INTHECOURTOFTHEIADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE, SRIKAKULAM. Present:SriK.V.RamanajiRao,M.A.,B.L., IAddl.District&SessionsJudge, Srikakulam.

Monday,thisthe30thdayofApril,2012

SESSIONSCASENO.64/2011 (Cr.No51/2010ofJalumuruPoliceStation) (P.R.C.6/2011onthefileofJudl.MagistrateofIClass,Kotabommali)

Between: The State of A.P., Represented by T.Panasa Reddy, Sub Divisional PoliceOfficer,SrikakulamSubDivision. ...Complainant. And: Metta Shankara Rao, S/o lt. Jaggappanna @ Jaggappadu, age 38 years,Kalingabycaste,MettapetaVillage,NagirikatakamPanchayat, JalumuruMandal.(C.R.P.F.ConstableNo.941131616CT/DVR). Accused.

Prosecutionconductedby:SriK.Jeevaratnam, Addl.PublicProsecutor,Srikakulam. Accusedis/aredefendedby:SriC.NarasimhaMurthy,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.3ofExplosivesSubstanceAct,Sec.450 ofIPC.,Sec.302and302ofIPC.

Pleaoftheaccused:Pleadednotguilty. FindingoftheJudge: The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.201 of IPC in three counts and u/Sec.435ofIPCandu/Sec.450ofIPCandaccordinglythe

accusedisacquittedundersection235(1)ofCodeofCriminal Procedureforthesaidoffences. Theaccusedisfoundguiltyfortheoffencepunishable u/Sec.302ofIPCinsevencountsandu/Sec.506(2)ofIPCin twocountsandu/Sec.3,4(a)and5ofExplosivesSubstance ActandaccordinglyheconvictedunderSection235(2)ofthe CodeofCriminalProcedureforthesaidoffences.

Sentence/order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishableundersection201oftheIndianPenalCodeinthreecountsand underSection435oftheIndianPenalCodeandalsoUnderSection450of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the accused is acquitted under section235(1)ofCodeofCriminalProcedureforthesaidoffences. Intheresult,theaccusedisfoundguiltyfortheoffencepunishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in seven counts and under section506(2)oftheIndianPenalCodeintwocountsandundersection3, 4 (a)and 5ofExplosive Substance Act and accordingly theaccusedis convictedundersection235(2)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureforthe saidoffences. The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence beforeimposingsentence. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a periodof5(five)yearsforeachcountfortheoffencepunishableunder section506(2)oftheIndianPenalCodefortwocountswhichshallrun concurrently. AseparatesentenceneednotbegivenforSection5ofExplosive Substance Act since the offence is also inclusive of Section 4(a) of ExplosiveSubstanceActforwhich,theseparatesentenceisnotpassed. Therefore, noseparatesentenceisnecessarilybegiven tosection5of ExplosiveSubstanceAct. Theaccusedisalsosentencedtosuffersimpleimprisonmentfora periodof10(ten)yearsandtopayfineofRs.1,00000andindefaultof paymentoffine,toundergosimpleimprisonmentforfurtherperiodofone monthfortheoffencepunishableundersection3ofExplosivesSubstance Act. Theaccusedisalsosentencedtosuffersimpleimprisonmentfora

periodof10(ten)yearsandtopayfineofRs.1,00000 andindefaultof paymentoffine,toundergosimpleimprisonmentforfurtherperiodofone month for the offence punishable under section 4(a) of Explosives SubstanceAct.Thesentenceimposedof10yearsfortheoffenceunder section3ofExplosiveSubstanceActandthesentenceimposedforSection 4(a)ofExplosiveSubstanceActareorderedtorunconcurrently. Itisfurtherorderedthatthesentenceimposedfortheoffenceunder section506(2)oftheIndianPenalCodeontwocountsandthesentence imposed for the offence under section 3, and that of Section 4(a) of ExplosiveSubstanceActareorderedtorunconsecutively. It is further ordered that the period of remand undergone by the accusedisorderedtobesetoffundersection428(1)ofCr.P.C., Theaccusedissentencedtodeathanddirectthattheaccusedbe hangedbythenecktillheisdeadfortheoffencepunishableundersection 302oftheIndianPenalCodeforsevencounts. M.Os.1 to 26 material objects and unmarked property if any are orderedtobedestroyedafterappealtimeisover. Theaccused isinformedthathehasgotrightofappealtomove beforeHonourableHighCourtofA.P.,HyderabadunderSection366(4)of Cr.P.C., Sincethedeathsentenceisimposedagainsttheaccused,theofficeis directedtosubmittheentireproceedingsdulyindexedanddulytranslated, urgentlytotheHonourableHighCourtforconfirmationofdeathsentence asrequiredundersection366(1)ofCr.P.C.,withacoveringletter,after certifyingthesamebyChiefMinisterialOfficerasperprovisionof199& 200ofCriminalRulesofPractice.

