H.Aruna Kumari (P.W.30), Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Narasannapeta also conducted postmortem examination over the deadbody of
Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) on 01122010 at about 300 to 500 p.m. and
noted the external and internal injuries and gave opinion that the death of the
deceased is due to effects of injuries antimortem in nature and the duration is 8
to 10 hours prior to her examination and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.27).
(n) Dr. N. Madhavi (P.W.31), Civil Asst. Surgeon, Narasannapeta on
01122010 at 100 p.m. conducted postmortem examination over the deadbody
of the deceased, Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) and noted
external and internal injuries and gave opinion that the death is within 24 hours
prior to her postmortem examination and the cause of death is due to cervical
spine fracture (C4–C5) and hemorrhage leading to cardio pulmonary arrest and
issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.28).
(o) Dr. G. Gurumurthy (P.W.32), Civil Asst. Surgeon, Narasannapeta on
01122010 at about 230 p.m., conducted postmortem examination over the dead
body of deceased, Smt.Voota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) and found internal and
external injuries and opined that the death is 24 hours prior to his postmortem
examination and the death is due to fracture (C3 – C4) as cervical vertebrae and
hemorrhage leading to cardio pulmonary arrest and issued postmortem
certificate (Ex.P.29).
(p) Dr. E. Aravind (P.W.36), Civil Asst. Surgeon, Narasannapeta on
01122010 at about 1145 a.m. he conducted postmortem examination over the
deadbody of the deceased Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) and
noted external and internal injuries and opined that the cause of death of the
deceased is due to hemorrhage and cervical spinal fracture leading to cardio
pulmonary arrest and issued postmortem certificate (ExP.34).
(q) Dr. E. Aravind (P.W.36) Civil Assistant Surgeon, Narasannapeta, on
the same day at 200 p.m. he conducted postmortem examination over the trunk of
the deadbody of the deceased, Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.2) and noted
external and internal injuries and he gave opinion that the cause of death is
complete decapitation of head leading to death and he issued postmortem
examination certificate (Ex.P.35).
(r) Dr. E. Aravind (P.W.36), Civil Assistant Surgeon, Narasannapeta,
on the same day on 01122010 at about 430 p.m. he conducted postmortem
examination over the head of deadbody of the deceased, Metta Divakar
(Deceased No.2) and found the injuries and opined that the death is within 24
hours prior to his postmortem examination and cause of death is complete
decapitation of head and issued postmortem examination certificate (Ex.P.36).
(s) Dr. T. Anil Kumar (P.W.37), Civil Asst. Surgeon, Tekkali, on
01122010 at about 1100 a.m. he conducted postmortem examination over the
deadbody of the deceased, Sri Pyla Laxmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and noted
external and internal injuries and gave opinion that the death is 24 hours prior to
his postmortem examination and cause of death is cardio respirator arrest and
due to massive hemorrhage and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.37).
(t) After killing all the deceased persons, the accused suspected that the
villagers might have capture him to kill and so the accused by lurking into plantain
topes escaped and at about 06.00 p.m., on 01.12.2010 went to the Panchayat
office, Nagirikatakam and approached Sri Dasari Rambabu, Village Revenue
Officer, Nagirikatakam (P.W.1) along with knife and jungle dress etc and
confessed the entire incident to Sri Dasari Rambabu (P.W.1), VRO and Sri Gedela
Vijaya Babu (P.W.2), VRO, who recorded the confession statement of the accused
and both of them, later handed over the accused along with the knife (M.O.3) to
the Investigation Officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), who is Sub Divisional
Police Officer at about 8.00 p.m., on 01.12.2010 in Jalumuru Police Station.
(u) Sri T.Panasa Reddy, Sub Divisional Police Officer (P.W.48),
recorded the confession statement of the accused (Ex.P.52) in the presence of Sri
Dasari Rambabu (P.W.1), VRO and Sri Gedela Vijaya Babu (P.W.2), VRO in the
police station, Jalumuru and also seized jungle fobs (M.O.14) and the knife
(M.O.13) upon confession made by the accused and collected explosive remnants
over the body of the accused with the help of clues team, who also took finger
prints of the accused by finger printers expert. The Sub Divisional Police Officer
Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) also arrested the accused and on the next day
morning sent him for remand to judicial custody.
(v) The clues team photographer Sri Ananthapatnaikuni Srinivasa Rao
(P.W.33), took photographs to all the dead bodies of the deceased and scenes of
offences (Ex.P.30 bunch of 27 positive photos and Ex.P.31 negative CD of the
same is marked) and the clues team also photographed and vediographed the
entire scene of offences (videos not filed or exhibited). The finger prints unit of
the Inspector of Police Sri V.H.L.Nagesh (P.W.34) along with clues team
examined the scene of crime articles present at the site of Smt.Pyla Thavitamma
and took chance prints. As per the prosecution case, the accused has thrown away
the knives (M.Os.15, 17 and 22) and one bag containing letters ‘Adidas’ (M.O.21)
and a plastic bottle containing label XXX RUM (M.O.24) and the same were
seized under the cover of scene observation report (Ex.P.24).
(w) The ARSI Sri P.S.Naidu of bomb detection team(P.W.35), after
obtaining permission from the Magistrate, on 15.12.2010 diffused 19 country
bombs in the police station in the presence of mediators Sri Panku Pakeeru
(P.W.26) and Sri Madhusudhana Rao (not examined). The Sub Divisional Police
Officer, Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), also took Sri Panku Pakeeru (P.W.26) and
Sri Madhusudhana Rao (not examined) to Indrakshamma hills and 19 bombs were
diffused in their presence, under the cover of mediator report (Ex.P.21) and burnt
bomb material was also seized for sending the same for analysis and the expert
collected the same.
(x) On 04.12.2010, Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) Sub Divisional Police
Officer, took Sri Dasari Rambabu (P.W.1), VRO and another VROSri
Madhusudhana Rao (not examined) and went to the house of the accused and
observed the scene and seized note book (Ex.P.14) from the window of the shelf
containing the hand writing of the accused and seized the same under the cover of
mediator report (Ex.P.15). Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) also sent the material
objects to RFSL and sent the chart (Ex.P.13) and note book (Ex.P.14) to the hand
writing expert and after receipt of postmortem certificates, finger print expert
report (Ex.P.32), chemical analysis reports (Exs.P.33 and P.38), bomb expert
report (Ex.P.39), hand writing expert report (Ex.P.40) and also obtained the
sanction orders (Ex.P.53) from the Collector for prosecution and after completion
of investigation, filed charge sheet.
03. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotabommali took
cognizance of the offence under section 302, 435, 450, 452, 427 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act against the
accused and registered as PRC.6/2011.
04. After following the procedure as contemplated under section 209 of
the Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotabommali, committed the
case to the Sessions Division, Srikakulam and the Sessions Division, Srikakulam
made over this case to this court for disposal according to law. The accused faced
the trial as Under Trial Prisoner.
05. After apprehension of the accused, and after consideration, charges
were framed under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for causing death of his son
Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.2), charge under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code for causing death of his daughter Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased
No.1), charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of
Sri Pyla Laxmana Rao (Deceased No.3), charge under section 201 of the Indian
Penal Code, charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing
death of Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4), Charge under Section
201 of the Indian Penal Code, charge under section 5 of Explosive Substances
Act, charge under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code, charge under section
506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code for causing death of Sri Metta Yerraiah (Deceased No.5), charge under
section 201 of Indian Penal Code, Charge under section 4 (a) of the Explosive
Substances Act, charge under section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, Charge
under section 3 of Explosive Substance Act, Charge under section 450 of the
Indian Penal Code, charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for
causing death of Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) and charge under section
302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi
(Deceased No.7). The accused abjured the guilt and denied the charge contents
and claimed to be tried.
06. In order to substantiate the accusation, the prosecution in all,
examined P.Ws.1 to 48 witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.53 documents
and got marked M.Os.1 to 26 material objects. Ex.D.1 contradiction is marked
in the statement under section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C., of Sri Oota Krishna (P.W.10).
07. Accused when questioned under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with
reference to the incriminating evidence, he denied his complicit in crime and
denied the prosecution evidence. No defence witnesses were examined and no
documents are marked on defence side.
08. Heard arguments from both sides. Written arguments filed by the
learned counsel for the accused.
09. Now, the points that arise for determination in this case are;
(1) Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of his son Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.2)?
(2) Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of his daughter Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1)?
(3) Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3)?
(4) Whether the accused with an intention to screen the evidence from legal punishment kept the heads of the deceased children Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.2) and Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1) in the sanctum of the temple?
(5) Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4)?
(6) Whether the accused with an intention to screen the evidence from legal punishment kept the dead body of Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @Venkati (Deceased No.4) in the bushes?
(7) Whether the accused is in unlawful possession of the country made bombs and thereby committed any offence punishable under section 5 of Explosive Substances Act?
(8) Whether the accused caused mischief by litting fire to the hay heap, bullock cart and cattle shed and thereby committed any offence punishable under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code?
(9) Whether the accused committed criminal intimidation by threatening Singuru Manikyam, Oota Ganapathi, Metta Yerryya (deceased No.5) and others with grievous injuries and to cause death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code?
(10) Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5)?
(11) Whether the accused with an intention to screen the evidence from legal punishment kept the dead bodies of Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) by covering the dead bodies with coconut leaves?
(12) Whether the accused hurled bombs over the house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao and thus committed an offence of
Section 4 (a) of the Explosive Substances Act?
(13) Whether the accused committed criminal intimidation by threatening Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao with grievous injuries and to cause death and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code?
(14) Whether the accused unlawfully and maliciously caused explosion through country made bombs over the house of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 3 of Explosive Substances Act?
(15) Whether the accused committed house trespass by entering into the dwelling house of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao and hurled bombs and broke open the doors of the house and thereby committed any offence punishable under section 450 of the Indian Penal Code?
(16) Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6)?
(17) Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7)?
MOTIVE AND DEFENCE THEORY:
10. As per the prosecution case, it is a chain of events causing death of
seven persons by the accused and also hurling bombs and litting fire to hay heap,
cattle shed, bullock cart on one night i.e., on 30.11.2011/01.12.2011 from 07.00
p.m., to 05.00 a.m. The motive on the part of the accused to kill all the seven
persons is that the accused faced the trial in SC.No.72/2007 for the dowry death of
his wife under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code before the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, which case is ended in conviction for seven years
imprisonment. The accused preferred in Crl.Appeal No.64/2009 against the said
conviction and sentence passed against him and got released by suspension of
sentence. The accused bore grudge against the witnesses who deposed against
him in the Sessions case and decided to kill the witnesses, who deposed against
him. It is also alleged in the evidence that the other motive against the prosecution
witnesses in the said case is that, some of them also acted as mediators in the
panchayat held with regard to the property disputes in between accused and his
brothers and as they made verdict against him in the said panchayat, he also bore
grudge against the said panchayatdars who also happened to be the witnesses in
the Sessions Case against him. Therefore, the accused bore grudge against them
and decided to kill them and his preplan is put into action on the night of
30.11.2011.
11. The accused although planned to kill the prime witnesses when they
escaped, he killed Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7), who is the wife
of the prime witness Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and killed Smt.Oota
Parvathi (Deceased No.6) who is the wife of Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) ) and
brother of Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5), who is the brother of Sri Metta
Appanna (L.W.6 not examined) and also killed Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati
(Deceased No.4), who is the husband of prime witness Smt.Pyla Sarojini (P.W.8).
12. As per the prosecution case, there is no motive to the accused to kill
his minor daughter by name Chy.Metta Manasa (deceased No.1) and his minor
son by name Chy.Metta Divakar (deceased No.2) and the accused killed them
since there will be no one to look after them, if he is sentenced to death or
imprisonment for life, if his plan to kill the persons as per the preplan is succeed.
13. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is heavy
burden lies on the prosecution to prove motive, when it is alleged the same, but in
this case, prosecution did not place any scrap of paper or any other evidence to
prove the alleged motive. It is also argued that the deceased Sri Pyla Lakshmana
Rao, Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkat, Sri Metta Yerrayya, Smt.Oota Parvathi and
Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased 3 to 7) are not at all witnesses in the
earlier case and so, their deposing anything against the accused in the earlier
Sessions case No.73 of 2007, does not at all arise and even the prosecution in this
case did not place any material to the effect that any of the deceased in this case
had deposed against the accused in the earlier case. It is also argued by the
learned counsel for the defence counsel and pointed out in the written arguments
also at page No.30 that, So, even for imagination, it is highly impossible and
improbable for a normal man to understand the state of mind of the accused, as
alleged by the prosecution, that he had killed all the 7 persons including his own
children at a stretch on the same night for the simple reason that they deposed
against him in an earlier case, can it be believable without any motive he had
killed all of them, in such a case, he should be of insane minded or in a heavy
drunken state in which he did not know what he was doing, but the prosecution
case or defence theory is not that the accused was of such a insane or in that state
of drunken mind.
14. The accused also stated in the examination under Section 313
Cr.P.C., about the defence theory as mentioned in written arguments at page 76
that the accused stated that on 30.11.2010, he went to 2nd show movie to
Narasannapeta for witnessing the 2nd show cinema and had consumed some liquor
there after the picture is over and slept at the Old Bus Stand, Narasannapeta and
returned to his native village Mettapeta in the early hours in between 03.00 to
04.00 a.m, on 01.12.2010 and observed there is high tense situation and
commotion of people in the village and the doors of his house were in open
condition and there are groups of people gathered in front of his house and here
and there in the village, when he went inside of his house, found that his two
children were brutally murdered and shocked and fell unconscious for some time
and upon sprinkling water on his face by somebody, he regained consciousness
and was told by his villagers that his two children were killed by Sri Pyla
Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased
No.4) for obtaining the hidden treasures (Gupta Nidhulu) and their cut heads were
found at the idol in the “garbha gudi” (sanctum) of God Someswara temple at the
Mukhalingeswara temple complex and stated in the below mentioned para.
15. The defence theory of the accused as per the suggestions made to the
prosecution witnesses and as stated in the examination under section 313 Cr,.P.C.,
is also that, Sri Pyla Laxmana Rao (deceased No.3) and Sri Pyla Venkata Rao
(deceased No.4) have killed his both the children viz., Chy.Metta Manasa
(deceased No.1) and Chy.Metta Divakar (deceased No.2) at the house of the
accused and cut their heads and placed them in Lord Someswara temple,
Srimukhalingam to worship for obtaining hidden treasures (gupta nidhulu), which
incident was witnessed by Sri Metta Yerrayya (deceased No.5) and as such, the
said Sri Pyla Laxmana Rao (deceased No.3) and Sri Pyla Venkata Rao (deceased
No.4) has killed Sri Metta Yerrayya (deceased No.5), which incident was
witnessed by Smt.Voota Parvathi (deceased No.6) and Smt.Boddepalli
Damayanthi (deceased No.7), when they went to answer calls of nature and as
such, the said Sri Pyla Laxmana Rao (deceased No.3) and Sri Pyla Venkta Rao
(deceased No.4) also killed both Smt.Voota Parvathi (deceased No.6) and
Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (deceased No.7) and therefore, all the villagers killed
Sri Pyla Laxmana Rao (deceased No.3) and Sri Pyla Venkata Rao (deceased No.4)
and that in the early hours of that night, the police came to the village and the
villagers in collusion with the police in order to escape the guilt of killing Sri Pyla
Laxmana Rao (deceased No.3) and Sri Pyla Venkata Rao (deceased No.4) foisted
this case against the accused taking undue advantage of earlier Sessions case
which was ended in conviction imposed against him.
16. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the motive for the
accused to kill the deceased Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao, Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @
Venkati, Sri Metta Yerrayya, Smt.Oota Parvathi and Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi
(Deceased Nos.3 to 7 respectively) as per the charge sheet and investigation is that
they have deposed against the accused in the earlier Sessions Case No.72/2007
and thereby he bore grudge against them and killed them. He argued that
Deceased Nos.3 to 7 are not at all the witnesses, who deposed against him in the
earlier Sessions Case No.72/2007 and the burden heavily lies on the prosecution to
prove the motive, when they are alleging that the accused in barbaric manner
hacked by inflicting cut injuries on the necks of the respective deceased and
killing them. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has
not placed any scrap of evidence or any document to show that the deceased in
this case are the persons who deposed against the accused in the earlier sessions
case and the prosecution has not filed the charge sheet or the judgment copy in
S.C.No.72/2007, to show that the deceased persons were figured as prosecution
witnesses in the earlier sessions case. It is also argued that the burden is heavily
lies on the prosecution to prove that if so the prosecution has not at all alleged the
motive the case is different. So, it is argued that the prosecution failed to prove
the motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased.
17. The motive, if fully established, it provides fundamental material to
connect chain of circumstances. It affords a kep on a point to scan the evidence in
the case in that prospective and as a satisfactory circumstance to corroboration.
When the evidence of eye witness is trustworthy, the motive is irrelevant. Motive
does not play important role of such importance of cases based upon eye
witnesses’ evidence. Motive is irrelevant in the case where eye witnesses are
present. If motive is proved would apply a link in chain of circumstances. Even in
the absence of motive there on, however cannot be ground to reject the
prosecution case. Motive assumes importance only in circumstantial evidence,
which rests upon circumstantial case.
18. No doubt, it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal
act was done with a motive, but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would
have been committed, if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of
the accused to commit it. When prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility
of the some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on
record, the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the
offender to such degree as to impel him to commit the offence, cannot be
construed as a vital weakness of the prosecution. It is almost impossibility for the
prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental dispossession of an
offender towards the person whom he offended. The motive is the emotion which
impels a man to a particular act; such impelling cause need not necessarily be
proportionately grave to the grave crimes. Therefore, the prosecution need not
prove the motive in all conceivable modes of strict proof.
19. Even as per the prosecution case, there is no motive for the accused
to kill his own children Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.1) and Chy.Metta
Manasa (Deceased No.2). But the prosecution could able to establish the motive
on the part of the accused for killing the other deceased Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao,
Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati, Sri Metta Yerrayya, Smt.Oota Parvathi and
Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased Nos.3 to 7 respectively) in the above
matter by examining Sri Karukola Bhaskara Rao (P.W.4), Smt.Pyla Sarojini
(P.W.8), Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9), Sri Oota Srirama Murthy (P.W.11), Sri
Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12), Sri Guruvelli Mohana Rao (P.W.14) and Sri
Oota Simmanna (P.W.17). Sri Karukola Bhaskara Rao (P.W.4) and Smt.Pyla
Sarojini (P.W.8), who categorically deposed that in sessions case, as the witnesses
deposed against the accused, the accused bore grudge against the witnesses and
used to proclaim that he will kill the villagers and all the witnesses. Sri Oota
Ganapathi (P.W.9), Sri Oota Srirama Murthy (P.W.11), Sri Boddepalli Prakasa
Rao (P.W.12), Sri Guruvelli Mohana Rao (P.W.14), and Sri Oota Simmanna
(P.W.17), deposed categorically at one voice, that in the sessions case they are
figured as prosecution witnesses which was ended in conviction and therefore,
accused bore grudge against them and tried to kill them. They also further
deposed that in the property disputes arose in between the accused and his family
members, Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17), Sri Oota Ganapathi (PW.19), Sri
Karukola Dharma Rao and Sri Oota Sriramulu (P.W.11), who also acted as elders
in the panchayat and they supported the other party in the said panchayat dispute
and as such, the accused bore grudge against them and used to say that he will kill
them.