ThisSessionsCasecomingon27042012forfinalhearingbeforeme andhavingstoodovertillthisdayforconsiderationandthisCourtdelivered thefollowing

JUDGMENT; The State represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, SrikakulamfiledchargesheetinCr.No.51/2010ofJalumuruPoliceStationunder

sections302,435,450,452,427andSections3,4and5ofExplosiveSubstance Act. 02. Thematrixoftheprosecutioncase,asperthelegalevidenceletin

duringthetrialisasfollows: For convenience sake, the deceased persons are numbered as Deceased1to7viz.,Chy.MettaManasa(DeceasedNo.1),Chy.MettaDivakar (DeceasedNo.2),SriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3),SriPylaVenkata Rao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4),SriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5),Smt.Oota Parvathi(DeceasedNo.6)andSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7) (a) The accused is a ExCRPF constable and he was convicted and sentencedtoundergosevenyearsimprisonmentinS.C.No.72/2007onthefileof AdditionalAssistantSessionsJudge,Srikakulamin304BofIndianPenalCode caseforthedowrydeathofhiswifeandhewasconvictedon30.03.2009.Hewas alsoremovedfromservice.TheaccusedpreferredanappealinCrl.A.No.64/2009 andgotsuspenseofsentenceorderandwasreleasedonbail.Whileso,inthesaid 304BofIndianPenalCodecase,SriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12),whois the husband of the deceased Smt.Boddepalli Damayanti (Deceased No.7), Sri VootaSimmanna,whoisthehusbandofdeceasedSmt.VootaParvathi(Deceased No.6),SriMettaAppanna,whoisthebrotherofSriMettaYerrayya(Deceased No.5),Smt.PylaSarojini,wifeofdeceasedSriPylaVenkataRao(DeceasedNo.4) aretheprimewitnesses.Theprosecutionalsoletinevidenceinthepresentcase thatthesaidprimewitnessesalsoactedasmediatorsinthepanchayatheldwith regardtothepropertydisputesamongtheaccusedandhisfamilymembersandas

theymadeverdictagainsthiminthesaidpanchayat,healsoboregrudgeagainst thepanchayatdarswhogaveverdictagainsthim. Therefore, theaccusedbore grudgeagainsttheprimewitnessesanddecidedtokillthem.Hispreplanisput intoactiononthenightof30.11.2011.Healsofeltresentmentthathiswifeisno moreandthathealsowantedtokillhisdaughterChy.MettaManasa,aged7years (DeceasedNo.1)andhissonChy.MettaDivakar,aged5years(DeceasedNo.2)as therewillbenoonetolookafterthemincaseofhisdeathorimprisonmentfor life. (b) Theaccusedmadepreparationstoputhisplanintoactiononthe

nightof30.11.2010.Aspertheprosecutioncase,itisachainofeventscausing 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 preparationstoputhisplanintoactionandsecuredknives,blastingmaterialetc and decided to remove all the witnesses deposed against him and the panchayatdars,whogaveverdictagainsthimandasapartoftheplanofaction,on 30.11.2010eveningatabout04.00p.m.,theaccusedwenttoNetajiResidential School, where his minor children who are Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar(deceased1and2)werestudyingandmetSriNakkaTulasiNarayanaDas (P.W.24), who is the Principal, of Netaji Residential School and obtained permissionfromthePrincipalsayingthatthereisafunctioninthehouseandtook hischildrenwithhimonhismotorcycle.Theaccusedpurchasedwhiskyfromthe shopofSriBeriSrinivasaRao(P.W.20),andalsopurchasedtwopepsicooldrink bottles, bread and twine bundle from the shop of Sri Gudla Krishna Murthy

(P.W.21)andreachedthehouseat04.50p.m.Theaccusedprovidedsuppertohis childrenChy.MettaManasa(DeceasedNo.1)andChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased No.2) and night meal, he gave the Pepsi drink mixed with the whisky to his childrenandtheywenttodeepsleep. Theaccusedbrutallyhackedtheheads Chy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakaranddecapitatedtheheadswithheavy longknife(sword)relentlesslyatabout7.30p.m.,inthemiddleroomofhishouse wheretheyslept. (c) The accused went to the house of Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao

(deceasedNo.3)atabout08.00p.m.,andbroughtSriPylaLakshmanaRaotothe backyardofhishouseandpounceduponhimwithaknifeatabout08.00p.m.,and choppedofftheneck,asaresultofwhichSriPylaLakshmanaRao(Deceased No.3)felldownanddiedonthespotandhecoveredthedeadbodyofSriPyla LakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)withcoconutleaves. (d) Thereafter,theaccusedwenttothehouseofSriPylaVenkataRao

@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)andinvitedhimtoconsumeliquor,whocameout from his house and took him on his motor cycle to his house and there, the accusedmadebelievedthesaidSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4) that his friends are coming to offer their prayers to Lord Someswara of Srimukhalingeswaragroupoftemplesandassuch,hehastoplacecoconutsin advanceinthetempleandtookboththeheadsofthechildrenwhichwerecutoff andwhichwerealreadypackedinapolythenebagandmadebelievedSriPyla VenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)thattherearecoconutsinitandtookthe saidpackedbagcontainingtheheadsof(Deceased1and2)Chy.MettaManasa

andChy.MettaDivakartotheSomeswaraTempleandtheykeptthesaidbagin thesanctum(GARBHAGUDI)ofLordSomeswaraTempleidolandtheyreturned backtothevillageby11.00p.m.,onthatdate.Theaccusedthoughtthatinfuture, thesaidSriPylaVenkataRao(DeceasedNo.4)wouldbeawitnessforkeepingthe headsetcinfurthercourseoftimeandassuch,hedecidedtokillSriPylaVenkata Rao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)alsoandinthatcourse,hetookSriPylaVenkata Rao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)tothepaddyfieldsofSriMettaVenkataRao, wheretheaccusedalreadysecretedtwobagsinthebusheswhichcontainedtwo knives,waterbottle,junglepatcheddress,37bombs,kerosenetinetc.,andthe accusedmadeSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)tositthereand onthepretendoftakingtumblerfromit,hetookoutaknifeandSriPylaVenkata Rao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)attemptedtotakeheels,buttheaccusedpounced uponhimwithawildforceandinordertokillhim,chasedSriPylaVenkataRao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) to a little distance and Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)felldownandtheaccusedchoppedoffhimontheback side of the neck with a knife, in a barbarian manner and killed him. After confirmingthatSriPylaVenkataRao(DeceasedNo.4)diedduetocutinjuries,the accusedsecretedthedeadbodyofSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(Deceased No.4)innearbybushes.Aspertheprosecutioncase,theaccusedwearinglungi andshirtandafterkillingSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4),he haschangedthatlungiandshirtandheworethejunglepatchmilitarydressandhe hastakensomecountrymadebombsandsecretedinthepocketsandbyholding twoknivesinhishandandcarriedthebagwhichcontainskerosenetinetc,andhe

wenttothethrashingfloorofSriOotaGanapathi. (e) The accused set fire to the hay heap, cattle shed of Sri Oota

Ganapathi(P.W.9)andbullockcartofSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)which hekeptinthethrashingfloorofSriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9).Thevillagersafter noticingtheflames,cameinamobinordertoputofftheflamesandtheaccused concealed in near by banana tope till 02.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010 and he also switchedoffthetransferandcutofftheelectricitytothevillage.Someonecalled fireengine,whichcameandalsoputoffthefire. (f) Atabout02.30a.m.,on01.12.2010,theaccusedreturnedbacktothe

backyardofhishouse,whichwasnoticedbySmt.KarukolaManikyam(P.W.19) whoraisedalarms,duetowhich,theaccuseddisturbedandcametothestreetand proclaimedandthreatenedthathewouldkillanybodywhocomesneartohim.By that time, Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9), Sri Yevvari Rama Krishna and Sri BoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)werereturningtotheirhouse.Theaccusedalso threatenedtokillSriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9),whenheandhiswifeSmt.Oota Sravaniquestionedaboutlittingoffiretothehayheap,cattleshedandbullock cartandherantoadistanceandmeanwhileSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5), who is nothing but the paternal uncle of the accused, also came there and questionedtheaccusedforhishighhandedbehaviourandtheaccusedconfessed thathesetfire,buthedidnotdamagethewaterpipeandtookSriMettaYerrayya (DeceasedNo.5)tohishouseandhackedSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5) withaknifeoverhisneckandSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)rushedout fromthehouseoftheaccusedwithinjuriesovertheneckandbyplacingacloth

overthebleedinginjuryandcametothehousewiththesaidinjuries.Theladies wenttobringwatertohimfromtheborewellandSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao (P.W.12)andtheladiesmadeaphonecallto108ambulanceandhewasshiftedin 108ambulancetothegovernmenthospital,Narasannapeta,wherehedied. (g) The accused went to the house of Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao

(P.w.12)andchallengedhimtocomeoutfromthehouseifhegotanyguts,and exploded bombs to the outer wall house of him and threatened to kill Sri BoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)tocomeoutfromthehouseeitherbyhurling bombs or with a knife. Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and his family membersduetofearranoutsidethehousethroughbackyardsite.Theaccused hurledbombsoverthehouseofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)andalso damagedtheautowhichwasplacedbythesideofthehouseofSriMettaVenkata Raoandtorntheseatsandbroketheglasses. (h) Then,theaccusedlefttothehouseofSriOotaSimmanna(P.W.17)

atabout04.00a.m.,on01.11.2010inordertokillhimandknockedthedoors. Smt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6),whoispartiallydeaf,openedthedoorsand theaccusedraisedknifeandonthat,sherequestednottokillandtriedtoescape bytakingheals,buttheaccusedhackedherwithaknifeanddraggedhereven though she requested not to kill her and then the accused dragged her to the oppositehouseofSriOotaTavitayya,byhackingherwhereshediedatthepialof thehouseofSriOotaTavitayya. (i) Smt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7),whoisthewifeofSri

BoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12),alsoranawayfromthehouseandhidedfor

sometime. ShelurkedattheterraceofthehouseofSriPylaSuryanarayana, whichwaswitnessedbytheaccused.Theaccusednoticedthesameandwenton to the terrace and without showing any mercy, although Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)madelegappealtotheaccusedandmadehumble requesttoleaveher,theaccusedbutcheredSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(Deceased No.7)withaknifearoundthenecktillherdeathandkilledher. (j) Theaccusedatabout04.00a.m.,on01.12.2010,cametothehouse

of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16), who is one of the targeted person, by possessingofbombs,knivesandacidbottleetc.Theaccusedcametothehouse andcalledhimoutfromthehouse,buthedidnotcomeoutduetofearandthe accused hurled bombs over his house causing damage and later left the place sayingthathewillcomeagain. (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 presentinhisvillage,TalayariSriTalasamudramRajaRao(notexamined)came tohimandinformedthattheaccusedkilledsevenpersonsandonknowingabout the information, Sri Dasari Rambabu (P.W.1) informed it immediately to his superiorofficersandwenttoMettapetavillageandnoticedthedeadbodiesof 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(DeceasedNo.7)andlaterSriDasariRambabu(P.W.1)alongwith Talayari Sri Talasamudram Raja Rao went to Jalumuru Police Station and he

presentedareport(Ex.P.1)totheSubInspectorofPoliceSriNalliSai(P.W.47)at about 06.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010, who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.51/2010undersection302oftheIndianPenalCodeandsenttheexpress FIR(Ex.P.50)totheJudicialMagistrateofIClass,Kotabommaliandcopiestothe higher officials and intimated to the investigation officer, who is Deputy SuperintendentofPoliceSriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48),byphoneandasperthe instructionsofSubDivisionalPoliceOfficerSriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48),he proceededtoMettapetavillage.TheSubDivisionalPoliceOfficerSriT.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 Mettapetavillageandmeanwhileinformedtobombdetectionanddiffusalteam andcluesteam.AlltheSubInspectorsandInspectorofPolicereachedMettapeta villageby07.00a.m., TheSubDivisionalPoliceOfficerSriT.PanasaReddy (P.W.48)securedthecopyofFIRanddistributedtheworkofconductinginquests overthedeadbodiesofsevendeceasedpersons,bygivinginstructionstoallthe SubInspectorsandtoprepareroughsketchesandalsodistributedtheworktoget sceneobservationreportspreparedforallthesceneofoffencesandseizureof propertiesthroughtheVillageRevenueOfficersofdifferentvillages,deputedby MandalRevenueOfficersforthesaidpurpose.TheSubDivisionalPoliceOfficer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), also took the assistance of Sub Inspector of Jalumuruandobservedtheentiresceneofoffencesandalsopreparedentirerough