20. Regarding the deaths of deceased 1 and 2, who are children of
accused, there are no eye witnesses for killing of them by the accused and there
are no eye witnesses also for killing Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased
No.4) and there are also no eye witnesses for killing of Smt.Boddepalli
Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) and the result rests upon circumstantial evidence
only. Where as for killing Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3), Sri Metta
Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) and Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6), the eye
witnesses were examined by the prosecution in this case and therefore, motive
does not play any important role in the case on hand. By the evidence of
prosecution witnesses as mentioned above, the prosecution was able to prove that
the accused has got some ire towards the said prime witnesses and which swelled
up in the mind of the accused to such degree as to commit the offence and in the
said attempt, the accused killed the wives and brother of the said prime witnesses
as mentioned in the earlier para and therefore, the prosecution need not prove the
motive in all conceivable modes of strict proof, and motive is irrelevant in this
case since the case rests upon the evidence of eye witnesses as well as the
circumstantial evidence.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
21. Regarding the appreciation of evidence Under Section 3 of the
Evidence Act, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon the following
decisions:
(1) AIR 2003 SC 976 to 979 in Rizan Vs. State of Chaatisgarh through The chief Secretary, Government of
Chaatisgarh, Raipur, Chaatisgarh.
(2) 1994 Crl.L.J.2254 at 2257 (Orissa) in Jayalal Sahu etc. v. State of Orissa
(3) AIR 1994 SC 1251 in Jagadish Prasad and others v. State of M.P.
AndBawan Kumar v. State of M.P.
(4) AIR 1996 SC 2868 in Mulak Raj and others v. State of Haryana.
(5) 1995 Crl.L.J.248 at 254 in Niranjan Lal v. State of Haryana.
(6) 1995 Crl.L.J.4214 (Raj) in Kulvendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan.
(7) AIR 1992 SC 1433 in Rajinder Singh alias Kada v. State of Punjab
(8) AIR 1992 SC 881 in Pradumansinh Kalubha v. State of Gujarat.
(9) 2004 Crl.L.J.828 (SC) in Shingara Singh, Suba Singh v. State of Haryana
(10) AIR 2004 SC 3962 in Harjinder Singh alias Bhola Vs. State of Punjab.
(11) AIR 2004 SC 77 in Ramakant Rai Vs. Madan Rai.
(12) AIR 1992 SC 669 in Swinder Singh vs. State of Punjab
(13) AIR 1999 SC 3544 in Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
(14) SAR 2011 (Criminal) Page 82 in Rathmam @ Rathiyan Versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr.
(15) SAR 2011 (Criminal) Page 610 SC in A.Shankar versus State of Karnataka.
(16) SAR 2011 (Criminal) Page 642 SC inJalpat Rai & Ors. Versus State of Haryana
(17) SAR 2010 (Criminal) page 24 SC in
Gajula Surya Prakasa Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh.
(18) SAR 2010 (Criminal Page 227 (SC) in Musheer Khan alias Badshan Khan and Anr. V. State of M.P.
(19) 2007 Crl.L.J.AP 1934 in Golle Jacob and others Vs. State of A.P.
(20) 2007 SAR (Criminal) SC.229 in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bacchu Das @ Balaram and Others.
(21) 2007 SAR (Criminal) SC 729 in State of Maharastra Vs. Raju Bhaskar Potphode.
(22) 1994 Crl.L.J.Page 848 in Pancham Yadav and another v. State of U.P.
(23) 1996 Crl.L.J.Page 889 in Kartik Malhr v. State of Bihar.
(24) 2005 ALT Criminal Page 161 in Gaddapu Kannaiah and another v. State of A.P., rep. by its Public
Prosecutor, Hyderabad.
(25) 2003 ALT Criminal Page 170 in Muthu v. State of Karnataka.
(26) 2008 Crl.L.J.Page 1651 in Babu Ram vs. State of Punjab.
(27) 1994 Crl.L.J.3602 (Bombay) in Deoraj Deju Suvarna and etc., State of Maharastra.
(28) 1994 Crl.L.J.1661 (Rajasthan) in Khuman Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan.
(29) 1997 Crl.L.J.2654 in Ayodhya and others v. State of U.P. and etc.,
22. On gleaning and gathering from the above decisions, the position of
law regarding appreciation of evidence is that the court has to analyze the
evidence and find out whether the evidence is cogent, credible and court has to
adopt careful approach and if it passes “acid test of credibility” it can be acted
upon. The court has to find out the witnesses are reliable and trustworthy or not?
When the testimony of eye witnesses clouded with grave suspicion and serious
doubts and discrepant in material particulars, is not proper to accept the same.
The evidence must be conclusive evidence pointing out only to the guilt of the
accused and the prosecution must prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt by
travelling all the way from “may be true” to “must be true”. The court must
see whether the testimony of witnesses which is clouded with grave suspicion and
is discrepant in material particulars. The version of the witnesses can be doubted
when it is when it is contradicting to FIR. When there is change of version in FIR,
161 Cr.P.C., Statement, the version of prosecution is doubtful, benefit of doubt
shall be given to the accused. The evidence must be tested for its inherent
constituency and the inherent probability of the story, constituency with
undisputed facts the “credit” of witnesses, their demeanour in the witness box,
their power of giving evidence in trustworthy manner and the probable value of
such evidence and whether the same is eligible to be put into scale for a
cumulative evaluation and grave suspicion however strong does not replace proof.
The material omissions in evidence also amounts to contradiction. The witnesses
who are essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is
based must be called by the prosecution, when the effect of their testimony is for
or against the case for prosecution and the failure to examine such witness might
effect a fair trial. Non examination of material witness benefit shall go to the
accused. If the behaviour of a witness is grossly against human conduct that itself
is strong circumstance for doubting the story projected by him and if his behaviour
is unnatural and against normal human conduct, it should be understood that he is
projecting a doubting story and not coming forward with truth. The missions
which amount to contradictions is material, which effects the trial and render the
testimony of witness liable to be discredited and so also material improvements
before the court, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. If there is any doubt
with regard to their trustworthyness of witness, the court may discord their
evidence of the related witness, if it passes the motive/acid test of truthfulness.
When the direct evidence is not that quality, absence of motive has got
significance. Therefore absence of motive is also a circumstance which goes
against the prosecution. The presence of eye witnesses doubted since site plan not
showing their placement at spot and their statements found contradictory as to
reaching at and placement at spot. When evidence of witnesses is found only
partly reliable it can not be utilized for the purpose of corroborating another partly
reliable witness.
23. The learned counsel for the accused also relied upon several
decisions in the list of decisions. But the decision copies are not supplied and
therefore, they are not referred.
24. POINTS 1 and 2:
(1) Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death
of his son Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.2)?
(2) Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of his daughter Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1)?
A small episode of the prosecution case is that, on 30.11.2010
evening at about 04.00 p.m., the accused went to Netaji Residential School where
his minor children viz., Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (deceased 1
and 2) were studying and he met Sri Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24), who is
the Principal of Netaji Residential School and obtained permission from the
Principal, saying that there is a function in his house and he took his children with
him on his motor cycle. The accused purchased whisky from the shop of Sri Beri
Srinivasa Rao (P.W.20) and also purchased two pepsi cool drink bottles, bread and
twine bundle from the shop of Sri Gudla Krishna Murthy (P.W.21) and reached to
his house at 04.50 p.m. The accused provided supper to his children Chy.Metta
Manasa (Deceased No.1) and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.2) and he gave the
Pepsi drink mixed with the whisky to his children and they went to sleep. After
confirming himself that they were in deep sleep, the accused brutally hacked the
heads Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1) and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased
No.2) and decapitated the heads with heavy long knife (sword) relentlessly at
about 7.30 p.m., in the middle room of his house, where they slept.
25. The another episode of the prosecution case is that, the accused
packed the cut heads of both Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1) and Chy.Metta
Divakar (Deceased No.2) in a polythene bag and kept in the house and went to the
house of Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4), and brought him to
his house and with the help of him, he took the polythene bag containing the cut
heads on his motor cycle to Lord Someswara temple at Srimukhalingam, by
saying to Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) that some of his
friends are coming to the said temple to offer prayers to Lord Someswara and that
there are coconuts in the said polythene bag and he want to keep the same in the
temple in advance and placed the said polythene bag by the side of sanctum of
Lord Someswara and returned back.
26. The defence theory as mentioned and as suggested to the prosecution
witnesses and as stated in the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., is that Sri
Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati
(Deceased No.4) brought the children from Netaji Residential School after
obtaining permission from the Principal Sri Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24)
and took the children with them and that they i.e., Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao and
Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased 3 and 4) killed both the children
Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2) for worship for
getting hide treasures (Guptanidulu) for them.
27. In the light of said contention taken by the accused, the evidence of
Sri Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24), who is the Principal cum Correspondent
of Netaji Residential School, is material, since the children of the accused, who
are deceased 1 and 2 (Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar) were studying
LKG and 3rd class respectively as hostlers in his School. Sri Nakka Tulasi
Narayana Das (P.W.24), categorically deposed that on 30.11.2010 between 04.00
p.m., to 04.30 p.m., the accused came to their school and sought permission to
take both his children Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and
2) along with him, by saying that there is a function in his house on that date. He
further deposed that on 01.12.2010 in the early morning, he noticed the missed
calls from the phone of the accused to his cell phone and on verification of the
same, he made a phone call to the accused and the accused told him that he killed
seven persons and then, he asked about the children and the accused told him that
he also killed his both children, and immediately Sri Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das
(P.W.24) cut off the phone. Sri Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24) further
deposed that at 10.00 a.m., he went to Mettapeta village and found the trunks of
both the children of the accused in the house of the accused and also found the cut
heads of both children in Lord Someswara temple and he was examined by Sub
Divisional Police Officer on 04.12.2010. Sri Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das
(P.W.24) deposed in cross examination, that there are no entries made in the
registers to say with whom and at what time the children were sent from the
school, and that the police has not seized any register or hostel register or cell
phone of him. He denied the suggestion that Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao and Sri Pyla
Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased 3 and 4) came to the school and took the
children with them.
28. The learned counsel for the accused argued that Sri Nakka Tulasi
Narayana Das (P.W.24) is a chance witness only introduced by the prosecution, to
make its story a believable one, why because, according to the evidence of Sri
Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24), on 01.12.2010 immediately after he noticed
the missed call in the mobile, he went to Mettapeta village at about 10.00 a.m., on
01.12.2010 and found the trunks of both the children in the house of the accused,
but he was examined only by the investigation officer on 04.12.2010. Sri Nakka
Tulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24) categorically deposed that he also saw police in
Mettapeta village and why he kept quite without inform the police in the previous
day evening and telephoning him in the early hours by confessing that he had
killed his own children is not explained by the prosecution and no prudent man
will kept quite without informing the said ghastly incident if any to the police and
the investigation officer has also not seized the two mobile phones of the accused
as well as the Principal of the School Sri Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24),
whose 161 statement also disclose about the mobile phone numbers of himself and
the accused and investigation officer has not tried to trace out by using the
technology, the recording of messages and phone conversation between them and
therefore, it can be said that Sri Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24) is a planted
witness by the prosecution.
29. Sri Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24) himself stated in his
evidence that he did not inform to the police or any one till he was examined by
police on 04.12.2010 about the said messages received from the accused or the
accused making extra judicial confession to him by phone about the killing of all
the deceased including Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1
and 2) or he went to the village and noticed all the dead bodies of the deceased.
Naturally, when the situation is havoc in the village, even a principal will not dare
enough to inform the facts to the police, since he allowed the children Chy.Metta
Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2) and gave permission and send
them with the accused, without obtaining the signatures in any registers and due to
fear of police, he might have removed all the messages in his mobile phone, since
he was only examined after four days after the incident. It is not suggested to Sri
Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24) in the cross examination that the mobile
number as mentioned by him in the 161 Cr.P.C., statement does not belong to the
accused or that the accused has not made any phone call from the cell phone of the
accused on that date. There is no animosity for him to depose against the accused
and nothing is suggested in the cross examination regarding.
30. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses also gives vent to the
incident and that, the testimony of the witness Smt.Karukola Manikyam (P.W.19)
who categorically deposed that on 30.11.2010 after attending the agricultural
works, herself, Smt.Pyla Sarojini, Smt.Oota Sarvani, Smt.Oota Sarojini, Sri Kelli
Appanna, Smt.Seepana Nirmala and Smt.Oota Suramma, were returning to the
village at about 05.30 p.m., or 06.00 p.m., and at that time, the accused was
bringing his children to his house from the school. Therefore, the evidence of
Smt.Karukola Manikyam (P.W.19) vents to the incident of accused bringing the
children to the house from the school around 05.30 p.m., on 30.11.2010. The
learned counsel for the accused argued that they have not deposed that the
children was seen along with the accused or that they saw the children at that time
and therefore, the last seen theory placed by the prosecution case did not help to
the case of the prosecution. Therefore, there is no hesitation to come to
conclusion that it is the accused has brought the children from the school on
30.11.2010.
31. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied
upon decision reported in
2009 (3)ALT 13 in Ranjyotsingh Gurudayalsingh v. State of Maharastra
It is held that
“The defence of the Appellant in his statement under Section 313 is one of a blunt and complete denial. What happened after the evening of 12th
February, 2001, particularly when if at all the Appellant parted with company with the deceased, were facts within the special knowledge of the Appellant. It was for the Appellant to explain those facts, but he chose instead a complete denial in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The additional link that connects the Appellant with the crime and completes the chain is provided by his blunt and outright denial of every one of the incriminating circumstances. It was for the Appellant who was last seen in the company of the deceased to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. The failure of the Appellant to do so must weigh in the balance as a failure to explain facts which were within his special knowledge.”
32. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the above two charges
levelled against the accused, the prosecution case only rests upon the
circumstantial evidence, since there is no direct eye witnesses in the present case
to say that the accused has killed or cut the heads of both the children and took the
cut heads of the children to Lord Someswara temple, Srimukhalingam and placed
by the side of the sanctum.
33. “It is well established rule in criminal jurisprudence that
circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an accused
persons conviction, if it is of such a character that the same is wholly
inconsistent with innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his
guilt. The incriminating circumstances for being used against the accused
must be such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and reasonably
exclude every possibility of innocence of the accused. In a case of
circumstantial evidence, the whole endeavor and effort of the Court should
be to find out whether the crime was committed by the accused and the
circumstances proved form themselves into a complete chain unerringly
pointing to the guilt of the accused. If the circumstances proved against
the accused in a case are consistent either with the innocence of the
accused or with his guilt he is entitled to the benefit of doubt”.
34. Therefore, the principles that the inculpatory fact must be
inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and incapable of
explanations on any other hypothesis than that of guilt does not mean that
extravagant hypothesis would be sufficient to sustain the principles, but
that the hypothesis suggested must be reasonable. In a case where there
is plethora of circumstances which are plenty and overlapping and are so
twined so as to farm a stout cord which rope the accused in such away
that the escape from the conclusion of there guilt becomes difficult, nay,
impossible, then the conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence.
When a case rests purely on circumstantial evidence such evidence must
satisfy 3 tests. Firstly, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt
is sought to be proved must be cogently and firmly established. Secondly,
the circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing
towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances taken
cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from
conclusion that with in all human probability the crime was committed by
the accused and none else. That is to say, the circumstances should be
incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt of
the accused (extracted from the Honourable Apex Court’s Judgments).
35. As already pointed out in the above paras that there is no motive for
the accused to kill his own children. As per the case of the prosecution, the
accused killed the children since there will be no one to look after if he is
sentenced to death or imprisonment for life, and also since his wife died, he felt
resentment that his wife is no more and entire villagers stood against him to push
him away from his relatives and from the village, since they did not help him in
getting acquittal in the dowry death case of his wife in which he was convicted.
The evidence of Sri Kuna Venkati (P.W.3) who is no other than the fatherinlaw
of the accused lends supports the said contention of the prosecution, since Sri
Kuna Venkati (P.W.3) deposed that after the death of his daughter, he has no
connection with the accused after registering the case against the accused for
which he is the defacto complainant and categorically deposed that after the death
of his daughter, he never looked after his grand children who are Chy.Metta
Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2) and only after coming to
know about the death, he went to Mettapeta village and found the trunks of the
children of the accused. So, the contention of the prosecution that after the death
or imprisonment for life to the accused, there will be no one to look after his
children and therefore, the accused decided to kill them can also be accepted.
36. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused while bringing the
children Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2) on his
motor cycle, on the way, he purchased whisky from the shop of Sri Beri Srinivasa
Rao (P.W.20) and also purchased two pepsi cool drink bottles, bread and twine
bundle from the shop of Sri Gudla Krishna Murthy (P.W.21) and the accused also
purchased two knives from the maker of the knives Sri Palaka Thavudu (P.W.25)
and reached the house at about 04.50 p.m., on 30.11.2010 and at about 07.30 p.m.,
the accused provided supper to his deceased children Chy.Metta Manasa and
Chy.Metta Divakar (deceased 1 and 2) and after supper, he gave pepsi drink mixed
with whisky to his both children, who went to deep sleep and the accused brutally
hacked the heads of both Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1
and 2) and decapitated the heads with the sword relentlessly in the middle room of
his house, where they slept.
37. Sri Beri Srinivasa Rao (P.W.20) deposed that the accused came to
his shop about one year back and purchased three ounces of Officer’s Choice
whisky for Rs.5000 and he came on his motor cycle and left to the place at about
04.45 p.m., and after four days, police examined him. Sri Gudla Krishna Murthy
(P.W.21) deposed in evidence that one year back, the accused came to his shop at
about 05.00 p.m., and purchased two pepsi cool drinks (small bottles) and bread
and paid Rs.2500 and his evidence is not challenged since he was not cross
examined. Sri Palaka Thavudu (P.W.25), who is blacksmith deposed in his
evidence that he used to make knives, sickles etc and at about one year two
months back, the accused purchased a long knife and short knife which are
M.O.17 and M.O.22 from him, and four days after purchase, the accused paid
Rs.3000 to him. Therefore, the evidence of Sri Beri Srinivasa Rao (P.W.20), Sri
Gudla Krishna Murthy (P.W.21) and Sri Palaka Thavudu (P.W.25) establish the
fact that the accused made all his brisk preparations for committing the crime.
38. Though the prosecution alleged that the accused gave whisky mixed
in pepsi drink to his children Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar
(Deceased 1 and 2) and gave it after providing supper to them, there is no
evidence established by the prosecution to that effect since the medical evidence
does not support the said allegation. Dr.H.Aruna Kumari, Civil Assistant
Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Narasannapeta (P.W.30) who conducted
postmortem examination over the two segments of the dead body of Chy.Metta
Manasa (Deceased No.1) on 01.12.2010 and commenced at 10.40 a.m., and
observed in Ex.P.26 postmortem certificate that the stomach and contents contains
Mucose Membrane congested, pale, contains mucus fluid. No peculiar smell.
Small intestines and its contents Mucus membrane congested and large intestines
and its contents contains gas and faecus and there is no definite opinion given by
the medical officer to the effect that there is any contents of alcohol or pepsi drink
in the stomach of the deceased Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1). Like wise,
the medical officer Dr.E.Aravind, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Narasannapeta
(P.W.36) who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of
Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.2) who commenced the postmortem
examination at 02.00 p.m., also observed in Ex.P.35 postmortem certificate that
the stomach is pale and empty and small intestines pale, cut section mucus pale
and large intestines distended pale and both the medical officers opined that the
deaths of deceased Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2)
are due to complete decapitation of heads of them leading to death. Therefore, the
medical evidence does not support the prosecution theory that the accused mixed
alcohol with pepsi and gave it to his children Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta
Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2) before hacking their heads.
39. In the present case on hand, it is an admitted fact that both the
children died due to complete decapitation of their heads and all the witnesses and
investigation officers also deposed that both the trunks of the deceased children
were found in the middle room of the house of the accused on a mat in a pool of
blood as seen from Ex.P.4 scene observation report of scene of offence, where the
trunks are located. The evidence of P.W.1 Sri Dasari Rambabu, who is the VRO,
deposed categorically that he along with VRO Sri Karakavalasa Madhusudhana
Rao (L.W.54 not examined) of Jalumuru, acted as mediators at the request of the
Circle Inspector of Police Sri P.Umapathi Varma (P.W.46) and they went to the
house of the accused bearing Door No.125 and found the trunks of the dead
bodies of Chy.Metta Manasa and Ch.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2) in the
middle room in a pool of blood on mat and noticed a chart (Ex.P.3) in the said
room containing letters ‘AIM’ and diagram of weeping tears of a person, which is
seized under the cover of Ex.P.4 scene observation report and they categorically
deposed that the clues team also got photographed and vediographed and the
Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa Sri P.Umapathi Varma (P.W.46) prepared
rough sketch (Ex.P.48) and inquest also held over the trunks of the dead bodies of
Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar and Exs.P.7 and P.8 inquest reports
were prepared on which they signed as panchayatdars.
40. P.W.1 Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO, Nagirikatakam (P.W.1) and Sri
Panku Pakeeru, VRO, Yelamanchili (P.W.26) also deposed in their evidence that
as per the instructions of the Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa Sri P.Umapathi
Varma (P.W.46), they visited Someswara temple and observed the scene and
found two cut heads of Chy.Manasa and Chy.Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2) in an
opened polythene bag lying by the side of sanctum of Lord Someswara and got
prepared Ex.P.12 scene observation report and the Inspector of Police,
Amadalavalasa Sri P.Umapathi Varma (P.W.46) prepared rough sketch (Ex.P.49)
and videos were also taken by the clues team, and Inquest reports under Ex.P.10
and P.11 were prepared in their presence.
41. Therefore, admittedly the said deceased Chy.Metta Manasa and
Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2) died by complete decapitation of their
heads and the trunks were found in the middle room of the house of the accused
where as the heads were found at the sanctum of Lord Someswara temple at
Srimukhalingam and the prosecution witnesses also deposed of noticing the same
and admittedly the Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2)
died by decapitation of their heads. Although the prosecution alleged that they
have seized Ex.P.3 chart under the cover of Ex.P.4 scene observation report and
although the prosecution alleges that the Sub Divisional Police Officer Sri
T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) on 04.12.2010 alleged to have seized Ex.P.14 long note
book and send both of them to the hand writing expert Sri N.Krishna Prasad,
Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory (P.W.40), who deposed that the
hand writing present both on Ex.P.3 chart and Ex.P.14 long note book containing
writings on several pages are one and the same and gave opinion of him under
Ex.P.40 regarding the same. The said Ex.P.3 chart Ex.P.14 long note book, does
not reveal anything connecting to the crime, except it shows the mental attitude of
the accused that the animosity with the villagers and that he wrote about the
character of the persons of their villagers in Ex.P.14 long note book, including the
said prime witnesses who deposed against him in the sessions case. Therefore,
Ex.P.3 or Ex.P.14 does not helpful to the prosecution case in any way to connect
with the above crime. The contention of the accused is that after arrest of the
accused, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) has
made writings in the police station of entire Ex.P.14 long note book and fabricated
Ex.P.3 by compelling the accused to write the same, also cannot be acceptable
since there are no incriminating writings connected to the above crime and if
really the investigation officer want to fabricate the said documents by making the
accused to write the writings either on Ex.P.3 chart or Ex.P.14 long note book,
they will see that the said writings are connected to the above crime only, how the
accused has planned the prime witnesses to kill and at least ought to have
mentioned the reason for killing his own children in Ex.P.3 chart. But there is no
whisper of the same in the recitals of Ex.P.3. Therefore, Ex.P.3 or Ex.P.14 is no
way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
42. As already pointed out, the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial
evidence only regarding the deaths of Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar
(Deceased 1 and 2). In the earlier para, it is discussed that Sri Nakka Tulasi
Narayana Das (P.W.24) who is the Principal Netaji Residential School
categorically deposed that the accused came to his school and took the children
after obtaining permission from him and the evidence of the said Principal is
discussed in the earlier para regarding the same and Smt.Karukola Manikyam
(P.W.19) also categorically stated that she along with other ladies, while returning
from the agricultural works to the village, the accused bringing his children to his
house at that time when they reached the village. Smt.Pyla Ramanamma (P.W.6)
also deposed that when herself and other coolies were returning from the land
after doing cooli work at about 05.00 p.m., to her house which is only intervened
by two house with the house of the accused, she noticed Chy.Metta Manasa and
Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2) playing in front of the house of the
accused and she enquired about their welfare and then washed her hands and legs
and went into her house. Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.w.12) also deposed that
on 30.11.2010 at about 6.00 p.m., while he was returning in auto, he saw both the
children of the accused Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1
and 2) playing in the verandah of the house of the accused.
43. Besides that, the prosecution also relied upon the extra judicial
confession made by the accused in the present case. Smt.Pyla Sarojini (P.W.8)
and Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) deposed in their evidence that accused came to
the house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and called him by shouting to
come out and at that time, he also stated that he has already killed his two
children, Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3), Sri Metta Yerrayya
(Deceased No.5), and also killed her husband Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati
(Deceased No.4). Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) also stated the same in his
evidence. The Principal Sri Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24) also deposed in
evidence that on noticing the missed calls from the cell phone of the accused, he
made a phone call to the accused and the accused stated that he has killed seven
persons and when he stated what happed to his children, the accused stated to him
that he has killed his both children and so saying, the accused cut off the phone.
44. Besides that, it is the case of the prosecution that at about 06.00
p.m., on 01.12.2010, the accused went to Panchayat office of Nagirikatakam
where Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO and Sri Gedela Vijaya Babu, VRO of Pagodu
were present and before them, he also made a confession statement (Ex.P.13)
which is recorded by them on which both of them signed and the accused also
signed and they produced the accused along with confession statement before Sub
Divisional Police Officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) at Jalumuru police station
at about 08.00 p.m., on 01.12.2010. As per the evidence of investigation officer
Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), he also recorded separate confession statement of
the accused at 08.30 p.m., to 11.00 p.m., on 01.12.2010 under Ex.P.52 and seized
the knife (M.O.13) and jungle fab (M.O.14) under the cover of the same.
45. It is well established law that the confession made by the accused
before police officer is inadmissible in evidence under section 25 of Indian
Evidence Act. But here in the present case, the confession was also made by the
accused before Sri Dasari Rambabu (P.W.1) and Sri Gedela Vijaya Babu (P.W.2)
who are VROs under Ex.P.13. Besides that as pointed out in the earlier para 43,
there is extra judicial confession made by the accused. Now, a little question
arises how far the said extra judicial confession evidence is admissible in
evidence?
46. As per the contention of the accused and the put forward defence
theory as suggested to the prosecution witnesses and as stated in the 313 Cr.P.C.,
examination is that, Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao and Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati
(Deceased N.3 and 4) have cut the heads of the children of the accused and they
brought the same from the Principal to get hidden treasures only and accused also
stated in 313 Cr.P.C., examination that on that night on 30.11.2010, he went to 2nd
show cinema to Narasannapeta village and slept at bus stand and came to village
at about 03.30 a.m., Therefore, the defence plea of elibi taken by accused that on
that night, when he returned at 04.00 a.m., he found the cut trunks of his children
Chy.Manasa and Chy.Divakr (Deceased 1 and 2) and painted and on the next day
morning, it was informed by the villagers that Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao and Sri
Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.3 and 4) killed his children for want
of hidden treasurers and decapitated the heads of the children for worshipping the
god is only on invented story. But the evidence is clear that the accused himself
brought his children on the earlier day on 30.11.2011. Therefore, it is for the
accused to explain how the children met with homicidal death.
47. More over, in the present case, most of the prosecution independent
witnesses and the villagers of Mettapeta village, categorically stated that they saw
the accused committing the offence of arson, mischief, criminal intimidation and
murders of even Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3), Smt.Voota Parvathi
(Deceased No.6) and Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) and they also
noticed the accused through out the night moving in the village by hiding after
commission of offence and in furtherance of offence by wearing jungle fab dress,
armed with sword and knives and they also deposed about the explosion of bombs
by the accused. Therefore, the theory of the accused that he was not present on
that night, cannot be acceptable for any moment.
48. The accused in the present case took a plea of false implication and
when he raise the same defence has to lay the foundation there for, the accused has
not adduced any defence evidence to say that who is the person that informed to
him about the death of his children Chy.Manasa and Chy.Divakar (Deceased 1 and
2) for the first time and who informed about the deaths of the other persons also
and has not placed any evidence that he was not in the village on that night and if
really the contention of the accused is to be acceptable for a moment, why he kept
quite without reporting the same to the police or any other villagers and virtually
no evidence is placed by the accused about his theory of defence. The accused did
not explain the ground for unnatural death of his children when and outsider has
no access to his house where the trunks of children were found.
49. Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving
a fact especially within the knowledge, the burden is only on the accused himself
how the crime was committed or how the deceased children died. It is incumbent
upon the accused, who is the father of both the deceased, how the pool of blood
was found from the dead bodies of the trunks of the deceased on the floor at the
scene of offence, which is nothing but the house of the accused, where the accused
alone is residing in the said house. In the present case, there is plethora of
circumstances which are plenty and overlapping and are so twined so as to farm a
stout cord, which rope the accused in such away that the escape from the
conclusion of there guilt becomes difficult, nay, impossible, then the conviction
may be based on circumstantial evidence only. All the circumstances themselves
form into complete chain unerringly pointing the guilt of the accused only and
they lead only to hypothesis of the guilt and reasonably excluded every possibility
of the innocence of the accused. The accused did not explain the crucial aspect
how the children’s trunks were found in his house, when there is no access to any
one to enter in to his house. Hence, it can be said that it can be taken an
additional link so as to lend assurance to the prosecution case. Hence, there is no
qualm to hold that accused has killed his both children only with an intention to
kill them. Accordingly, points 1 and 2 are answered.
50. POINT No.4:
Whether the accused with an intention to screen the evidence from legal punishment kept the heads of the deceased children Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.2) and Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1) in the sanctum of the temple?
In the earlier point No.1 and 2 itself, it is pointed out that the case is
completely rests upon the circumstantial evidence for killing the deceased
Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2) who are no other
than the children of the accused. Even as per the prosecution, Sri Pyla Venkata
Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) helped the accused in taking the cut heads in a
polythene bag on the motor cycle of the accused to Lord Someswara temple and
kept the said polythene bag containing the two cut heads of the deceased
Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar and placed the same at the sanctum of
Lord Someswara. The said Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4)
also killed by the accused later and therefore, there is no evidence from the
prosecution to say that accused has taken the said cut heads of Chy.Metta Manasa
and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2) to Lord Someswara temple and kept
them by the side of the sanctum of Lord Someswara. Therefore, there is no
evidence placed by the prosecution that the accused has screened the evidence by
placing the cut heads of Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1
and 2) at the sanctum of Lord Someswara temple. Therefore, the prosecution
failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section
201 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.
51. POINT No.3:
Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3)?
To substantiate the accusation against the accused and in order to
bring home the guilt of the accused for the above charge levelled against the
accused, for killing Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3), the prosecution
mainly relied upon the evidence of Smt.Pyla Ramanamma (P.W.6), who is the
wife of the deceased Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and Kum.Pyla
Anuradha (P.W.7), who is the unmarried daughter of the deceased Sri Pyla
Lakshmana Rao, who are also said to have been the alleged eye witnesses to the
incident of killing the deceased Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3).
Besides that, prosecution relied upon the evidence of the mediator SriBasava
Yogeswara Rao,the ExSarpanch of Srimukhalingam (P.W.28), to speak about
Ex.P.24 inquest report and the evidence of Sub Inspector of Police, Narasannapeta
Sri N.Tirupathi Rao (P.W.41) to speak about conducting inquest and also scene
observation report and to speak about Ex.P.41 rough sketch prepared by him and
the evidence of investigation officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48). The
prosecution also wants to rely upon the evidence of Sri Dasari Rambabu (P.W.1)
and Sri Gedela Vijaya Babu (P.W.2), who are VROs to speak about the contents
of Ex.P.5 scene observation report coupled with the evidence of Sub Inspector of
Police Sri N.Tirupathi Rao (P.W.41) of Narasannapeta. Dr.T.Anil Kumar, Civil
Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Tekkali (P.W.37) is examined by
the prosecution to speak about the contents of Ex.P.37 postmortem certificate,
who conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased Sri Pyla
Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3).
52. P.W.6 Smt.Pyla Ramanamma, who is the wife of the deceased Sri
Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3), deposed that the house of the accused and
their house are intervened by two houses. She deposed that herself, her husband
Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and her daughter Kum.Pyla Anuradha
(P.W.8) took their supper in between 07.00 p.m., to 08.00 p.m., on 30.11.2010 and
she is cleaning utensils and she applied ointment to her husband as he is feeling
pains. By that time, the accused came and asked her about her husband by calling
her as sister. Then, she told him that her husband got back pain and taking rest in
the house and even though her husband also replied that he will not come from
inside and then, the accused forcibly entered into her house and took her husband
with him. By that herself and her daughter suspected and watched the accused
from nearby the house of Sri Seepana Kesava by hiding behind the wall. But they
deposed in the cross examination that they witnessed the incident from the house
of Sri Karukola Simhachalam. P.W.6 Smt.Pyla Ramanamma categorically
deposed that the accused hacked her husband Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased
No.3) with a knife at the backyard site of house of accused and made cut injury to
the neck of her husband and her husband fell down and later, the accused also
covered the body of her husband with coconut leaves. Out of fear, they hided in
their house. She further deposed that at a later point of time, the accused also
went to the house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12), whose house is present
three houses away from her house and called him out and threatened him to kill
saying that he already killed her husband Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased
No.3) in the backyard and also killed Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) and his
both children and also killed Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4).
She deposed that M.O.15 is the knife with which weapon the accused killed her
husband and M.O.16 is the punche of her husband. P.W.6 Smt.Pyla Ramanamma
deposed in the cross examination, that the accused took her husband forcibly by
caught hold of his arm and therefore, she suspected some danger due to his
hurriedness and therefore, herself and her daughter has raised cries when the
accused taking away her husband with him. She deposed in the cross examination
that door of the terraced house of Sri Karukola Simhachalam are in opened
condition. P.W.7 Kum.Pyla Anuradha who is her daughter corroborated the
evidence of P.W.6 Smt.Pyla Ramanamma. Smt.Pyla Ramanamma (P.W.6)
deposed in her cross examination that herself, Kum.Pyla Anuradha (P.W.7), Sri
Mamidi Dharma Rao (L.W.9, not examined) and Sri Dhavala Ramu (L.W.10, not
examined) also noticed the accused while he was taking away her husband to his
house. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not examined them for the
reasons best known to him and he gave up the evidence of he said witnesses.
53. As per the prosecution case, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sri
T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) who is investigation officer in this case has instructed
all the Sub Inspectors of Police and Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa to come to
Mettapeta village and he also request the Mandal Revenue Officers to depute
VROs, of all the neighbouring villages who attended to Mettapeta village by 07.00
a.m., itself and later, he instructed, Sri N.Thirupathi Rao, Sub Inspector of Police,
Narasannapeta (P.W.41) who has chosen Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) and
Sri Gedela Vijaya Babu (P.W.2) to observe the scene of offence. Both P.Ws.1 and
2 and the Sub Inspector of Police Sri N.Thirupathi Rao (P.W.41) categorically
deposed in their evidence that they went to the scene of offence which is the
backyard site of the accused and thee they found the dead body of the deceased Sri
Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3). They observed the scene of offence under
the cover of Ex.P.5 scene observation report and seized the controlled earth and
blood stained earth under the cover of Ex.P.5 scene observation report. The clues
team also got photographed and videographed the scene and the Sub Inspector of
Police Sri N.Thirupathi Rao (P.W.41) also prepared Ex.P.41 rough sketch and he
also deposed that M.O.8 towel was seized under the cover of Ex.P.5 scene
observation report.
54. Like wise, Sri N.Thirupathi Rao, Sub Inspector of Police,
Narasannapeta (P.W.41) was instructed by the Sub Divisional Police Officer Sri
T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) to conduct inquest over the dead body of Sri Pyla
Lakshmana Rao and he has chosen Sri Basava Yogeswara Rao (P.W.28), who is
the ExSarpanch of Srimukhalingam, who deposed that himself along with
Kaliapadi, cooptex member (not examined) went to the scene of offence and
found the dead body of the deceased Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (deceased No.3) in
the backyard site of the house of the accused and the inquest was held over the
dead body of Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) in the presence of
panchayatdars and blood relations of deceased including his wife Smt.Pyla
Ramanamma (P.W.6) and inquest report Ex.P.24 was prepared.
55. Dr.T.Anil Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health
Centre, Tekkali (P.W.37) conducted postmortem examination over the dead body
of the deceased Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and he commenced the
postmortem examination at about 11.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010 and noted the
external and internal injuries in Ex.P.24 postmortem certificate issued by him and
opined that the death is due to cardio respiratory arrest and due to massive
hemorrhage. In the cross examination, the defence counsel has not disputed the
cause for the death of the deceased Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and
no suggestion is made regarding the same.
56. The main point urged by the learned counsel for the accused is that,
the prosecution examined only Smt.Pyla Ramanamma and Kum.Pyla Anuradha
(P.Ws.6 and 7) who are the family members of the deceased, who are alleged eye
witnesses and argued that they were planted for the purpose of the case and their
evidence cannot be believed and they observing the accused killing Sri Pyla
Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) from the house of Sri Seepana Kesava, when it
is dark at that time cannot be believed and if really they observe the same, they
ought to have raised cries and make alarms and Smt.Pyla Ramanamma deposed in
her evidence that, she did not disclose her witnessing the accused killing her
husband to any one except to the police. She also deposed in the cross
examination that, on the next day of the incident, she was examined by the police
and stated the same. Kum.Pyla Anuradha (P.W.7), who is the daughter of
Smt.Pyla Ramanamma (P.W.6) and the deceased Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao
(Deceased No.3), deposed in the cross examination that on the next day morning
at about 06.00 am., only, they went to the house of the accused and saw the dead
body of Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and at that time, no one one
present and they made a phone call to their maternal uncle and the police came to
their house at about 07.30 a.m., on 01.12.2010. The learned counsel for the
accused also pointed out some discrepancy evidence between Smt.Pyla
Ramanamma (P.W.6) and Kum.Pyla Anuradha (P.W.7), since Smt.Pyla
Ramanamma (P.W.6) deposed that M.O.15 is the knife used by the accused to kill
her husband, where as Kum.Pyla Anuradha (P.W.7) deposed that M.O.17 is the
knife with which the accused killed her father.
57. Smt.Pyla Ramanamma (P.W.6) deposed categorically that the house
of the accused and their house are intervened by two houses. But Kum.Pyla
Anuradha (P.W.7) stated in her cross examination that the house of the accused is
present in a different street where as their house is present in another street. Their
house is present in southern street of the street in which the accused house is
situated. The house of Sri Karukola Simhachalam is in locked condition. She
categorically stated in the cross examination that the accused took her father Sri
Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) to his house and at first the accused entered
into her house and her father went only through the lane into the backyard site of
the accused and there is no electricity in the house of the accused at that time and
they have seen from the side of the house of Sri Karukola Simhachalam about the
incident, but they did not go to the back side of the house of Sri Karukola
Simhachalam and she denied suggestion that she did not state to the police that
they watched the killing of her father from the house of Sri Karukola
Simhachalam.
58. As observed from Ex.P.41 rough sketch prepared by the Sub
Inspector of Police, Narasannapeta Sri N.Thirupathi Rao, (P.W.41), and as per the
entire total rough sketch prepared by Sri T.Panasa Reddy, who is the investigation
officer (P.W.48) under Ex.P.51, Sri Karukola Simhachalam house is present only
by the side of the house of the accused and the house of the accused and Sri
Karukola Simhachalam house are intervened by the site of the accused.