sketchofsceneofoffences(Ex.P.15).TheworkentrustedtotheSubInspectorsof PoliceandInspectorofPolicewhogotpreparedthesceneobservationreportsand heldinquestoverthedeadbodiesofthedeceased. TheSubDivisionalPolice Officer, Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) later arranged to dispatch all the dead bodiestogovernmenthospitalforpostmortemexamination.TheSubDivisional Police Officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) orally examined the witnesses availableatthescenesofoffenceonthatdayandasthereishavocsituationinthe village,heattendedtheinquestsofallthedeadbodiesthroughtheSubInspectors ofPoliceofvariousstationsandsendthedeadbodiestopostmortemexamination andreturnedtothepolicestationintheeveningafter07.00p.m., (l) Dr.H.Aruna Kumari (P.W.30), Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Narasannapetaconductedpostmortemexaminationoverthe trunkandheadof deceased Chy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1), aged 7 years and noted the internalandexternalinjuriesandgaveopinionthatthedeathofthedeceasedis duetotheeffectsoftheinjurieswhichareinantimorteminnature andthe durationis6to8hourspriortoherexaminationandissuedpostmortemcertificate (Ex.P.26). (m) Dr.H.Aruna Kumari (P.W.30), Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Narasannapeta also conducted postmortem examination over the deadbody of MettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)on01122010atabout300to500p.m.and notedtheexternalandinternalinjuriesandgaveopinionthatthe deathofthe deceasedisduetoeffectsofinjuriesantimorteminnatureandthedurationis8 to10hourspriortoherexaminationandissuedpostmortemcertificate(Ex.P.27).

(n) Dr. N. Madhavi (P.W.31), Civil Asst. Surgeon, Narasannapeta on 01122010at100p.m.conductedpostmortemexaminationoverthedeadbody ofthedeceased,SriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)andnoted externalandinternalinjuriesandgaveopinionthatthedeathiswithin24hours priortoherpostmortemexaminationandthe causeofdeathisduetocervical spinefracture(C4C5)andhemorrhageleadingtocardiopulmonaryarrestand issuedpostmortemcertificate(Ex.P.28). (o) Dr.G.Gurumurthy(P.W.32),CivilAsst.Surgeon,Narasannapetaon

01122010atabout230p.m.,conductedpostmortemexaminationoverthedead bodyofdeceased,Smt.VootaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6)andfoundinternaland externalinjuriesandopinedthatthedeathis24hourspriortohispostmortem examinationandthedeathisduetofracture(C3C4)ascervicalvertebraeand 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

01122010atabout1145a.m.heconductedpostmortemexaminationoverthe deadbodyofthe deceasedSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi (DeceasedNo.7) and noted external and internal injuries and opined that the cause of death of the deceasedisduetohemorrhageandcervicalspinalfractureleadingtocardio pulmonaryarrestandissuedpostmortemcertificate(ExP.34). (q) Dr.E.Aravind(P.W.36)CivilAssistantSurgeon,Narasannapeta,on

thesamedayat200p.m.heconductedpostmortemexaminationoverthetrunkof

thedeadbodyofthedeceased,Chy.MettaDivakar(DeceasedNo.2)andnoted 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 examinationcertificate(Ex.P.35). (r) Dr.E.Aravind(P.W.36),CivilAssistantSurgeon,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 (DeceasedNo.2) andfoundtheinjuriesandopinedthatthedeathiswithin24 hours prior to his postmortem examination and cause of death is complete decapitationofheadandissuedpostmortemexaminationcertificate(Ex.P.36). (s) Dr. T. Anil Kumar (P.W.37), Civil Asst. Surgeon, Tekkali, on

01122010atabout1100a.m.heconductedpostmortemexaminationoverthe deadbodyofthedeceased,SriPylaLaxmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)andnoted externalandinternalinjuriesandgaveopinionthatthedeathis24hourspriorto hispostmortemexaminationand causeofdeathiscardiorespiratorarrestand duetomassivehemorrhageandissuedpostmortemcertificate(Ex.P.37). (t) Afterkillingallthedeceasedpersons,theaccusedsuspectedthatthe

villagersmighthavecapturehimtokillandsotheaccusedbylurkingintoplantain 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 confessedtheentireincidenttoSriDasariRambabu(P.W.1),VROandSriGedela

VijayaBabu(P.W.2),VRO,whorecordedtheconfessionstatementoftheaccused andbothofthem,laterhandedovertheaccusedalongwiththeknife(M.O.3)to the Investigation Officer SriT.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48), whois SubDivisional PoliceOfficeratabout8.00p.m.,on01.12.2010inJalumuruPoliceStation.

(u)

Sri T.Panasa Reddy, Sub Divisional Police Officer (P.W.48),

recordedtheconfessionstatementoftheaccused(Ex.P.52)inthepresenceofSri DasariRambabu(P.W.1),VROandSriGedelaVijayaBabu(P.W.2),VROinthe police station, Jalumuru and also seized jungle fobs (M.O.14) and the knife (M.O.13)uponconfessionmadebytheaccusedandcollectedexplosiveremnants overthebodyoftheaccusedwiththehelpofcluesteam,whoalsotookfinger printsoftheaccusedbyfingerprintersexpert.TheSubDivisionalPoliceOfficer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) also arrested the accused and on the next day morningsenthimforremandtojudicialcustody.