Therefore, there is every possibility for watching the accused killing Sri Pyla
Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) in the backyard site of the house of the accused,
from the house of Sri Karukola Simhachalam.
59. As already pointed out in points 1 and 2 in para 43 about extra
judicial confession made by the accused before the witnesses, who deposed also
that the accused stated before them that he has already killed Sri Pyla Lakshmana
Rao (Deceased No.3) and other deceased persons. Therefore, the extra judicial
confession is also there in the above matter. The evidence of Smt.Pyla
Ramanamma and Kum.Pyla Anuradha (P.Ws.6 and 7) is found cogent and
credible. Therefore, in such circumstances, the extra judicial confession made by
the accused has got much evidentiary value and more over, there is nothing on
record to suggest that Smt.Pyla Ramanamma and Kum.Pyla Anuradha (P.Ws.6
and 7) are unreliable and more over their evidence is very clean, emphatic and
reliable and as such, the extra judicial confession made by the accused is
admissible under section 24 of the Evidence Act, since the said evidence was
found reliable and trustworthy and more over, there are no even minor
contradictions in the evidence of Smt.Pyla Ramanamma and Kum.Pyla Anuradha
(P.Ws.6 and 7). Even minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core
of the case if present, they cannot be weighed much.
60. The learned counsel for the accused mainly argued that Smt.Pyla
Ramanamma and Kum.Pyla Anuradha (P.Ws.6 and 7) are the wife and daughter of
the deceased Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and related witnesses and
their evidence cannot be weighed much or taken credence of the same. At this
juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon a decision reported
2011 ACR 370 in State of U.P. v. Naresh and others.
Where in it is held in Para 24 that
“A mere relationship cannot be a factor to affect credibility of a witness. Evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of his relationship with the victim of the offence. The plea relating to relatives’ evidence remains without any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made and the Court has to analyse the evidence of related witnesses carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible.”
61. Therefore, simply because Smt.Pyla Ramanamma and Kum.Pyla
Anuradha (P.Ws.6 and 7) happened to be the close family members of the
deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that they are related to
the deceased Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3). Besides their evidence,
there is also supporting extra judicial confession made by the accused before the
witnesses as pointed in para 43 and also made confession before Sri Dasari
Rambabu and Sri Gedela Vijaya Babu, VROs (P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the same.
When the evidence of eye witnesses is trustworthy and believed by the court, the
motive is irrelevant. More over, in the present case, the motive is established by
the prosecution as discussed in the earlier paras. So, the motive provides
fundamental material to connect chain of circumstances. It affords a kep on a
point to scan the evidence in the case, in that prospective and as a satisfactory
circumstances of corroboration.
62. Merely because the witnesses are closely related to the deceased
person, their testimonies cannot be discarded. A relation would not conceal actual
culprit and make against innocent person. Court has to see whether the evidence
of the said witnesses is cogent and credible evidence and their evidence to be
examined with care and caution and such witnesses would definitely not shield
real culprits and name somebody else because of enmity. Even the evidence of the
eye witnesses, cannot be discarded if their names do not figured in the inquest
report. More over, in the present case, the witnesses Smt.Pyla Ramanamma and
Kum.Pyla Anuradha (P.Ws.6 and 7) were put through grueling cross examination,
but nothing is elicited to discard their testimonies. When there are marginal
variations in the statements of the witnesses, it cannot be dubbed as improvements
as some may be elaborations of statements made by witnesses earlier. If plea of
false implication as raised, it is for the accused to lay down foundation there for.
As pointed out, the accused has not placed any evidence to probabalise of his
defence of elbi. The evidence of Smt.Pyla Ramanamma and Kum.Pyla Anuradha
(P.Ws.6 and 7) whose evidence truthfully described events and the evidence vent
to the incident which they have seen without any exaggeration. Therefore, their
evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that both are interested witnesses or
related witnesses.
63. For the reasons discussed above, I have no qualm to hold that the
accused with an intention to kill caused the death of Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao
(Deceased No.3). On carefully pondering of the evidence discussed supra, there is
no dubiousness or qualm to hold that the prosecution established the guilt of the
accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
beyond all reasonable doubt for killing of Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased
No.3).
64. POINT No.11:
Whether the accused with an intention to screen the evidence from legal punishment kept the dead bodies of Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) by covering the dead bodies with coconut leaves?
As per the case of the prosecution, the accused hacked Sri Pyla
Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) in the backyard site of his house and after
hacking Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3), he placed coconut leaves over
the dead body there itself. Therefore, he has not moved the dead body and hided
the same to say that he has screened the evidence from legal punishment.
Smt.Pyla Ramanamma (P.W.6), who is the wife of the deceased Sri Pyla
Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3), only deposed to the extent that accused hacked
her husband in the backyard site and on noticing herself and her daughter,
frightened by witnessing the same and hided in the house by not coming out side
from the same. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code
beyond all reasonable doubt.
65. As per the charge sheet allegations, after killing Sri Metta Yerrayya
(Deceased No.5) who is the paternal uncle of the accused, the accused also
dragged the dead body of the deceased Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) and
kept it by the side of Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao’s (Deceased No.3) dead body and
both the dead bodies are covered with coconut leaves to screen the evidence. But
as per the legal evidence let in by the prosecution before this court, the accused
hacked Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) by taking into his house and Sri
Metta Yerrayya came out from the house with injury over the neck covered with a
towel and came up to his house and fell down and later the evidence also came in
this case that, one of the villagers made a phone call to 108 ambulance and the 108
ambulance came and Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) was shifted to the
government hospital, Narasannapeta and there, he died and the postmortem
examination and inquest was held only at the government hospital, Narasannapeta.
Therefore, theory put forward by the police at the earliest point of time that the
accused after killing the deceased Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5), the dead
body was dragged and kept by the side of the dead body of Sri Pyla Lakshmana
Rao (Deceased No.3) and covered both the dead bodies with coconut leaves is not
the case of the prosecution as per the evidence placed by the prosecution and
therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal
Code with which he was charged for screening the evidence to cover the dead
bodies of both Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao and Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.3
and 5 respectively) with coconut leaves as alleged by the prosecution. Hence,
prosecution failed to prove the above charge of Section 201 of Indian Penal Code
against the accused.
66. POINT No.5:
Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4)?
To prove the above charge levelled against the accused, the
prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of Smt.Pyla Sarojini (P.W.8) who is
the wife of Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @Venkati (Deceased No.4) and Sri Yevvari
Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) independent witness and also the evidence of Sri Dasari
Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) who along with Talayari Talasamudram Raja Rao
(L.W.56 not examined) acted as a mediator to speak about the contents of scene
observation report Ex.P.2 and seizure of M.Os.1 to 6 by the Sub Inspector of
Police Sri S.Prakasa Rao, Sarubujjili (P.W.42), who was instructed by Sub
Divisional Police Officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), who was deputed to
prepare scene observation report and to held inquest over the dead body of the
deceased and to say that they have also conducted inquest over the dead body of
the deceased Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) and preparation of
Ex.P.6 inquest report. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of
Dr.N.Madhavi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Narasannapeta (P.W.31) to speak about
the contents of Ex.P.28 postmortem certificate issued by her. Besides that, the
prosecution also want to rely upon the extra judicial confession made by the
accused and the confession given by the accused to Sri Dasari Rambabu and Sri
Gedela Vijaya Babu, VROs (P.Ws.1 and 2) under Ex.P.13.
67. Smt.Pyla Sarojini (P.W.8), who is the wife of deceased Sri Pyla
Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) deposed in her evidence that herself and
her husband slept in front of the house of verandah of her in laws house which is
present in front of their house and the accused came on motor cycle and woke up
her husband at about 10.00 p.m., on 30.11.2010 and when her husband refused to
come along with him, accused took away her husband on his motor cycle and her
mother in law Smt.Pyla Chinnammadu (not examined) questioned the accused and
they replied that they will take some alcohol and come back. But her husband did
not returned back. She further deposed that the house of Sri Boddepallai Prakasa
Rao (P.W.12) is present in opposite row in front of the house of her inlaws’ house
and the accused in that night by wearing army dress and carrying a bag in his
hand, came to the house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) challenging him
to come out from the house and also stated that he already killed both his children
Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2), Sri Pyla
Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and also killed her husband Sri Pyla Venkata
Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) in the fields and will not care any one and then
only she came to know that her husband was killed. Then, herself and her mother
inlaw Smt.Chinnammadu (not examined) and fatherinlaw Sri Neelayya (not
examined) went in search of her husband in the fields and found the dead body of
Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) in the field of Sri Metta
Venkata Rao at about 3.30 or 4.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010 and at about 07.15 a.m.,
police came to the village. As per the evidence Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO
(P.W.1), M.O.3 full hands shirt of the accused and M.O.5 plastic rice bag and
M.O.14 jungle fab belonging to the accused and red towel M.O.18 and M.O.6 is
the tin with cotton and also noticed a pair of chapels near the dead body of the
deceased Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) was seized. Smt.Pyla
Sarojini (PW.8) also deposed that she do not know to whom they belong and it
does not belong to her husband and it is M.O.1 chappals. The evidence of
Smt.Pyla Saroji (P.W.8) is not much helpful to the case of the prosecution since
she is not an eye witness to the incident. The evidence is only helpful to say that
the accused took her husband along with him and accused made a extra judicial
confession before Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12), herself and others.
68. The evidence of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) vents to the
incident who vividly stated in his evidence that on 30.11.2010 at about 10.00 p.m.,
when himself and his other family members were present in the house, the pet dog
barked and at which time, he opened the window to know the same and heard
cries of the villagers at a distance and also heard the cries of the accused and Sri
Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4). He deposed that his house is
located separately from the village and he only heard the voice of the accused and
Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) and he could not observe them
and he heard Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) saying that not to
kill him and he heard the voice of the accused that he will not leave him. He
categorically deposed that he heard the voice of Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati
(Deceased No.4) that “AMMO CHACHIPOYANU” and later he do not know
what happened. Therefore, the evidence of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) is
only helpful to say that he heard the voice of both accused and Sri Pyla Venkata
Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) at that time of killing and his house is located
separately from the village near to the said field of Sri Metta Venkata Rao @
Venkati field where the deceased Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased
No.4) was found dead, as seen from Ex.P.42 rough sketch.
69. The evidence of mediator Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) and
the evidence of Sub Inspector of Police Sri S.Prakasa Rao, Narasannapeta
(P.W.42) is only helpful to the case to say that they observed the scene of offence,
which is the field of Sri Metta Venkata Rao, which is a lonely place and seized
one pair of chappals M.O.1, M.O.2 read colour towel, M.O.3 full hands shirt,
M.O.4 lungi, M.O.5 plastic bag and M.O.6 plastic tin with cotton under the cover
of Ex.P.2 scene observation report and the Sub Inspector of Police Sri S.Prakasa
Rao (P.W.42) prepared Ex.P.42 rough sketch at about 08.30 a.m., on 01.12.2010
and later inquest was held over the dead body of Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati
(Deceased No.4) in the presence of Panchayatdars Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO
(P.W.1), Sri Chintada Madhava Rao, Sri Hanumanthu Laxmana Rao and Smt.Pyla
Sridevi and also in the presence of blood relations of the deceased Sri Pyla
Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) and inquest report Ex.P.6 was prepared.
70. Besides the said evidence, the prosecution also want to relay upon
the evidence of extra judicial confession made by the accused before the witnesses
as mentioned in para 35 that he also killed Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati
(Deceased No.4) in the fields. Here in the present case, Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao
(P.W.16) is not a relative to the deceased admittedly. He categorically deposed
about the conversation between the deceased Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati
(Deceased No.4) and the accused while committing the offence, the deceased
requesting the accused not to kill him and at the time of killing, the deceased
raised cries as “AMMO CHACHIPOYANU”. The evidentiary value of the extra
judicial confession made by the accused is discussed in the below paras and this
charge purely rests upon the circumstantial evidence. So, in the said
circumstances, the motive plays very important role when the evidence is rests
upon the circumstantial evidence. The persons to whom the alleged extra judicial
confession made are the persons who are said to have unbiased and their evidence
is credible and this is a case where the motive is fully established which affords a
kep on a point to scan the evidence in the case, in that prospective and as a
satisfactory circumstances of corroboration. More over, there are no
contradictions in the evidence of Smt.Pyla Sarojini (P.W.8) or Sri Yevvari Prakasa
Rao (P.W.16), ofcourse there are some omissions. So, on reading their entire
evidence, it appears that there is ring of truth in the prosecution case. The
evidence of extra judicial confession is very clean, emphatic and reliable.
71. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution
witnesses have made improvements in their statements, hence, their evidence
should not be relied upon. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor relied upon decision reported in
2011 CRI.L.J.5013 inBisawan V. State.
Wherein it is held at Para 27 that
“While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence f the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the Investigating Officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Crossexamination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer.”
The learned counsel for the accused also relied upon a decision
reported in
1987 CRI.L.J.1644 in Nirmal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
It is observed in para 10 that
“Before we advert to the evidence we would like to point out that in case where the prosecution endeavours to introduce at the trial a new version or a version which is materially different from the original, as narrated in the first information report, the Court, as a rule of prudence, is required to act with utmost care and circumspection in scrutinizing thee evidence and normally it should be reluctant to accept the prosecution evidence as its face value unless a satisfactory and cogent explanationis given for the deviations and improvements made. This rule of prudence was completely ignored by
the trial Court in the instant case, though it was fully applicable.”
72. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied
upon decision reported in
(2011) ACR 370 SC in State of U.P. versus Naresh and others.
It is held at para 25 that
“Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility”. Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier.”
73. So, when there are no contradictions in the evidence of the
statements of the witnesses and when there are some omissions although present,
it could not be proper to reject their evidence and the statements can be relied
upon. Apart from the extra judicial confession made by the accused to the
witnesses as mentioned in para 43, there is lot of other corroborative material on
record which establish the guilt of the accused. As pointed out, the extra judicial
confession statements of the evidence is also corroborated by the other material on
record. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon a
decision reported in
2009 ACJ SC 414 in Shivakarampayaswami Tewari V. State of Maharasthtra
Wherein it is held in para 4 that
“Extrajudicial confession can form the basis of conviction if persons before whom it is stated to made appear to be unbiased and not even
remotely inimical to the accused. Where there is material to show animosity, Court has to proceed cautiously and make out whether confession just like any other evidence depends on veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It is not invariable that the Court should not accept the evidence if actual words as claimed to have been spoken are not reproduced when the substance is given. It will depend on circumstance of the case, if substance itself is sufficient to prove culpability and there is no ambiguity about such substance and not actual words he been stated. Human mind is not a recorder which records what has been spoken word by word. The witness should be able to say as nearly as possible actual words spoken by the accused. That would rule out possibility of erroneous interpretation of any ambitious statement. If word by word repetition of statement of the case is insisted more often than not evidentiary value of extrajudicial confession has thrown out as unreliable and not useful. That cannot be a requirement. There can be some persons who have a good memory andmay be able to speak exact words and there may he many who are possessed of normal memory and so. It is for the Court to judge credibility of the witness’s capacity and thereto decide whether his or her evidence has to be accepted or not. If Court be witnesses before whom confession is made and is satisfied that confession voluntary basing on such evidence, conviction can be founded. Such confession should be clear, specific and unambiguous.”
74. Therefore, the evidence is enough to indoctrinate that the accused
with an intention to kill the deceased Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased
No.4) due to prior animosity, since Smt. Pyla Sarojini (P.W.8) who is the wife of
the deceased as per evidence, she is the inquestdar for the death of the wife of the
deceased in the dowry death case, in which case the accused faced trial and
convicted. Therefore, there is no dubiousness or qualm to hold that the accused
killed the deceased Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) with an
intention to kill him only and as such, the prosecution could able to prove the guilt
of the accused for the above charge for killing the deceased Sri Pyla Venkata Rao
@ Venkati (Deceased No.4) punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code.
75. POINT No.6:
Whether the accused with an intention to screen the evidence from legal punishment kept the dead body of Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @Venkati (Deceased No.4) in the bushes?
As per the case of the prosecution, the accused killed Sri Pyla
Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) in the field of Sri Metta Venkata Rao,
which is a remote area in the outskirts of the village. There is no eye witnesses to
the said killing of the deceased Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4).
As per the case of the prosecution, after killing the deceased Sri Pyla Venkata Rao
@ Venkati (Deceased No.4), the accused has moved the dead body into nearby
bushes with an intention of screening the said evidence from legal punishment.
But there is no cogent evidence placed by the prosecution to that effect and as
such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused punishable under
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.
76. POINT No.10:
Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5)?
In order to substantiate the accusation against the accused for the
above charge, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Sri Karukola Bhaskara
Rao (P.W.4), Smt.Pyla Ramanamma (P.W.6), Kum.Pyla Anuradha (P.W.7), Sri
Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9), Smt.Oota Mutyalamma (P.W.18) and the evidence of
mediator Sri Gedela Vijaya Babu, VRO (P.w.2) coupled with the evidence of Sub
Inspector of Police, Laveru Sri S.Satyanarayana (P.W.43) to speak about the
contents of Ex.P.17 scene observation report and about the contents of Ex.P.18
inquest report. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of medial officer
Dr.H.Aruna Kumari, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre,
Narasannapeta (P.W.30), to speak about the contents of opinion regarding the
death as mentioned in Ex.P.27 postmortem certificate, besides the other evidence
of investigation officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), and the prosecution also
relied upon the extra judicial confession made before Smt.Pyla Ramanamma
(P.W.6), Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9), Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and
Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) and besides the confession given by the
accused under Ex.P.13 and the confession given by the accused before Sub
Divisional Police Officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) under Ex.P.52.
77. The deceased Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) is no other than
the paternal uncle of the accused. P.W.4 Sri Karukola Bhaskara Rao categorically
deposed in his evidence that the deceased Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5)
chastised the accused for hurling bombs and moving armed with knives and
creating terror in the minds of the public and moving on the roads. Then, the
accused took the said Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) along him to his house
and that he observed the same from the pial of his house and the accused went into
his house along with Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) and Sri Metta Yerrayya
having received bleeding injuries, came out from the back yard of the house of the
accused to his house and fell down at his pial and he frightened on seeing the same
and immediately he went into his house. His house and Sri Metta Yerrayya’s
house are separated by three houses. Smt.Pyla Ramanamma (P.W.6), Kum.Pyla
Anuradha (P.W.7) also deposed in their evidence that they found Sri Oota
Ganapathi (P.W.9) and his wife Smt.Oota Sarojini (not examined) were
questioning the accused for litting fire to hay heap, cattle shed and cart, at which
time Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) came and questioned the accused and
the accused replied that he lit fire to the hay heaps and thatched shed, but he did
not open the water tap and when Sri Metta Yerrayya interfered, he took him into
the house and hacked with a knife and on seeing that, they frightened and returned
back to their house. Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) also deposed the same version
and further deposed that Smt.Oota Mutyalamma (P.W.18) also witnessed the
same. Smt.Oota Mutyalamma (P.W.18) also deposed of the same, but she further
deposed that after the accused hacked Sri Metta Yerrayya on his neck, Sri Metta
Yerrayya came out from the house by closing with a towel to the injury over the
neck and went to his house and fell down at the pial of his house and out of fear,
she went into their house by closing their doors. Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao
(P.w.12) also deposed of the same by corroborating the evidence of Smt.Oota
Mutyalamma in the same lines. He further deposed that Sri Metta Yerrayya
(Deceased No.5) fell down with injuries at his pial, the ladies who went to bring
water to him from bore well, present by the side of the road, and he told that
accused hacked Sri Metta Yerrayya, he advised the ladies to make a phone call to
108 ambulance as he is not in a position to move (since he is handicapped and his
leg is amputated and having artificial leg only as per his evidence). It is also came
in evidence that Sri Metta Yerrayya was shifted to government hospital,
Narasannapeta in 108 ambulance where he died.
78. Therefore, there is cogent and consistent evidence and the evidence
of the above witnesses is corroborated with each other and there is no discrepancy
of evidence in between their testimonies and their evidence inspires confidence to
the court that they are speaking truth only. Nothing is elicited during their cross
examination evidence to discredit their evidence. They are not related witnesses
to the deceased Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) and more over, the deceased
himself is the junior paternal uncle of the accused. When there are direct eye
witnesses to the incident whose evidence is trustworthy and believed by the court,
motive is irrelevant. Motive only assumes importance in the circumstantial
evidence which rests upon circumstantial case. Motive does not play important
role of such importance of cases based upon eye witnesses’ evidence. The
evidence of the above eye witnesses cannot be discarded and even if there are any
marginal variations in the statements of the witnesses, it cannot be dubbed as
improvements as some may give elaborations of statements made by witnesses
earlier.
79. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the charge sheet is
filed by the police alleging that after killing the deceased Sri Metta Yerrayya
(Deceased No.5), the accused dragged the dead body into his backyard site and
placed him by the side of dead body of Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3)
and covered with coconut leaves. But the legal evidence let in by the prosecution
is different as pointed above. So, the investigation officer does not investigate into
the aspect who called 108 ambulance and who shifted the injured to the said
government hospital in 108 ambulance and other minute details. It is well
established law that, if there are discrepancies in the criminal investigation,
truthfulness of prosecution case has to be judged on basis of evidence available.
Defective investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of prosecution case
when incident is otherwise proved.
80. The other evidence of the mediator Sri Gedela Vijaya Babu, VRO
(P.W.2) and the evidence of Sub Inspector of Police, Laveru Sri S.Satyanarayana
(P.W.43) or the contents of scene observation report Ex.P.17 and inquest report
Ex.P.18 are not material in the present case, since this charge is based upon the
evidence of the eye witnesses only. The medical evidence is also not much
helpful in any way to the case of the accused since he is not disputed about the
death of Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5). The Medical Officer Dr.H.Aruna
Kumari (P.W.30) categorically stated that there are five external injuries and the
deceased would appear to have been died due to effects of injuries antimortem in
nature and issued Ex.P.27 postmortem certificate to that effect and Injury No.4
which is “one crushing lacerated wound 4 ½” x 4” through placed obliquely
on the left side of the neck above supra sternol Knotch and 3 ½” below
external occipital protuberance involving all the structures at the
corresponding level with fracture of 3rd to 5th cervical vertebrae. Hyoid bone
and thyroid cartilage with portions of the fractured bones and soft tissues.
Irregularly abraded. The margins of the lacerated wounds are irregular and
extravasited blood in and around” which corresponds to the specific overt act of
the accused of hacking the deceased on his neck by the accused, which is the main
cause for the death of the deceased and there is no cross examination of medical
officer for the reasons for the death or whether the said injury is sufficient to cause
death or not and therefore, the medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of
prosecution witnesses as stated above, who categorically deposed that the accused
hacked the neck of the deceased Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5). Therefore,
this court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the accused with an
intention to cause death has killed the deceased Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased
No.5) and caused his death by hacking his neck. Therefore, there is no qualm to
hold that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable
under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing the deceased Sri Metta
Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) who is no other than the paternal uncle of the accused.
81. POINT No.16:
Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6)?
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused to prove the above
charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of
Sri Oota Krishna (P.W.10), who is the son of Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6),
and Sri Oota Srirama Murthy (P.W.11) whose sisterinlaw is the deceased
Smt.Oota Parvathi and the evidence of Sri Guruvelli Mohana Rao (P.W.14),
Smt.Oota Anasuyamma (P.W.15) and Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) who is the
husband of the deceased Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6). The prosecution
also relied upon the evidence of Sri Gedela Vijaya Babu, VRO (P.W.2) who is the
mediator to speak about the contents of Ex.P.16 scene observation report and also
relied upon the evidence of Sri Ravada Thyaga Rao, VRO, Kondapolavalasa
(P.W.29) to speak about the contents of Ex.P.25 inquest report and the evidence of
Sub Inspector of Police, Gara Sri N.Sanyasi Naidu (P.W.44) and also the evidence
of Medical Officer Dr.G.Guru Murthy, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community
Health Centre, Narasannapeta (P.W.32), to speak about the contents of Ex.P.29
postmortem certificate etc., by him and the evidence of Sub Inspector of Police,
Gara Sri N.Sanyasi Naidu (P.W.44), who prepared Ex.P.45 rough sketch and the
evidence of investigation officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), who prepared total
rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P.51.
82. So, Sri Oota Krishna (P.W.10), who is the son of deceased and Sri
Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) who is the husband of the deceased, Sri Oota Srirama
Murthy (P.W.11) who is the brother of Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) are only said
to be the related witnesses. Where as Sri Guruvelli Mohana Rao (P.W.14) and
Smt.Oota Anasuyamma (P.W.15) are not related witnesses to the deceased. Sri
Oota Krishna (P.W.10), Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) and Sri Oota Srirama
Murthy (P.W.11) categorically deposed at one voice, that on 01.12.2010 at about
04.00 a.m., the accused came to their house and knocked their door while they
were sleeping in their house, and Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) who is
partially deaf opened the doors and the accused knocked the doors by calling as
‘sister’ ‘sister’ and she opened the door and when Smt.Oota Parvathi opened the
door, the accused hacked her on the backside of the neck and right hand wrist and
also right hand little finger and left hand finger and caused injuries on the right
side of the chest and on seeing that, they frightened and ran outside the house and
the deceased Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) also resisted and tried to ran
away and even then, the accused chased Smt.Oota Parvathi by hacking her, upto
the house of Tavitayya where also the accused hacked her and she fell down at the
pial of Tavitayya where she died. Sri Oota Srirama Murthy (P.W.11) further
deposed that when Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) raised cries, the accused
replied that after her death, her husband i.e., Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) also
will cook for himself since the accused is also now cooking for himself and by so
saying, he left the place with the knife. Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) also further
deposed that his wife Smt.Oota Parvathi requested the accused not to kill her, but
he did not show any mercy and himself and his son Sri Oota Krishna (P.W.10)
noticed the same and due to fear, they ran away from back side of the house and
Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) ran away to Nagirikatakam village and only they
returned after, police came to their village. Where as Sri Oota Krishna (P.W.10)
deposed that he hided by running away through the backyard site and he also came
to the house only after police came to the village.
83. Sri Guruvelli Mohana Rao (P.W.14), who is handicapped person
also deposed that he saw the accused coming to Oota street and accused knocked
the door of the house of Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) and the deceased Smt.Oota
Parvathi (Deceased No.6) who is the wife of Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) opened
the doors and the accused hacked on the hands of Smt.Oota Parvathi and she came
with injuries by running to the house of his sister Smt.Oota Anasuyamma
(P.W.15) and the accused asked him to take his daughter from the said cradle and
take away from that place and there after, he took his daughter and went to the
house of Smt.Oota Sarojini and the accused hacked Sri Oota Parvathi (Deceased
No.6) at the pial of house of Smt.Oota Anasuyamma (P.W.15), who is the wife of
Sri Oota Tavitayya. He further deposed that the accused asked him for kerosene
and he told that he is not having kerosene with him and he went to the house of
Smt.Oota Anasuyamma (P.W.15), where the dead body of Smt.Oota Parvathi
(Deceased No.6) was found and the accused who came armed with a knife and left
the place. Sri Guruvelli Mohana Rao (P.W.14) further deposed that M.O.14 is the
knife with which the accused hacked Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6). He
deposed in the cross examination that he went to the house of Sri Oota Thavitayya
i.e., husband of Smt.Oota Anasuyamma (P.W.15) and there is no electricity in the
village. It is suggested to him that he is speaking false and nothing is elicited in
the cross examination to discredit his evidence.
84. Smt.Oota Anasuyamma (P.W.15), who is no other than the wife of
Sri Oota Thavitayya also deposed that she saw from the window of her house
while accused hacking Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) and she was praying
the accused to show mercy not to kill her and making request by folding with both
hands, but even then, the accused hacked Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) and
left the place. Therefore, there is evidence of both the family members of the
deceased Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) as well as other two independent
witnesses and Sri Guruvelli Mohana Rao (P.W.14) is a chance witness and their
evidence vividly stated about the offence committed by the accused of hacking
Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) from her house up to the house of Sri Oota
Thavitayya and there is nothing probabilities what so ever to shatter the evidence
was suggested in the cross examination and the evidence vent to the incident and
the witnesses vividly stated about the incident all through from the time of
knocking the doors of Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) and opening the doors by the
deceased Smt.Oota Parathi (Deceased No.6) and the accused hacking her and even
though she requested, he dragged her and she went by running and even then, he
has hacked Smt.Oota Parvathi till she died in front of the pial of the house of Sri
Oota Thaitayya. The evidence is enough to indoctrinate the case of the
prosecution. The evidence of them is cogent throughout without any variance or
deviance and is corroborated by each and every material aspect. Although the
defence counsel tried to shake their evidence in the grueling cross examination,
nothing is elicited in favour of the accused and nothing is suggested to them
whether they have got any animosity against the accused to speak false against
him. Therefore, their evidence is trustworthy and believable.
85. Even if a solitary witness evidence if it is trustworthy and credible
can be counted without any corroboration. But here in the present case five
witnesses as mentioned spoke about the incident. The learned counsel for the
accused pointed out that there are improvements and omissions in the case of
prosecution and therefore, the prosecution theory and their evidence cannot be
believable. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon
a decision reported in
2012 CRI.L.J.621 in
Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Wherein it is held in para 9 that
“We are of the view that all omissions/contradictions pointed out by the appellants’ counsel had been trivial in nature, which do not go to the root of the cause. It is settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions/improvements/embellishments etc., had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution should not be made the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. The court after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses.
That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The timehonoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction.”
86. Therefore, as per ocular evidence, there are no discrepancies and the
evidence of the eye witnesses is corroborated. Even if there are any discrepancies
in criminal investigation, truthfulness of prosecution case has to be judged basing
on available evidence. Defective investigation need not necessarily lead to
rejection of the prosecution case when incident is otherwise proved. Normally
discrepancies are bound to occur in depositions of witnesses, due to errors of
observations and errors of memory, due to mental disposition at the time of
occurrence. The evidence of the above witnesses, truthfully described events they
have seen without any exaggeration. Their evidence cannot be discarded on the
ground that they are the related or interested witnesses. The court has to see only
whether there is ring of truth in the prosecution case. The accused took a plea of
false implication, but the defence has not laid any foundation there for.
87. The medical officer also supports the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and the postmortem certificate of the deceased is marked as Ex.P.29 and
the Medical Officer Dr.G.Gurumurthy (P.W.32) who deposed that the postmortem
was conducted from 02.30 p.m., to 04.30 p.m., on 01.12.2010. The Medical
Officer, opined that, the death is due to the fracture C3 – C4 cervical vertebrae and
hemorrhage leading to cardiopulmonary arrest. When the Medical Officer
deposed of the same, it is not even suggested that the said injuries are not present
or the death is not caused due to the only the said injuries. The only cross
examination is done with regard to the appropriate time of death since medical
officer opined that the time of the death is 24 hours prior to his postmortem
examination. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased Smt.Oota Parvathi
(Deceased No.6) was killed at about 04.00 a.m., and postmortem was conducted at
about 02.30 p.m. Therefore, there is only 10 ½ hours duration from
commencement of postmortem examination. The exact time of death cannot be
given by the Medical Officer in his opinion and more over the postmortem report
is clear that the injury sustained by the deceased Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased
No.6) was fatal and due to the said injuries only, the deceased died. Therefore,
there is corroboration from the medical evidence also in the above case regarding
the death of Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6).
88. The other evidence i.e., the contents of scene observation report
Ex.P.16 or the evidence of mediator Sri Gedela Vijaya Babu, VRO (P.w.2) with
regard to the inquest conducted by them and the evidence of the Sub Inspector of
Police, Gara Sri N.Snyasi Naidu, Gara (P.W.44) and the evidence of investigation
officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) is not material in the present case, since there
is direct evidence and the eye witnesses whose evidence is not shaken in the cross
examination and whose evidence is corroborated with each other, which is
supported by medical evidence and the evidence is wholly consistent throughout
and their evidence gives vent to the incident only and hence, the prosecution is
able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 302
of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6)
who intentionally killed her.
89. POINT No.17:
Whether the accused with an intention to kill caused the death of Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7)?
The prosecution case in succinct is that, the accused attacked the
house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.w.12) who closed the grills doors of the
house, and the accused asked him to come out from the house and when he did not
come out, he also thrown bombs over his house and due to fear, Sri Boddepalli
Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and his inmates who are the deceased Smt.Boddepalli
Damayanthi (Deceased No.7), who is no other than the wife of Sri Boddepalli
Prakasa Rao (P.W.12), his children and motherinlaw all went out of the house
through backyard site and scattered to different places for hiding and in that
process, Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) went on to the terrace of
the house of Sri Pyla Suryanaryana for hiding and the accused observed the
deceased Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) going on to the terrace and
he also went to the terrace and killed her.
90. To prove the above charge, the prosecution mainly relied upon the
evidence of Sri Boddepalli Prakas Rao (P.W.12), who is the husband of the
deceased Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) only prime witness and he
is the targeted person by the accused to kill him. To corroborate the evidence of
Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12), the prosecution also relied upon the
evidence of Smt.Pyla Chinnammi (P.W.13) who is no other than the mother of Sri
Pyla Suryanarayana on whose terrace Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased
No.7) was killed. Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12), deposed in his evidence,
about the motive part that as accused was convicted in the dowry death case of his
wife and his job was removed, he used to proclaim in the village that he will kill
all the persons who deposed against him. Besides stating other facts of the case,
he also deposed that the accused came upon him stating that he was responsible
for all the things and due to fear, he went inside the house by locked the grills door
and went inside the house along with his wife, children and motherinlaw keeping
inside the house. Then, the accused armed with a long knife and also handling
two other small knives and a bag on his shoulder and demanded him to come out
and threatened to kill him. Then, he questioned the accused from inside the grills
and the accused replied that he already killed his own children, killed Sri Laxmana
Rao (Deceased No.3) in his house, and also killed Sri Pyla Venkata Rao
(Deceased No.4) in the fields and also hacked Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased
No.5). Then, he catched Dandi of the cot and beat on the grills forcibly. On that,
the accused went a little bit back and then, the accused hurled bombs over his
house and the bombs exploded and due to smoke, he could not see anything and
immediately they rushed inside the house by locking the doors and ran outside the
house through the backyard site. The accused also damaged his auto, which was
kept outside at Sri Metta Venkatarao’s house and also proclaimed that he damaged
the auto and threatened to kill him by challenging him to come out from the hiding
place. In that process of hiding, his wife Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased
No.7) went on to the terrace of Sri Pyla Suryanarayana house. But he did not see
his wife Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) going to the terraced house
of Sri Pyla Suryanarayana or accused going to the said house to the terrace. He
only heard his wife praying the accused by saluting him with folded hands to show
mercy on her and not to kill her. Then the accused replied that it is her bounden
duty to stop her husband to give evidence on that day against him in the Sessions
case, but she did not do so, and therefore he asked her to call him in order to kill
him. He also deposed that his wife replied that she does not know where he is
hiding and there after, he did not hear any words. He further deposed that accused
went to Smt.Pyla Thavitamma’s site which is three houses away from his house
and in the said site, he has thrown the knives and others and left the place by
running away and that, the accused also stated that he already killed his wife
Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) and then, he went to the terrace of
Sri Pyla Suryanarayana’s house, where he found the dead body of his wife and
found a major hacking injury over the neck of his wife and other injuries all over
the body.
91. There is also corroborative evidence from the mouth of Smt.Pyla
Chinnammi (P.W.13) who is the mother of Sri Pyla Suryanarayana on whose
terrace of the house the deceased Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7)
was killed. Smt.Pyla Chinnammi (P.W.13) deposed that she heard the sound of
bomb explosion at the house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and she
watched from their verandah at the grills from inside and accused came upon the
house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) beat with a stick on the grills of his
house and accused stood back a little distance and then hurled bombs and only one
bomb was exploded and Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) went outside
through his backyard site and that she observed Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi
(Deceased No.7) going on to the terrace house of Sri Pyla Suryanarayana, who is
her son and she heard the Smt.Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) saluting the accused
to save her and not to kill her, and she also heard the words of the accused, who
said that as Damayanthi’s husband deposed against him in the sessions case, he
wants to kill her husband and her husband escaped and now he will kill her. She
deposed that about 04.00 a.m., the villagers came to their house to the terrace and
they also came out from the house and went to the terrace and they noticed the
dead body of Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) and found the cut
injury over her neck and at about 07.00 a.m., police came to their house and
noticed the dead body of the deceased Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased
No.7).
92. Therefore, out of the two witnesses, Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao
(P.W.12), who is the husband of the deceased Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi
(Deceased No.7) who is relative. But Smt.Pyla Chinnammi (P.W.13) is not a
related witness to the case. They were cross examined at length, but nothing is
elicited in their cross examination evidence to discard their evidence. It is already
pointed out in the earlier paras that legal position and decision that a single
testimony of the witness when it is credible itself is sufficient to lay a conviction.
Here in the present case, not only the evidence of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao
(P.W.12), but also the evidence of Smt.Pyla Chinnammi (P.W.13) corroborated on
each and every material aspect. The medical evidence is also supporting the
prosecution case about the specific overt acts of the accused in causing injuries to
the deceased Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) which resulted death
of the deceased. Postmortem report Ex.P.34, which clearly goes to show that the
injuries sustained by the deceased Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7)
are vital and sufficient to cause death. The Medical Officer, Sri Dr.E.Aravind,
Civil Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Narasannapeta (P.W.36),
conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased
Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) from 11.45 a.m., to 01.45 p.m. As
per his evidence, there are two lacerated injuries over the right side of the neck
and back of the neck and he opined that the death is due to hemorrhage and
cervical spinal fracture leading to cardiopulmonary arrest. He also noted that the
trachea is pale, complete fracture of cervical spine, major vessels cut. The cross
examination is only done by the defence counsel with regard to approximate time
of death opuined. It is not suggested even to the Medical Officer by the learned
defence counsel that the death is not possible due to the said injury as noted by the
medical officer and therefore, the medical evidence also supports the case of the
prosecution.
93. The other evidence with regard to the evidence of Sri Kinjarapu
Mohana Rao, VRO, Basivada village (P.W.27) or the Sub Inspector of Police,
Amadalavalasa Sri R.Appala Naidu (P.W.45) or the investigation officer Sri
T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) or the contents of scene observation report ex.P.22 or
the contents of the inquest report Ex.P.23 has less weight of evidence in the above
matter and more over the death of Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) is
not disputed by the accused and the scene of offence is also not disputed by the
accused and the accused has also not denied the presence of hacked injury over the
neck of the deceased. The defence theory is complete denial of the offence and
also put elibi defence as stated in the examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
for which no evidence is placed by the learned counsel for the accused and the
motive does not play important role of such importance of cases based upon eye
witnesses evidence and the evidence of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and
Smt.Pyla Chinnammi (P.W.13) is trustworthy and believed by the court and more
over, the motive is irrelevant, but the prosecution also established the motive
beyond all reasonable doubt in the present case. When motive is fully established,
it provides fundamental material to connect the chain of circumstances. It affords
a kep on a point to scan the evidence in the case, in that prospective and as a
satisfactory circumstances of corroboration. On careful pondering of the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses as discussed above, there is no dubiousness or qualm
to hold that prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt for the charge punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for
causing the death of Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) with an
intention to kill her.