(v)

ThecluesteamphotographerSriAnanthapatnaikuniSrinivasaRao

(P.W.33),tookphotographstoallthedeadbodiesofthedeceasedandscenesof offences(Ex.P.30bunchof27positivephotosandEx.P.31negativeCDofthe same is marked) and the clues team also photographed and vediographed the entiresceneofoffences(videosnotfiledorexhibited).Thefingerprintsunitof the Inspector of Police Sri V.H.L.Nagesh (P.W.34) along with clues team examinedthesceneofcrimearticlespresentatthesiteofSmt.PylaThavitamma andtookchanceprints.Aspertheprosecutioncase,theaccusedhasthrownaway

theknives(M.Os.15,17and22)andonebagcontaininglettersAdidas(M.O.21) and a plastic bottle containing label XXX RUM (M.O.24) and the same were seizedunderthecoverofsceneobservationreport(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)andSriMadhusudhanaRao(notexamined).TheSubDivisionalPolice Officer,SriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48),alsotookSriPankuPakeeru(P.W.26)and SriMadhusudhanaRao(notexamined)toIndrakshammahillsand19bombswere diffusedintheirpresence,underthecoverofmediatorreport(Ex.P.21)andburnt bombmaterialwasalsoseizedforsendingthesameforanalysisandtheexpert collectedthesame. (x) On04.12.2010,SriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48)SubDivisionalPolice

Officer, took Sri Dasari Rambabu (P.W.1), VRO and another VROSri MadhusudhanaRao(notexamined)andwenttothehouseoftheaccusedand observedthesceneandseizednotebook(Ex.P.14)fromthewindowoftheshelf containingthehandwritingoftheaccusedandseizedthesameunderthecoverof mediatorreport(Ex.P.15). SriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48)alsosentthematerial objectstoRFSLandsentthechart(Ex.P.13)andnotebook(Ex.P.14)tothehand 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 sanctionorders(Ex.P.53)fromtheCollectorforprosecutionandaftercompletion

ofinvestigation,filedchargesheet.

03.

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kotabommali took

cognizanceoftheoffenceundersection302,435,450,452,427oftheIndian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act against the accusedandregisteredasPRC.6/2011. 04. Afterfollowingtheprocedureascontemplatedundersection209of

theCr.P.C.,theJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass,Kotabommali,committedthe casetotheSessionsDivision,SrikakulamandtheSessionsDivision,Srikakulam madeoverthiscasetothiscourtfordisposalaccordingtolaw.Theaccusedfaced thetrialasUnderTrialPrisoner.

05.

Afterapprehensionoftheaccused,andafterconsideration,charges

wereframedundersection302ofIndianPenalCodeforcausingdeathofhisson 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),chargeundersection 302oftheIndianPenalCodeforcausingdeathof SriPylaLaxmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3),chargeundersection201oftheIndian Penal Code,chargeundersection 302ofthe Indian Penal Code forcausing deathofPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4),Chargeunder Section 201oftheIndianPenalCode,chargeundersection5ofExplosiveSubstances Act, chargeunder section435oftheIndianPenalCode,chargeundersection

506(2)oftheIndianPenalCode,chargeundersection302oftheIndianPenal Code for causing death of Sri Metta Yerraiah (Deceased No.5), charge under section201ofIndianPenalCode,Chargeundersection4(a)oftheExplosive SubstancesAct,chargeundersection506(2)oftheIndianPenalCode,Charge under section3ofExplosiveSubstanceAct,Chargeunder section450ofthe Indian Penal Code,charge under section 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code for causingdeathofSmt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6)andchargeunder section 302oftheIndianPenalCodeforcausingdeathofSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi (DeceasedNo.7). Theaccusedabjuredtheguiltanddeniedthechargecontents andclaimedtobetried. 06. In order to substantiate the accusation, the prosecution in all,

examined P.Ws.1to48witnesses andgotmarked Exs.P.1toP.53documents andgotmarkedM.Os.1to26materialobjects.Ex.D.1contradictionismarked inthestatementundersection161(3)ofCr.P.C.,ofSriOotaKrishna(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 deniedtheprosecutionevidence. Nodefencewitnesseswereexaminedandno documentsaremarkedondefenceside. 08. Heardargumentsfrombothsides.Writtenargumentsfiledbythe

learnedcounselfortheaccused.

09.