94. POINT No.8:
Whether the accused caused mischief by litting fire to the hay heap, bullock cart and cattle shed and thereby committed any offence punishable under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code?
As per the case of the prosecution, the accused lit fire to the cattle
shed, hay heap and bullock cart which is in the thrashing floor of Sri Oota
Ganapathi (P.W.9) at about mid night of 30.10.2011/01.11.2010 between 01.00
a.m., to 02.00 a.m. Out of which, hay heap and cattle shed belong to Sri Oota
Ganapathai (P.W.9) and bullock cart belongs to Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao
(P.W.16), who kept the said bullock cart in the thrashing floor of Sri Oota
Ganapathi (P.W.9).
95. Smt.Pyla Ramanamma (P.W.6) and Kum.Pyla Anuradha (P.W.7)
deposed in their evidence that they witnessed the accused hacking Sri Pyla
Lakshma Rao (Deceased No.3), husband of Sri Pyla Ramanamma (P.W.6) on his
neck near the house of Sri Seepana Kesava and out of fear, they went into their
house and that they noticed the fire from the hay heaps and all the persons hided
due to fear in the hands of accused and later they noticed Sri Metta Yerrayya
(Deceased No.5), who is the paternal uncle of the accused questioned the accused
for his litting fire to the hay heap and opening the tap. Then the accused replied
that he has not opened the tap and that he has lit fire to hay heap which belongs to
Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9). Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) and Smt.Oota Sarvani
who is the wife of Oota Ganapathi, questioned the accused regarding the same, at
which time, Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) interfered and questioned the
accused. Therefore, besides the evidence of Smt.Pyla Ramanamma (P.W.6) and
Kum.Pyla Anuradha (P.W.7), there is extra judicial confession statement made by
the accused regarding the litting fire to the hay heap of Sri Oota Ganapathi
(P.W.9). Smt.Pyla Sarojini (P.W.8) who is the wife of deceased Sri Pyla Venkata
Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) deposed in her evidence that at about 01.00 a.m.,
on 01.12.2010, she noticed some flames of burning and their villagers rushing to
that place for putting off the fire and returned by 03.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010. Sri
Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) also deposed in evidence that in the mid night, they heard
the cries of the villagers and found the cattle shed, hay heap and bullock cart were
burning and on seeing the flames, they went there and Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao
(P.W.16) has informed him that the accused lit fire to the cattle shed, hay heap and
bullock cart and Sri Yevvari Rama Krishna made a phone call to the fire engine
office and they all tried to put off fire and meanwhile, the fire engine also came
and put off the fire. Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) further deposed that he went in
search of the accused for about two hours and the accused moved escaping around
the village and returned back at about 02.00 a.m.
96. Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) also deposed that he heard the
cries of the villagers at about mid night by running that Sri Oota Ganapathi’s
(P.W.9) hay heaps are burning. As his left leg is amputated and only artificial leg
is present, he did not go to see and came out to the pial to see and saw the flames
and people were running towards thrashing floor of Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9).
Sri Guruvelli Mohana Rao (P.W.14) deposed in his evidence that in the mid night,
he heard the cries of villagers about burning of the hay heaps. Smt.Oota
Anasuyamma (P.W.15) deposed in her evidence that she heard the cries of
villagers of going to the thrashing floor, where the hay heap and other articles
were burnt, but she did not come out from the house. Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao
(P.W.16) categorically deposed in his evidence that at about 01.00 a.m., all the
family members are in the house and his daughter is studying books and he is
studying newspaper and his pet dog barked on seeing the back side of the house at
that time. He opened the window and he noticed burning of hay heap and thatched
cattle shed of Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) and he kept the bullock cart in the said
thrashing floor of Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9), which was also burnt away and he
noticed the accused in the flames and his bullock cart was also burnt and he wept
and he did not come out from the house. He further deposed that after some time,
nearly 15 to 20 villagers came towards their street. Among them, Sri Oota
Ganapathi Rao, Sri Guruvilli Thammayya, Sri Singuri Dharma Rao, Sri Metta
Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) and others came and Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9)
questioned him, why he was inside the house when his bullock cart is burning and
then, he replied that the accused lit fire and so he did not come out from the house
and then, they asked him to come out and all of them went and made a phone call
to fire engine and fire engine came and put off the fire.
97. Besides the said ocular evidence from the above witnesses regarding
the offences of arson, there is also extra judicial confession supporting and
corroborating the evidence. Smt.Oota Mutyalamma (P.W.18) stated that she
observed the accused while he was saying to Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) and his
wife Sarvani that he has already lit fire to the hay heap, but he has not removed the
water tap as alleged against him. Smt.Karukola Manikyam (P.W.19) also deposed
that the accused came out from hiding and at which time, Smt.Oota Sarvani, Sri
Rama Krishna and Sri Oota Ganapathi came to the village, after burning of hay
heap along with others and questioned Sri Oota Ganapathi saying that accused has
lit fire to hay heap and cattle shed.
98. Therefore, there is only evidence of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao
(P.W.16) to say that he observed the accused in the said flames from his house
through the window. In the cross examination, he deposed that by the time, he
saw all the three i.e., hay heap, cattle shed and bullock cart were burning. He
deposed that he did not make any phone call to the fire service and some one made
a phone call to the fire service and he deposed that bullock cart is not completely
burnt and deposed that bullock cart which is in the cattle shed was removed after
burning to the outside and the thrashing floor is at a distance of 200 yards from the
village and he deposed that he cannot say which among the three was burnt at
first. Therefore, there is no cogent evidence placed by the prosecution that the
accused is the person who lit fire to the hay heap, cattle shed or bullock cart and
which among them was lit fire at first and whether the said flames spread over to
the others or not.
99. The investigation officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) also has not
moved his little finger to investigate into the aspect that who made phone call to
the fire engine and not examined any fire engine officers who put off the fire and
not estimated the loss of the burning hay heap, cattle shed or bullock cart. More
over, the Investigation Officer has also not collected any material objects, like ash
etc., at scene of offence or not seized half burnt bullock cart or has not filed any
photographs and not prepared any scene observation report and therefore, the
investigation officer has not investigated into that aspect whether the accused lit
fire to the said hay heap, cattle shed and bullock cart as alleged by the prosecution
and therefore, there is no cogent evidence placed by the prosecution. The ocular
evidence even if any, cannot be said to have direct nexus with the crime and thus,
the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable
under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.
100. POINTS 9 AND 13:
Whether the accused committed criminal intimidation by threatening Singuru Manikyam, Oota Ganapathi, Metta Yerrayya (deceased No.5) and others with grievous injuries and cause death and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code?
Whether the accused committed criminal intimidation by threatening Sri
Boddepalli Prakasa Rao with grievous injuries and to cause death and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code?
In the present case, almost all prosecution independent witnesses
other than the mediators or punch witnesses deposed categorically that accused on
that night throughout armed with weapons and carrying a bag and hurled bombs at
the house of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) and Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao
(P.W.12) and attempted to hurl bombs over the house of Sri Oota Simmanna
(P.W.17) and others and all the villagers frightened and also all of them deposed
that the accused created fear in the mind of all the public moving on the road and
created havoc scene on the intervening night of 30.11.2010/01.12.2010.
101. Smt.Pyla Sarojini (P.W.8) deposed in her evidence that the accused
came to the house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and called him by
shouting and also extra judicial confession that he already killed his two children,
Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased
No.5) and killed her husband Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased no.4)
and due to fear, Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) stayed inside the house and
questioned the accused for aiming to kill him. Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) also
deposed of the same version and even Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) also
deposed of the same. Smt.Pyla Sarojini (P.W.8) further deposed that accused
hurled bombs over the house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and out of
fear, the public scattered and went to their houses by running and she also came to
know by then only that her husband died and killed by the accused.
102. Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) also deposed that when himself and Sri
Yevvari Rama Krishna (not examined) returning to their houses from thrashing
floor, Smt.Karukola Manikyam (P.W.19) raised cries of noticing the accused and
they went there and found the accused wearing jungle fab dress by holding a long
knife and carried a bag and threatened with dire consequences and used filthy
language against him. He further deposed that on hearing his cries, his cousin
sister Smt.Oota Sarvani (not examined) came out from the house and questioned
the accused for his high handed behaviour for litting fire to the hay heap, cattle
shed and bullock cart and for threatening to kill Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) and
then, the accused came upon Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) to kill him and they went
a distance by running. Sri Oota Ganapthi (P.W.9) also deposed that after hacking
Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5), they all frightened and ran away. Sri Oota
Ganapathi (P.W.9) also deposed that his son Sri Oota Gurunadha Rao observed
the accused coming in a short cut root and due to fear of death, they rushed to the
house of Sri Yevvari Rama Krishana and locked the grills from inside the house.
Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) also deposed that Sri Oota Krishna (P.W.10), Sri Oota
Srirama Murthy (P.W.11) and Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) also deposed in one
voice, that the accused came to the house of Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) to
attack him and Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) opened the doors and the
accused hacked Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) and dragged her by hacking
her up to the house of Sri Oota Tavitayya where she died, and due to fear of death
in the hands of the accused, they also ran from the house through the backyard
site.
103. Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) also deposed in his evidence that
at about 04.00 a.m., he came out to get milk from the cow, at which time, Sri
Singuru Dharma Rao came by running from the village and asked him to go in
side the house saying murders are committed in the village by the accused and he
also went in side the house by closing the doors and Sri Singuru Dharma Rao also
told him that due to fear only, he came to his house by jumping from their back
yard site and ran to his house. Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) further deposed
that at 04.30 a.m., the accused came upon his house and called him to come
outside the house and due to fear, he did not come out and the accused abused him
in filthy language and his wife questioned the accused what harm they did against
him and the accused asked his wife to send her husband from the house and he
will kill him and when he did not come out, the accused hurled bombs over his
house on the doors and walls and on the electrical meter and smoke spread over
the house and the accused left the house saying that he will come again and then
due to fear, he made a phone call to Nagirikatakam villager Sri Panchireddi Raja
Rao (PW.5) who came along with 20 to 30 persons of his village and with them,
he left to Nagirikatakam village and returned only after police came to the village.
Therefore, there is ample evidence as stated above that the accused threatened the
villagers including Sri Oota Ganapathi and others and threatened them to cause
grievous injuries and to cause death and thereby committed and offence
punishable under Section 506 (2) f the Indian Penal Code and the other charge
under Section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code is also proved by the prosecution
that threatening of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) with grievous injuries
and to cause death and thereby committed the offence punishable under section
506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and the prosecution was able to prove for both
the charges of Section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code.
104. POINTS 7 AND 12:
Whether the accused is in unlawful possession of the country made bombs and thereby committed any offence punishable under section 5 of Explosive Substances Act?
Whether the accused hurled bombs over the house of Sri
Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and thus committed an offence of Section 4 (a) of the Explosive Substances Act?
The sanction order to prosecute the accused was given by District
Collector under Ex.P.53 proceedings dated 09.04.2011. In the present case on
hand, the accused alleged to have attacked the house of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao
(P.W.16) and Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and also Sri Karukola
Bhaskara Rao (P.W.4). Sri Karukola Bhaskara Rao (P.W.4) categorically deposed
in evidence that he saw the accused hacking Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5)
who came out from the back yard site of the accused with bleeding injury and fell
down at his pial and on seeing, he questioned and immediately he came and he
went into his house, then the accused came to his house and hurled bombs over his
house, and doors were broken by bomb hurling and he entered into his house
armed with knife to find him and on noticing the same, he went through the
backyard site along with his wife Ramulamma and accused also entered into his
backyard site and hurled bombs and bombs also exploded. P.W.6 Smt.Pyla
Ramanamma (P.W.6) and her daughter Kum.Pyla Anuradha (P.W.7) also deposed
in their evidence, that the accused came upon the house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa
Rao (P.W.12) and threatened him with dire consequences, when he did not open
the doors and later, the accused pelted bombs over the house of Sri Boddepalli
Prakasa Rao (P.W.12). Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) also deposed of the same
version and deposed categorically that accused hurled two or three bombs over the
house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12), which exploded and the villagers
out of fear ran away. Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) himself deposed that
accused armed with long knife and holding a bag on his shoulder and also arming
two knives, demanded him to come out from the house and threatened to kill him
when he questioned from inside the grills, he also made extra judicial confession
of killing other deceased and he catched a Dandi of the cot and beat on the grills
forcibly and accused went a little bit back and hurled bombs over his house and
bomb exploded and due to smoke, he could not see anything and immediately they
rushed inside the house by locking the doors and ran outside from the house
through the backyard site. He also further deposed that, the accused damaged
auto. Smt.Pyla Chinnammi (P.W.13) also deposed that she heard the sounds of
bomb explosion at the house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and was
watching from their verandah of their grills keeping in side. She also deposed that
she heard only one bomb explosion sound.
105. Sri Kinjarapu Mohana Rao, VRO (P.W.27), Basivada village
deposed that himself and Sri Gundabala Annaji Rao (L.W.60 not examined) who
is VRO of Jonanki village were called by the Sub Inspector of Police,
Amadalavalasa Sri R.Appala Naidu (P.W.45) and he took them to the scene of
offence of house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and the Sub Inspector of
Police Sri R.Appala Naidu (P.W.45) also deposed of the same version and
deposed that they observed in front of the verandah of house of Sri Boddepalli
Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and noticed 17 unexploded bombs present, out of which,
one is a little bit scratched in condition and there are traces of bomb explosive
smoke marks on the wall and they also noticed the bomb explosive material of
thread pieces and cloth pieces fell in condition on the pial and the current meter
door pieces were fell in condition and the meter board was damaged due to
explosion of the bomb. Sri Kinjarapu Mohana Rao, VRO and Sri R.Appala
Naidu, Sub Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa (P.W.45) further deposed that the
said 17 bombs which were seized at the pial of the house of Sri Boddepalli
Prakasa Rao (P.W.12), were immersed in a bucket of water, so that it cannot be
exploded and then seized the same and the bomb explosive material of thread
pieces and cloth pieces were seized and current meterM.O.23 and meter board
pieces M.O.12 were also seized and wooden pieces M.O.25 and bomb pieces and
thread pieces M.Os.10 and 11 were seized and they also collected smoke markings
on the wall by using cotton swab and collected controlled cotton swabs under the
cover of Ex.P.22 scene observation report.
106. As per the evidence of the investigation officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy
(P.W.48), on 15.12.2009 he sent a word to Sri Panku Pakeeru, VRO (P.W.26) and
also picked up another VRO Madhusudhana Rao (L.W.54 not examined) and they
were called to the police station and from the police station, they were taken to
Indrakshamma hills and there 19 bombs were diffused in the presence of said
mediators and Ex.P.21 mediator report was prepared to that effect and the burnt
bomb material was also seized for sending the same to the analysis and the expert
of the bombs has collected the same and he also signed on the mediator report
Ex.P.21.
107. Sri Pedada Surapu Naidu (P.W.35), A.R.S.I., in District Armed
Reserve and who is in charge of bomb detection and diffusal team, deposed that
after obtaining permission from the Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police gave
permission to them to diffuse the bombs and on 15.12.2010 at the instructions of
the investigation officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), they diffused 17 + 2 = 19
bombs which were country made bombs and the mediators who are VRO Sri
Kinjarapu Mohana Rao (P.W.27) and another, were supplied to them and they all
went to the hill and in the presence of mediators, Sub Inspector of Police and DSP
he defused all the 19 country made bombs in their presence. The defused and
secured materials were handed over to the SDPO in order to send the same to
RFSL and Ex.P.33 certificate regarding diffusion of bombs by him was issued.
108. Sri Md.Moinuddin Hasan Khan (P.W.39), Assistant Director,
Forensic Science Laboratory deposed in his evidence that he received two sealed
paper parcels for chemical examination and opined that item No.1, 2, 2A and 3
and 4 are analyzed and found contained potassium, Nitrate, Chlorate, Arsenic,
Sulphide and Sulpher. The said ingredients of low explosive mixture of Potassium
Nitrate, potassium chloride, arsenic sulphide and sulphate, which would be
commonly used in the preparation of country made bombs of thrown down type
are found in item No.1 and 2 and no explosive substance is found in item No.2A
and 4 and he gave Ex.P.39 report to that effect.
109. On careful pondering of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as
mentioned supra, there is no dubiousness or qualm to hold that the prosecution
established the guilt of the accused both for the offences under section 5 and 4 (a)
of Explosive Substance Act and the accused also failed to explain how the said
country made bombs were in his possession and failed to explain whether the said
bombs were in possession and control for lawful object and the prosecution
established the fact that the accused hurled bombs to the out wall of the house of
Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.w.12) only with an intention to cause endanger the
life and to cause serious injury to the property by the explosive substance of
country made bombs to and thereby committed an offence punishable under
section 5 and 4 (a) of the Explosive Substance Act for which the accused is
charged with.
110. Since the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence
punishable under section 4(a) of Explosive Substance Act for which he is
charged with for the reasons discussed in the earlier, no separate sentence is
necessary for the offence under section 5 of Explosive Substance Act. Section 5
of Explosive Substance Act is inclusive of Section 4(a) of Explosive Substance
Act and therefore, no separate sentence necessarily be ordered for Section 5 of
Explosive Substance Act.
111. POINTS 14 AND 15:
Whether the accused unlawfully and maliciously caused explosion through country made bombs over the house of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 3 of Explosive Substances Act?
Whether the accused committed house trespass by entering into
the dwelling house of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao and hurled bombs and broke open the doors of the house and thereby committed any offence punishable under section 450 of the Indian Penal Code?
To bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge under section 3
of Explosive Substance Act and under section 450 of Indian Penal Code, the
prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16)
and the corroborative evidence of other independent witnesses and more
particularly the evidence of Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) and the evidence
of Sub Inspector of Police, Sarubujjili Sri S.Prakasa Rao (P.W.42) coupled with
documents Ex.P.9 scene observation report, to speak about the seizure of M.Os.9
to 12 under the cover of Ex.P.9 scene observation report and the evidence of Sub
Inspector of Police, Sarubujjili Sri S.Prakasa Rao (P.W.42) who prepared Ex.P.43
rough sketch of the scene of offence of house of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao
(P.W.16).
112. Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16), deposed in his evidence that at
about 04.30 a.m., the accused came upon his house and called him to come out
from the house when he hided due to fear after coming to know through Sri
Singuru Dharma Rao that accused committed murders and the accused came and
chastised and abused him in filthy language and even then he did not come out
from the house due to fear. Then his wife questioned the accused what harm they
did against him to kill him and the accused replied his wife to send him out and he
will kill him and then, the accused hurled bombs over his house on the doors and
on the wall and on the electrical meter. Smoke spread and then, the accused left
the place by saying that he will come again. Then, he made a phone call to
Nagirikatakam villager Sri Panchireddy Raja Rao (P.W.5) and narrated the entire
incident to him on phone. The said Sri Panchireddy Raja Rao (P.W.5) came along
with 20 to 30 persons of his village and along with them, himself, his wife, his
daughter and Sri Singuru Dharma Rao went to Nagirikatakam village.
113. Sri Panchireddi Raja Rao (P.W.5), also categorically deposed that on
that night, Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) telephoned to him that some one
pelting bombs on his house and asked to come for help and he took people and
went to Mettapeta village. He deposed that they noticed smoke, caused due to the
explosion of bombs to the house of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) and after
that they knocked the doors and Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) and his wife
Smt.Kamala (L.W.37 not examined) came out from their house and that he noticed
all the dead bodies of seven deceased persons at Mettapeta. He also categorically
deposed in the cross examination that Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao informed by phone
that one Sankar was pelting bombs over his house. Therefore, there is only
evidence of Sri Panchireddi Raja Rao (P.W.5) to corroborate the evidence of Sri
Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16). Besides the said evidence, there is no other
independent witness evidence in the present case. But in the cross examination,
nothing was suggested what so ever to shatter their evidence. The evidence of
them gives vent to the incident and Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) vividly
stated about the entire incident and although Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16)
was put to grueling cross examination, nothing is elicited in favour of the accused
to discard his testimony and the evidence of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16)
truthfully described the event without any exaggeration. Besides the said ocular
evidence, there is also supporting evidence from the evidence of Sri Dasari
Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) and coupled with the evidence of Sub Inspector of Police,
Sarubujjili Sri S.Prkasa Rao (P.W.42) who categorically deposed in their evidence
that Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) and Sri Talasamudram Raja Rao, Talayari
(not examined) were picked up by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sarubujjili Sri
S.Prakasa Rao (P.W.42) and went to scene of offence and went to the house of Sri
Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) and observed the scene of offence of the house of
Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) and got prepared Ex.P.9 scene observation
report and seized M.O.9 wooden piece, M.O.10 and 11 elements of cloth pieces
and twine thread piece and M.O.12 current meter and the Sub Inspector of Police
prepared Ex.P.43 rough sketch also. Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) also
categorically deposed in the cross examination that he has shown M.Os.9 to 12 to
the police and M.Os.9 to 12 were seized in his presence and scene observation
report was also prepared in his presence only. It was not suggested to Sri Yevvari
Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) in the cross examination that M.Os.9 to 12 do not belong to
him or that M.Os.9 to 12 were planted for the purpose of this case by the police
and a suggestion is made that police has not seized the same in his presence.
114. The evidence above, in sides the fact that accused hurled bombs over
the house of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) which is a country made bomb
which is likely to endanger to life or cause serious injury to the property and
therefore, there is ring of truth in the prosecution case that the accused hurled
bomb over the house of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) to cause endanger to
his life and caused damage to the property also and thus, the prosecution was able
to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 3 of
Explosive Substance Act beyond all reasonable doubt.
115. To attract the offence of Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code, there
must be a house trespass in order to commit the offence punishable with
imprisonment for life. The prosecution was able to prove that the accused
committed mischief by explosive substance with an intention to destroy the house
which is also an offence contemplated under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act. But in order to attract the offence
under section 450 of the Indian Penal Code with which he is charged, the
prosecution must establish that accused made house trespass. Even as per the
evidence of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16), the accused has not made any
house trespass in order to commit any offence. Since the prosecution failed to
prove that the accused made any house trespass of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao
(P.W.16), the offence under section 450 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out
and as such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused under section
450 of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt.
116. When eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to
make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some
discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can
successfully make his testimony totally nondiscrepant. But Courts should bear in
mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so
incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in
jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view is to be adopted on mere
variations falling in the narration of an incident. The court has to see whether
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses read as a whole appears to heave a ring
of truth. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case,
hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there
from the evidence, attaching importance to one technical error committed by the
investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily
permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Unless there are reasons weighty and
formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor
variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful
witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident, because
power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Mere
relationship cannot be a factor to effect credibility of a witness. The evidence of
witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of relationship with victim of
offence. Plea relating to relatives’ evidence remains without any substance in
case evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In all criminal cases,
normally discrepancies are bound to occur in depositions of witnesses due to
normal errors of observations, errors of memory or due to mental disposition at
the time of occurrence as in the present case on hand.
117. The learned counsel for the accused attacked the entire case of the
prosecution mainly on the ground of the investigation latches of the investigation
officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), who is Sub Divisional Police Officer. The
Investigation Officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) is a direct recruit into service
and is not an experienced Investigation Officer. He, in the present case has
distributed the work to all the Sub Inspectors viz., Sri N.Thirupathi Rao, Sub
Inspector of Police, Narasannapeta police station, Sri S.Prakasa Rao, Sub
Inspector of Police, Sarubujjili Police Station, Sri S.Satyanarayana, Sub Inspector
of Police, Laveru Polcie Station, Sri N.Sanyasi Naidu, Sub Inspector of Police,
Gara Police Station, Sri R.Appala Naidu, Sub Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa
Police Station and Sri N.Sai, Sub Inspector of Police, Jalumuru (P.Ws.41 to 45
and 47 respectively). The Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa Sri P.Umapathi
Varma who is examined as P.W.46, to conduct scene observation reports by
selecting two Village Revenue Officers for each Sub Inspector for his assistance
and also to conduct inquests over the dead bodies of deceased Chy.Metta Manasa,
Chy.Metta Divakar, Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao, Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati,
Sri Metta Yerrayya, Smt.Oota Parvathi and Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi
(Deceased 1 to 7 respectively). The said Sub Inspectors who conducted inquests
and observed the scene of offence only and also prepared Exs.P.41 to P.49 rough
sketches of scene of offences and stated in their evidence that they orally
examined the witnesses, but they have not recorded any 161 Cr.P.C., statements of
any of the witnesses. The Sub Divisional Police Officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy
(P.W.48), who is investigation officer also deposed that he entrusted the work to
all the officers and he also verified all the scenes of offences and he is present all
through and prepared entire rough sketch of all the scene of offences under
Ex.P.51 and he has not recorded any 161 Cr.P.C., statements of any witnesses on
that date of 01.12.2010 on which date the inquests were held over the dead bodies
of all the deceased and on which date, the scene observation reports Exs.P.2, P.4,
P.5, P.9, P.12, P.16 and P.17 are prepared and, therefore, he recorded the 161
Cr.P.C., statements on the next day i.e., on 02.11.2010 except the statement of Sri
Dasari Rambabu who is VRO (P.W.1) which he alleged to have recorded the same
on 01.12.2010 at about 11.00 p.m., as per the endorsements on the statements.
118. The learned counsel for the accused also pointed out that the FIR
registered at 06.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010 and as per the endorsement, the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class received the original FIR (Ex.P.50) at about 01.50 p.m,
on 01.12.2010. He argued that the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court is only
at a distance of 14 km., from Jalumuru police station and it will take only half an
hour to reach the court, but there is delay of six hours in submitting the original
FIR to court in the present case, which is not explained by the prosecution. It is
also pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused that when the Sub
Inspector of Police, Jalumuru Sri N.Sai (P.Ws.47) has registered the FIR
(Ex.P.50), basing on Ex.P.1 report, at about 06.00 a.m., which was given by VRO
Sri Dasari Rambabu (P.W.1) who came along with Talayari Sri Talasamudram
Raja Rao and the Sub Inspector of Police, Jalumuru Sri N.Sai (P.W.47) has not
recorded the statements of either P.W.1 Sri Dasari Rambabu or the said Talayari
Sri Talasamudram Raja Rao. It is also peculiar to know that the investigation
officer has also not recorded the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Sri Talasamudram Raja
Rao and he also categorically admitted in the cross examination of the said aspect.
Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) deposed in evidence that the Sub Inspector of
Police recorded his statement, but the Sub Inspector of Police did not depose of
the same and as per the record, the investigation officer recorded the statement of
Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) on 01.12.2010 at about 11.00 p.m., at the
police station. It is also note worthy that the investigation officer Sri T.Panasa
Reddy (P.W.48) deposed in evidence that he recorded the statements by taking
help of Sub Inspector of Police, Jalumuru Sri N.Sai (P.W.47) who drafted the said
161 Cr.P.C., statements and counter signed by him, but there is no endorsement on
161 Cr.P.C., statements to the effect that the statements were recorded by the
investigation officer and the 161 Cr.P.C., statements only disclose that it was
scribed by Sub Inspector of Police and the signature of investigation officer is
present on 161 Cr.P.C., without any endorsement.
119. The learned defence counsel argued mainly on the aspect that ex.P.1
is not the first information report and the investigation officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy
(P.W.48), suppressed the first information report in the above matter. All the
villagers are having phones and when the villagers are aware of the fact that the
accused committed the offences of deaths all through the night, why none of the
villagers has not made a phone call to the police is not explained by the
prosecution. More over, fire engine has come to put off fire in the mid night.
Necessarily some information will be available with the fire office, who will take
the reports and who will also inform to the police regarding the incidents and
more over, it came in the evidence of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) that at
04.00 a.m., he made a phone call to Sri Panchireddy Raja Rao, ExSarpanch
(P.W.5) of Nagirikatakam village, who came along with 15 to 20 people to
Mettapeta village and with them, Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) and his wife
went along with Sri Panchireddi Raja Rao (P.W.5). It is also came in the evidence
of Sri Panchireddi Raja Rao (P.W.5) that Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1)
residing in his house, so, the VRO must be known about the said incidents even by
05.00 a.m., since Sri Panchireddi Raja Rao alleged to have received phone call
about the deaths of the villagers who are killed by the accused. Therefore, alleges
that Talayari Sri Talasamudram Raja Rao informing Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO
(P.W.1) about the incident for the first time at about 05.00 a.m., cannot be
believed in the circumstances. So, it is alleged that the earlier first information
report to the police was suppressed by the investigation officer Sri T.Panasa
Reddy (P.W.48).
120. The learned counsel for the accused mainly attacked Ex.P.1 report
alleging that it is antitimed one as stated above, the alleged report was given at
06.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010. In Ex.P.1 report, it is mentioned by Sri Dasari
Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) who gave report that Sri Talasamudram Raja Rao who is
Talayari informed him at about 05.00 a.m., that the accused killed the persons and
also mentioned in the report that Sri Talasamudram Raja Rao stated to him that the
accused hacked Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) and he was shifted to
government hospital, Narasannapeta where he died. But as per Ex.P.18 inquest
report, the deceased Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) was lost seen by the
duty doctor at 08.15 a.m., on 01.12.2010. Therefore, giving report at 06.00 a.m.,
on 01.12.2010 in which report also stating that Sri Metta Yerrayya died in the
hospital cannot be said to be true or the recital in Ex.P.18 inquest report of the
deceased Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) that he was lost seen by the
Medical Officer may be not true. So, either of them must be a false one. The
court has to see whether there is ring of truth in the prosecution case. The
evidence cannot be rejected on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the
matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some
details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and
reproduction differ with individuals.
121. The leaned counsel for the accused also argued and pointed out in
the written arguments that the nonexamination of Talayari Sri Talasamudram
Raja Rao, who is the very important and crucial witness, as per the prosecution
case, he is the person who had first witnessed the incidents on that night in the
villare or came to know about the same and had informed the same to Sri Dasari
Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) who in turn prepared Ex.P.1 report and presented to Sri
N.Sai, Sub Inspector of Police, Jalumuru. For the best reasons known to the
prosecution, he did not examine him which is a fatal blow to its whole case. The
prosecution has suppressed the evidence of Talayari Sri Talasamudram Raja Rao.
It is also argued that when Talayari sri Talasamudram Raja Rao informed about
the same incident to Sri Dasari Rambabu (P.W.1), VRO at first, why the said VRO
has not recorded the statement of the said Talayari Sri Talasamudram Raja Rao is
one of the aspect which throws a doubt about the prosecution case and also alleged
that the other aspect is that Sri Dasari Rambabu (P.w.1), VRO is expected to take
the signature of Sri Talasamudram Raja Rao, who is Talayari on Ex.P.1 with an
endorsement that the same was read over to him and admitted him to be correct
and later he should have presented the same to the police. Sri Dasari Rambabu
(P.W.1) did not choose either of the modes which he ought to have done.
Therefore, it is argued by the learned counsel for the defence that Ex.P.1 is not the
first information report and it is antitimed one.
122. The learned counsel for the accused also pointed out that even as per
the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and Investigation Officer, the entire
scene of offence and conducting inquest was also photographed by the clues team
and the clues team also got videographed the scenes. The prosecution also filed
Ex.P.30 bunch of 27 positive photos in the above matter and connected disk of
negatives. But the prosecution has not filed the said videograph for the reasons
best known to the investigation officer. The learned counsel for the accused
argued that the investigation officer has no authority to delegate the powers to the
Sub Inspectors of Police and Inspector of Police, who also made investigation in
the present case, by collecting the evidence i.e., by drafting scene observation
reports and seizure of the material objects under the cover of scene observation
reports and also conducting inquests over the dead bodies of the deceased.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the entire prosecution
case has to be thrown out for the said investigation latches in this case.
123. The learned counsel for the accused also argued that as per the
prosecution case, all the material objects were seized on 01.12.2010 but Form 66
was sent to the court only on 27.04.2011 and received on 28.04.2011 i.e., more
than 4 months. As could be seen from Form 66, the Form 66 is produced by
investigation officer only on 18.04.2011 and returned on 27.04.2011 and
represented on 28.04.2011. Therefore, there is delay of 4 months 18 days in
sending the property to the court. The Form 66 was only filed along with charge
sheet which is also filed on 18.04.2010. The investigation officer Sri T.Panasa
Reddy (P.W.48), deposed in his evidence that, he sent 161 Cr.P.C., statements to
the Magistrate on 10.03.2011 except the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Sri Dasari
Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) which he filed on 18.04.2011 along with charge sheet. It
is also pointed out that when Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO and Sri Gedela Vijaya
Babu, VRO (P.Ws.1 and 2) recorded the confession statement of the accused, why
the investigation officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) again recorded the
confession statement is not explained by the prosecution and the investigation
officer deposed in his evidence that only to ascertain the details of the accused, he
has recorded another confession statement of the accused under Ex.P.52. Even by
the time of recording confession statement of the accused by the investigation
officer, he has already recorded 161 Cr.P.C., statement of all the witnesses as per
the prosecution case. The learned counsel for the accused argued that two things
to keep all the evidence put forward by the prosecution on the panel of justice and
to keep the defence spoken by the accused as stated in the examination under
section 313 of Cr.P.C., in the second panel of Justice and whether the same which
is probable and alleges that the prosecution case is doubtful and prosecution has
not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
124. The court has to see whether there is any ring of truth in the
prosecution case. It is well established that defective investigation is need not
necessarily be lead to rejection of prosecution case when incident is otherwise
proved. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon a
decision reported in
2012 CRI.L.J.1263 in Vishwanath Upadhyay and Ors. V. The State of U.P. and Anr.
Wherein the said decision case, the investigation was done by the Head Constable who was not authorize to conduct investigation and held at para 12 that
“In my opinion the investigation was conducted by the police who is said to be the Head Constable will not vitiate the entire trial. On the basis of submission of charge sheet after investigation the entire proceedings cannot be quashed merely because there was any illegality or irregularity in the investigation.”
125. The learned counsel for the accused argued that in all the scene
observation reports, the V.R.Os of various villagers are the mediators for all the
scenes of observation. The prosecution did not explain why none of the witnesses
or any person from Mettapeta village did not come forward to act as mediator in
any of the scene of offences when admittedly the Sarpanch, ward members and
other elders of the village are present in the village. The prosecution also failed to
explain why the investigation officer did not choose the independent mediators is
not explained by the prosecution. The V.R.Os acting as mediators for seizure, for
the scenes of observation and also for the inquests and as such it is very doubtful
with regard to their respective roles played in the investigation as none of the
villagers came forward to participate in the said investigation said to have been
made by various investigation officers with respect to all the deaths of the
deceased.
126. The court has to see whether there is any miscarriage of justice was
done and the accused failed to show any miscarriage of justice or prejudice is
caused to him for conducting inquests over the dead bodies of all the deceased by
various Sub Inspectors of Police and preparing scene observation reports.
127. It is well settled law that whether the latches of any investigation
officer, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. The court has to
see whether there is any ring of truth in the prosecution case. As observed in the
earlier points in several points as discussed, on careful pondering of the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses and on scrutinizing the evidence carefully, there is no
dubiousness or qualm to hold that the evidence of prosecution witnesses truthfully
described the events they have seen without any exaggeration and their evidence
cannot be discarded even though some of the witnesses are related to the deceased
or said to be interested witnesses. More over, when the defence theory is that the
accused on that date i.e., on 30.11.2010 went to 2nd show cinema at Narasannapeta
to see a movie and after that, he returned to the village in the early hours at about
4.00 a.m., and found his both children trunks in his house and he was informed by
some villagers (not named) that the children were killed and the heads of his
children i.e., Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar were decapitated by Sri
Pyla Lakshmana Rao and Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased 3 and 4)f
although the accused put a plea of false implication, the defence has not laid any
foundation there for.
128. On careful pondering the entire evidence on record and for the
reasons discussed in the earlier points, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
the accused for the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in three
counts and failed to prove the offence punishable under section 435 of the Indian
Penal Code and the prosecution also failed to prove the offence punishable under
section 450 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the
accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 201 of the
Indian Penal Code in three counts and under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code
and also Under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the accused
is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said
offences.
129. The reasons discussed in the earlier points and mulling over the facts
and circumstances of the case, this court held that the prosecution could able to
prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code in 7 counts beyond all reasonable doubt, and also proved the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under
section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code in two counts and also proved the guilt of
the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under section 3, 4(a) and
5 of the Explosive Substance Act and as such the accused is found guilty for the
offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in seven counts
and under section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code in two counts and under
section 3, 4 (a) and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and accordingly the accused is
convicted under section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the said
offences.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 30th day of April, 2012.
Sd/. K.V.Ramanaji Rao, I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SRIKAKULAM.
130. When questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, the
accused stated that “
NENU TAPPU CHEYALEDU (in Telugu)
I have not committed any offence.
131. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that this is a fit
case to impose capital punishment of death sentence and in support there of, he
relied upon decisions reported in
2010 ACR 168 SC in Jagdish versus State of M.P.
Wherein, the ‘husband committed murder on his wife and five minor children’ and held that
“Assailant was in a dominant position and a position to trust as he was the head of the family, he crime was enormous in its proportions the entire family had been done away, and death sentence is imposed.”
Another decision reported in
(2010 ACR 489 SC in Ajay Kumar Pal Vs. State of Jharkhand
Wherein also husband laced food with pesticides and thereafter assaulted five inmates of house and burnt them and in the said process, the entire house was damaged by fire
Where in it is held that
“The act is nothing but brutal and merciless and wherein also death sentence was imposed.”
132. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 5 (five) years for each count for the offence punishable under
section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code for two counts which shall run
concurrently.
133. It is observed in Para 110 above that a separate sentence need not be
given for Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act since the offence is also
inclusive of Section 4(a) of Explosive Substance Act for which, the separate
sentence is not passed. Therefore, no separate sentence is necessarily be given
to section 5 of Explosive Substance Act.
134. The accused is also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00000 and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month
for the offence punishable under section 3 of Explosives Substance Act.
135. The accused is also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00000 and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month
for the offence punishable under section 4(a) of Explosives Substance Act.
The sentence imposed of 10 years for the offence under section 3 of Explosive
Substance Act and the sentence imposed for Section 4(a) of Explosive
Substance Act are ordered to run concurrently.
136. It is further ordered that the sentence imposed for the offence under
section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code on two counts and the sentence
imposed for the offence under section 3, and that of Section 4(a) of Explosive
Substance Act are ordered to run consecutively.
137. It is further ordered that the period of remand undergone by the
accused is ordered to be set off under section 428 (1) of Cr.P.C. The accused
is in remand in judicial custody since 01122010.
138. Now, a short question falls for consideration is;
“Whether the death sentence to be imposed or life imprisonment to be imposed for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the seven counts?”