Now,thepointsthatarisefordeterminationinthiscaseare;

(1)Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeathof hissonChy.MettaDivakar(DeceasedNo.2)? (2)Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeathof hisdaughterChy.MettaManasa(DeceasedNo.1)? (3)Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeathof SriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)? (4)Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontoscreentheevidence fromlegalpunishmentkepttheheadsofthedeceasedchildren Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.2) and Chy.Metta Manasa (DeceasedNo.1)inthesanctumofthetemple? (5)Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeathof SriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)? (6)Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontoscreentheevidence fromlegalpunishmentkeptthedeadbodyofSriPylaVenkata Rao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)inthebushes? (7)Whethertheaccusedisinunlawfulpossessionofthecountry made bombs and thereby committed any offence punishable undersection5ofExplosiveSubstancesAct? (8)Whethertheaccusedcausedmischiefbylittingfiretothehay heap,bullockcartandcattleshedandtherebycommittedany offencepunishableundersection435oftheIndianPenalCode? (9)Whethertheaccusedcommittedcriminal intimidationby threateningSinguruManikyam,OotaGanapathi,MettaYerryya (deceasedNo.5)andotherswithgrievousinjuriesandtocause death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section506(2)ofIndianPenalCode? (10)Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeath ofSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)? (11)Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontoscreentheevidence 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)WhethertheaccusedhurledbombsoverthehouseofSri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao and thus committed an offence of

Section4(a)oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct? (13)Whethertheaccusedcommittedcriminalintimidationby threateningSriBoddepalliPrakasaRaowithgrievousinjuries andtocausedeathandtherebycommittedanoffencepunishable undersection506(2)oftheIndianPenalCode? (14) Whether the accused unlawfully and maliciously caused explosionthroughcountrymadebombsoverthehouseofSri Yevvari Prakasa Rao and thereby committed an offence punishableundersection3ofExplosiveSubstancesAct? (15)Whethertheaccusedcommittedhousetrespassbyenteringinto 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 IndianPenalCode? (16)Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeathof Smt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6)?

(17)Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeathof Smt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)?

MOTIVEANDDEFENCETHEORY: 10. Aspertheprosecutioncase,itisachainofeventscausingdeathof

sevenpersonsbytheaccusedandalsohurlingbombsandlittingfiretohayheap, cattleshed,bullockcartononenighti.e.,on30.11.2011/01.12.2011from07.00 p.m.,to05.00a.m. Themotiveonthepartoftheaccusedtokillalltheseven personsisthattheaccusedfacedthetrialinSC.No.72/2007forthedowrydeathof his wife under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code before the Assistant SessionsJudge,Srikakulam,whichcaseisendedinconvictionforsevenyears imprisonment.TheaccusedpreferredinCrl.AppealNo.64/2009againstthesaid convictionandsentencepassedagainsthimandgotreleasedbysuspensionof

sentence. Theaccusedboregrudgeagainstthewitnesseswhodeposedagainst himintheSessionscaseanddecidedtokillthewitnesses,whodeposedagainst him.Itisalsoallegedintheevidencethattheothermotiveagainsttheprosecution witnessesinthesaidcaseisthat,someofthemalsoactedasmediatorsinthe panchayatheldwithregardtothepropertydisputesinbetweenaccusedandhis brothersandastheymadeverdictagainsthiminthesaidpanchayat,healsobore grudgeagainstthesaidpanchayatdarswhoalsohappenedtobethewitnessesin theSessionsCaseagainsthim.Therefore,theaccusedboregrudgeagainstthem and decided to kill them and his preplan is put into action on the night of 30.11.2011.

11.

Theaccusedalthoughplannedtokilltheprimewitnesseswhenthey

escaped,hekilledSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7),whoisthewife oftheprimewitnessSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)andkilledSmt.Oota Parvathi(DeceasedNo.6)whoisthewifeofSriOotaSimmanna(P.W.17))and brotherofSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5),whoisthebrotherofSriMetta Appanna(L.W.6notexamined)andalsokilledSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati (DeceasedNo.4),whoisthehusbandofprimewitnessSmt.PylaSarojini(P.W.8).

12.

Aspertheprosecutioncase,thereisnomotivetotheaccusedtokill

hisminordaughterbynameChy.MettaManasa(deceasedNo.1)andhisminor sonbynameChy.MettaDivakar(deceasedNo.2)andtheaccused killedthem since there will be no one to look after them, if he is sentenced to death or

imprisonmentforlife,ifhisplantokillthepersonsasperthepreplanissucceed.

13.