139. Death sentence remains in the statute book and its constitutional
validity stands approved by the Constitution Bench in the celebrated
decision in AIR 1980 SC 898 of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab . The
Constitution Bench while upholding the validity of death sentences, has laid
down, as a legal principle, that such sentence can be awarded only in
“rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably
foreclosed”. No litmus is provided nor any test formulated to discern
precisely what is the “rarest of the rare cases” in which the alternative option
is thus foreclosed. However, a Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in
AIR 1983 SC.957 in Machhi Singh and Ors. V. State of Punjab has
elaborated the ratio in Bachan Singh supra. The Bench laid stress on the
reaction of the community at large in cases “when its collective conscience
is shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power center to
inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards
desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty”. Rarest of rare cases
would be discerned when the crime is viewed “from the platform of the
motive for, or the manner of commission of the crime, or the antisocial or
abhorrent nature of the crime.” The Bench has suggested a few instances
thereof as guidelines and has observed that in order to apply those guidelines
the following questions may be asked and answered: (1) was there
something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of
imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence: (2) Were
the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to
impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the
mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?
140. The accused in the present case not only killed his own children
but also attempted to kill the prime witnesses who deposed against him in
the dowry death case of his wife, in which he was convicted and in the
process of that, attempted to kill prime witnesses and also killed the wives
and brother of the prime witnesses, when the prime witnesses escaped from
his hands. This court would be failing in its duty in not imposing death
punishment for a crime which had been committed not only against the
individual victims but also against society which the criminal and the victim
belongs. If he is not punished with the adequate punishment of death
sentence, the public loose confidence in the criminal justice system itself and
no one will come forward to give evidence before any court if they are being
killed when they deposed in the court of law against the offender and the
public will loose faith in the judicial system itself. If this type of person is
allowed to escape from death penalty, it would result in miscarriage of
justice and common man would loss faith in justice system.
141. Bearing in mind, the principle governing the sentencing policy,
particularly the death sentence and considering overwhelming evidence
placed by the prosecution which is cogent and consistent throughout, this
court has no doubt that this is one of the “rarest of rare of cases” not
merely because the accused killed seven persons including his children and
paternal uncle in an inhuman manner in which he plotted the scheme and
executed with extreme pedravity. The court is satisfied that the extreme
depravity with which the offence was committed and the merciless manner
in which death was inflicted on the victims, brings it within the category of
rarest of rare cases. Innocent lives were snuffed out by the accused. The
murders are extremely brutal, grotesque, barbaric, and diabolical in
distortedly manner and merciless. Preparations made executing to criminal
design and manner of its actual execution by the accused leave no manner of
doubt in the mind of court that it falls under category of “rarest of rare
cases”. Sheer enormity of the crime, the diabolical manner of murders, and
the filing of abhorrence which would undoubtedly be raised in the mind of
the court are factors which persuade this court to impose the death sentence.
142. Hence, for the afore said reasons, the accused is sentenced to
death and direct that the accused be HANGED BY THE NECK
TILL HE IS DEAD for the offence under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code for seven counts.
143. M.Os.1 to 26 material objects and unmarked property if any are
ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.
144. The accused is informed that he has got right of appeal to move
before Honourable High Court under Section 366 (4) of Cr.P.C.,
145. Since the death sentence is imposed against the accused, the office is
directed to submit the entire proceedings duly indexed and duly translated,
urgently to the Honourable High Court for confirmation of death sentence as
required under section 366 (1) of Cr.P.C., with a covering letter, after certifying
the same by Chief Ministerial Officer as per provision of 199 & 200 of Criminal
Rules of Practice.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 30th day of April, 2012.
Sd/. K.V.Ramanaji Rao, I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SRIKAKULAM.
Witnesses Examined
PW.1: Dasari Rambabu, VRO., Nagarikatakam Panchayat.
PW.2: Gedela Vijaya Babu, VRO, Pagodu.
PW.3: Kuna Venkati
PW.4: Karukola Bhaskara Rao
PW.5: Panchireddi Rajarao
PW.6: Pyla Ramanamma
PW.7: Pyla Anuradha
PW.8: Pyla Sarojini
PW.9: Voota Ganapathi
PW.10: Voota Krishna
PW.11: Voota Srirama Murty
PW.12: Boddepalli Prakasha Rao
PW.13: Pyla Chinnammi
PW.14: Guruvelli Mohana Rao
PW.15: Voota Anasuyamma
PW.16: Yevvari Prakasarao
PW.17: Voota Simmanna
PW.18: Voota Mutyalamma
PW.19: Karukola Manikyam
PW.20: Beri Srinivasarao
PW.21: Gudla Krishna Murty
PW.22: Basava Subbarao, (Priest)
PW.23: Thammannagari Sri Krishna, (Priest)
PW.24: Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das
PW.25: Palaka Thavudu
PW.26: Panku Pakeeru, VRO, Yelamanchili Panchayat.
PW.27: Kinjarapu Mohana Rao, VRO, Basivada Village.
PW.28: Basava Yogeswara Rao
PW.29: Ravada Thyaga Raju, VRO, Kondapolavalasa.
PW.30: Dr.H.Aruna Kumari, C.A.S., Community Health Center,
Narasannapeta.
PW.31: Dr.N.Madhavi, C.A.S., Community Health Center, Narasannapeta.
PW.32: Dr.G.Guru Murty, C.A.S., Community Health Center,
Narasannapeta.
PW.33: Ananthapatnaikuni Srinivasa Rao, PC 660, Photographer (Clues
Team).
PW.34: V.H.L.Nagesh, Inspector of Police and F.P.Expert, Srikakulam.
PW.35: Pedada Surapu Naidu, ARSI 775 I/c B.D.T.Team, Etcherla.
PW.36: Dr.E.Aravind, C.A.S., Community Health Center, Narasannapeta.
PW.37: Dr.T.Anil Kumar, C.A.S., Community Health Center, Tekkali.
PW.38: N.Adinarayana, Asst. Director, RFSL., Karasa, Visakhapatnam.
PW.39: Md.Moiniddin Hasan, Asst.Director, FSL., Hyderabad.
PW.40: N.Krishna Prasad, Scientific Officer, FSL., Hyderabad.
PW.41: N.Thirupathi Rao, S.I., of Police, Narasannapeta P.S.
PW.42: S.Prakasa Rao, S.I., of Police, Sarubujjili P.S.
PW.43: S.Satyanarayana, S.I., of Police, Laveru P.S.
PW.44: N.Sanyasi Naidu, S.I., of Police, Gara P.S.
PW.45: R.Appala Naidu, S.I., of Police, Amadalavalasa P.S.
PW.46: P.Umapathi Varma, Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa Circle.
PW.47: N.Sai, S.I., of Police, Jalumuru P.S.
PW.48: T.Panasa Reddy, SDPO., Srikakulam Sub Division.
Exhibits MarkedFor Complainant:
Ex.P.1/1122010 : Report given by PW.1 to Police, dated 01.12.2010.Ex.P.2/1122010 : Scene Observation Report dated 01.12.2010 at 7.00 a.m.Ex.P.3/ : Chart in Item No.37.Ex.P.4/1122010 : Scene Observation Report, dtd.01.12.2010 at 7.00 a.m.Ex.P.5/1122010 : Scene Observation Report, dtd 01.12.2010 at 8.00 a.m.Ex.P.6/1122010 : Inquest Report of deceased Pyla Venkatarao (Deceased
No.4) at about 8.30 hours.Ex.P.7/1122010 : Inquest Report of Trunk of the deceased Metta Manasa
(Deceased No.1) at 8.30 a.m.Ex.P.8/1122010 : Inquest Report of Trunk of the deceased Metta Diwakar
(Deceased No.2) at 11.30 hours.Ex.P.9/1122010 : Scene Observation Report marked by PW.1 dtd.1.12.2010
at 1.00 p.m.Ex.P.10/1122010 : Inquest Report of head of the deceased Metta Manasa
(Deceased No.1) at 1.45 p.m.Ex.P.11/122010 : Inquest Report of head of the deceased Metta Diwakar
(Deceased No.2) at 3.00 p.m.Ex.P.12/1122010 : Scene Observation Report dtd.01.12.2010 at 4.45 p.m. Ex.P.13/ : Confession StatementEx.P.14/ : Note Rule BookEx.P.15/4122010 : Note Book Seized under the cover of Mediators Report
dtd.4.12.2010 at 11.00 a.m.Ex.P.16/1122010 : Scene Observation Report marked through PW2,
dtd.01.12.2010 at 7.00 a.m.Ex.P.17/1122010 : Scene Observation Report, dtd.01.12.2010 at 11.00 a.m.Ex.P.18/1122010 : Inquest Report of Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) at 1.00
p.m.
Ex.P.19/ : Major Portion of 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.22 Ex.P.20/ : Major Portion of 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.23Ex.P.21/151210 : Mediators Report, dated.15122010 at 4.00 P.M., marked
through P.W.26. Ex.P.22/1122010 : Mediators Report marked through P.W.27,
dtd.01.12.2010 at 7.00 a.m.Ex.P.23/1122010 : Inquest Report of Boddepalli Dhamayanthi (Deceased
No.7) at 8.30 a.m., marked through P.W.27. Ex.P.24/1122010 : Inquest report of deceased Pyla Laxmana Rao (Deceased
No.3) at 8.30 a.m., marked through PW.28.Ex.P.25/1122010 : Inquest report of deceased Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6)
at 8.30 hours marked through PW.29.Ex.P.26/1122010 : Postmortem Certificate of deceased Metta Manasa
(Deceased No.1) marked through PW.30.Ex.P.27/1122010 : Postmortem Certificate of deceased Metta Yerrayya
(Deceased No.5) marked through PW.30.Ex.P.28/7122010 : Postmortem Certificate of deceased Pyla Venkata Rao
(Deceased No.4) marked through PW.31.Ex.P.29/8122010 : Postmortem Certificate of deceased Oota Parvathi
(Deceased No.6) marked through PW.32.Ex.P.30/ : Bunch of 27 positive photos.Ex.P.31/ : C.D. connected disk of Ex.P.30 Photos. Ex.P.32/3122010 : Letter dated 03.12.2010 marked through PW.34.Ex.P.33/151210 : Certificate with regarding diffusion of bombs marked
through PW.35.Ex.P.34/4122010 : Postmortem Certificate of deceased Boddepalli
Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) marked through PW.36.
Ex.P.35/4122010 : Postmortem Certificate of over the trunk deceased Metta Diwakar (Deceased No.2) marked through PW.36.
Ex.P.36/4122010 : Postmortem Certificate of over the head of deceased Metta Diwakar (Deceased No.2).
Ex.P.37/4122010 : Postmortem Certificate of deceased Pyla Laxmana Rao (Deceased No.3) marked through PW.37.
Ex.P.38/290111 : Report dated 29.01.2011 marked through PW.38.Ex.P.39/0122011 : Opinion dated 01.02.2011 marked through PW.39.Ex.P.40/1922011 : Handwriting report of F.S.L., marked through PW.40.Ex.P.41/011210 : Rough Sketch of scene of offence of deceased Pyla
Laxmana Rao (Deceased No.3) marked through PW.41.
Ex.P.42/011210 : Rough Sketch of scene of offence of deceased Pyla Venkata Rao (Deceased No.4) marked through PW.42.
Ex.P.43/1122010 : Rough Sketch of scene of offence of deceased Pyla Venkata Rao (Deceased No.4) marked through PW.42.
Ex.P.44/1122010 : Rough Sketch of scene of offence of deceased Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) marked through PW.43.
Ex.P.45/1122010 : Rough Sketch of scene of offence of deceased Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) marked through PW.44.
Ex.P.46/1122010 : Rough Sketch of scene of offence of deceased Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) marked through PW.45.
Ex.P.47/1122010 : Rough Sketch marked through PW.45 for the dead body of Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7).
Ex.P.48/011210 : Rough Sketch marked through PW.46.Ex.P.49/1122010 : Rough Sketch marked through PW.46.Ex.P.50/1122010 : Original FIR marked through PW.47.Ex.P.51/1122010 : Rough Sketch marked through PW.48.Ex.P.52/1122010 : Confession statement dt. 1.12.2010 at 8.30 p.m., marked
through PW.48.Ex.P.53/942011 : Sanction Orders dt.9.4.2011marked through PW.48.
For Defence:
Ex.D.1/ : Portion in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Oota Krishna (PW.10).
Material Objects Marked
M.O.1 : Pair of chappals black in colour relating to the dead body of the deceased Venkatarao (Deceased No.4) seized under Ex.P.2 Scene observation report.
M.O.2 : Red colour towel of Deceased No.4 Pyla Venkata Rao.M.O.3 : Full hands Shirt of Deceased No.4 Pyla Venkata Rao.M.O.4 : Lungi of the Deceased No.4 Pyla Venkata Rao.M.O.5 : Plastic bag.M.O.6 : Plastic box (Dokku) with cotton in it.M.O.7 : Motorcycle bearing No.AP30D3982.M.O.8 : Towel seized under scene observation report Ex.P.5.
M.O.9 : Wooden door pieces.M.Os.10 & 11
: Piece of cloth and thread pieces.
M.O.12 : Current (electricity) meter door piece.M.O.13 : Knife seized by D.S.P. at the time of confession of accused.M.O.14 : Jungle Fab (pair) marked through PW.1. M.O.15 : Knife (marked through PW.2).M.O.16 : Pancha with green colour border of deceased No.3 Laxmanarao
(marked through PW.6).M.O.17 : Knife marked through PW.7 in item No.26.M.O.18 : Orange colour black strips towel.M.O.19 : Saree of deceased No.7 (marked through PW.12).M.O.20 : Blouse of deceased No.7 (marked through PW.12).M.O.21 : Blue colour bag (marked through PW.12).M.O.22 : Small knife (marked through PW.25).M.O.23 : Current meter (marked through PW.27).M.O.24 : Bottle (marked through PW.45 under Ex.P.22).M.O.25 : Wooden door piece (marked through PW.45 seized under
Ex.P.22).M.O.26 : Dried bread with cover ‘Seeta’ (marked through PW.45 seized
under Ex.P.22).
Sd/ K.V.Ramanaji Rao, I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.
Copy submitted to the Registrar (Judicial), Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad.
Copy to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.
Copy the District Collector, Srikakulam.
Copy tothe Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.
Copy to the learned Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.
Note:
As per Order dated 01.05.2012 on the office note dated 01.05.2012, the M.O.7
motor cycle bearing No.AP.30 D3982 is ordered to be confiscated to State after
appeal time is over, as the accused did not claim the same.
Sd/ K.V.Ramanaji Rao, I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
SRIKAKULAM.
Present: Sri K.V.Ramanaji Rao, M.A., B.L.,
I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam
Monday, this 30th day of April, 2012
SESSIONS CASE NO. 64/2011
(Crime No.51/2010 of Jalumuru Police Station)(P.R.C. 6/2011 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali)
1. Date of offence: 30112010 2. Date of complaint: 30112010 3. Date of apprehension of the accused: 25072011
4. Whether the accused are on bail or in jail: Accused in jail.
5 .Date of commitment: 17052011 6. Date of commencement of trial: 12122011 7. Date of close of trial: 12032012
8. Date of Judgment: 30042012 9. Sentence or order:
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence
punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in three counts and under
Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and also Under Section 450 of the Indian
Penal Code and accordingly the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Code
of Criminal Procedure for the said offences.
In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in seven counts and under section 506 (2) of
the Indian Penal Code in two counts and under section 3, 4 (a) and 5 of Explosive
Substance Act and accordingly the accused is convicted under section 235 (2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offences.
The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence before
imposing sentence.
The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5
(five) years for each count for the offence punishable under section 506 (2) of the
Indian Penal Code for two counts which shall run concurrently.
A separate sentence need not be given for Section 5 of Explosive Substance
Act since the offence is also inclusive of Section 4(a) of Explosive Substance Act
for which, the separate sentence is not passed. Therefore, no separate sentence
is necessarily be given to section 5 of Explosive Substance Act.
The accused is also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of
10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00000 and in default of payment of fine,
to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month for the offence
punishable under section 3 of Explosives Substance Act.
The accused is also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of
10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00000 and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month for the offence
punishable under section 4(a) of Explosives Substance Act. The sentence imposed
of 10 years for the offence under section 3 of Explosive Substance Act and the
sentence imposed for Section 4(a) of Explosive Substance Act are ordered to run
concurrently.
It is further ordered that the sentence imposed for the offence under section
506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code on two counts and the sentence imposed for the
offence under section 3, and that of Section 4(a) of Explosive Substance Act are
ordered to run consecutively.
It is further ordered that the period of remand undergone by the accused is
ordered to be set off under section 428 (1) of Cr.P.C.,
The accused is sentenced to death and direct that the accused be hanged by
the neck till he is dead for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code for seven counts.
M.Os.1 to 26 material objects and unmarked property if any are ordered to
be destroyed after appeal time is over.
The accused is informed that he has got right of appeal to move before
Honourable High Court of A.P., Hyderabad under Section 366 (4) of Cr.P.C.,
Since the death sentence is imposed against the accused, the office is
directed to submit the entire proceedings duly indexed and duly translated,
urgently to the Honourable High Court for confirmation of death sentence as
required under section 366 (1) of Cr.P.C., with a covering letter, after certifying
the same by Chief Ministerial Officer as per provision of 199 & 200 of Criminal
Rules of Practice.
10. Explanation for the delay:
a) In committal Court: Vide docket extract enclosed.
b) In this Court: On receipt of committal orders dated 17052011
passed in P.R.C.6/2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali,
this case was taken on file on 25062011 for the offences under Section 302, 435,
450, 452, 427 of IPC and Secs.3, 4 and 5 of Explosives Substance Act. Accused
produced from Central Prison, Visakhapatnam under prisoners transfer warrant.
Charges were framed under Section 302, 302, 302, 201, 302, 201, Sec.5 of
Explosives Substance Act, 435 of IPC, 506(2) of IPC., 302, 201 of IPC, 4(a) of
Explosives Substance Act, 506(2) of IPC., Sec.3 of Explosives Substance Act,
Sec.450 of IPC., Sec.302 and 302 of IPC in this case on 08112011 and the ac
cused is directed to kept in the District Jail, Srikakulam and preliminary trial
schedule was given in this case to LWs.1 to 35 from 12.12.2011 to 23.12.2011 and
trial was commenced on 12.12.2011. PWs.1 to 5 examined and Exs.P.1 to P.18
and M.Os.1 to 15 were marked and in the meanwhile on 14.12.2011 the accused
filed an application for adjournment stating that the Counsel’s father died and re
quested time till 28.12.2011, in the circumstances the schedule was cancelled and
issued fresh schedule from 02.01.2012 to 11.01.2012 to LWs.5 to 35. PWs.6 to 15
were examined and Ex.D1 marked and M.Os.16 to 21 were marked.
Further trial schedule was issued from 23.01.2012 to 02.02.2012 to
LWs.36 to 65 and PWs.16 to 29 were examined and Exs.P.19 to P.25 and M.Os.22
and 23 were marked.
Further trial schedule was also issued to LWs.66 to 90 from 03.02.2012 to
08.02.2012 and PWs.30 to 38 were examined and Exs.P.26 to 38 were marked and
remaining trial schedule was issued on 08.02.2012 to LWs.88 to 98 from
27.02.2012 to 07.03.2012 and PWs.39 to 48 were examined and Exs.P.39 to P.53
and M.Os.24 to 26 were marked.
Accused is examined u/Sec.313 Criminal Procedure Code on 20032012
for which the accused is denied the prosecution evidence and on 28.03.2012 re
ported that the accused has no defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf.
Oral Arguments commenced on 04.04.2012 and heard in part on 09.04.2012,
10.04.2012, 11.04.2012, 12.04.2012, 13.04.2012, 16.04.2012, 18.04.2012 and con
cluded on 19.04.2012. Written arguments filed on 2704.2012. Judgment was
pronounced on 30042012. Hence there is no avoidable delay in this Court.
Remand Particulars:
The accused is in remand from 01122010 till to date.
Fine amount not paid.
Sd/. K.V.Ramanaji Rao, I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.