The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is heavy

burdenliesontheprosecutiontoprovemotive,whenitisallegedthesame,butin thiscase,prosecutiondidnotplaceanyscrapofpaperoranyotherevidenceto provetheallegedmotive.ItisalsoarguedthatthedeceasedSriPylaLakshmana Rao,SriPylaVenkataRao@Venkat,SriMettaYerrayya,Smt.OotaParvathiand 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 SessionscaseNo.73of2007,doesnotatallariseandeventheprosecutioninthis casedidnotplaceanymaterialtotheeffectthatanyofthedeceasedinthiscase had deposed against the accused in the earlier case. It is also argued by the learnedcounselforthedefencecounselandpointedoutinthewrittenarguments also at page No.30 that, So, even forimagination, it is highly impossible and improbableforanormalmantounderstandthestateofmindoftheaccused,as allegedbytheprosecution,thathehadkilledallthe7personsincludinghisown childrenatastretchonthesamenightforthesimplereasonthattheydeposed againsthiminanearliercase,canitbebelievablewithoutanymotivehehad killedallofthem,insuchacase,heshouldbeofinsanemindedorinaheavy drunkenstateinwhichhedidnotknowwhathewasdoing,buttheprosecution caseordefencetheoryisnotthattheaccusedwasofsuchainsaneorinthatstate ofdrunkenmind.

14.

The accused also stated in the examination under Section 313

Cr.P.C.,aboutthedefencetheoryasmentionedinwrittenargumentsatpage76 that the accused stated that on 30.11.2010, he went to 2nd show movie to Narasannapetaforwitnessingthe2ndshowcinemaandhadconsumedsomeliquor thereafterthepictureisoverandsleptattheOldBusStand,Narasannapetaand returnedtohisnativevillageMettapetaintheearlyhoursinbetween03.00to 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 conditionandtherearegroupsofpeoplegatheredinfrontofhishouseandhere andthereinthevillage,whenhewentinsideofhishouse,foundthathistwo childrenwerebrutallymurderedandshockedandfellunconsciousforsometime anduponsprinklingwateronhisfacebysomebody,heregainedconsciousness and was told by his villagers that his two children were killed by Sri Pyla LakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)andSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(Deceased No.4)forobtainingthehiddentreasures(GuptaNidhulu)andtheircutheadswere foundattheidolinthegarbhagudi(sanctum)ofGodSomeswaratempleatthe Mukhalingeswaratemplecomplexandstatedinthebelowmentionedpara. 15. Thedefencetheoryoftheaccusedasperthesuggestionsmadetothe

prosecutionwitnessesandasstatedintheexaminationundersection313Cr,.P.C., isalsothat,SriPylaLaxmanaRao(deceasedNo.3)andSriPylaVenkataRao (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, Srimukhalingamtoworshipforobtaininghiddentreasures(guptanidhulu),which incidentwaswitnessedbySriMettaYerrayya(deceasedNo.5)andassuch,the saidSriPylaLaxmanaRao(deceasedNo.3)andSriPylaVenkataRao(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(deceasedNo.7),whentheywenttoanswercallsofnatureandas such,thesaidSriPylaLaxmanaRao(deceasedNo.3)andSriPylaVenktaRao (deceased No.4) also killed both Smt.Voota Parvathi (deceased No.6) and Smt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(deceasedNo.7)andtherefore,allthevillagerskilled SriPylaLaxmanaRao(deceasedNo.3)andSriPylaVenkataRao(deceasedNo.4) andthatintheearlyhoursofthatnight,thepolicecametothevillageandthe villagersincollusionwiththepoliceinordertoescapetheguiltofkillingSriPyla LaxmanaRao(deceasedNo.3)andSriPylaVenkataRao(deceasedNo.4)foisted this case against the accused taking undue advantage of earlier Sessions case whichwasendedinconvictionimposedagainsthim.

16.

Thelearnedcounselfortheaccusedarguedthatthemotiveforthe

accusedtokillthedeceasedSriPylaLakshmanaRao,SriPylaVenkataRao@ Venkati,SriMettaYerrayya,Smt.OotaParvathiandSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi (DeceasedNos.3to7respectively)asperthechargesheetandinvestigationisthat theyhavedeposedagainsttheaccusedintheearlierSessionsCaseNo.72/2007 and thereby he bore grudge against them and killed them. He argued that

DeceasedNos.3to7arenotatallthewitnesses,whodeposedagainsthiminthe earlierSessionsCaseNo.72/2007andtheburdenheavilyliesontheprosecutionto 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 killingthem.Thelearnedcounselfortheaccusedarguedthattheprosecutionhas notplacedanyscrapofevidenceoranydocumenttoshowthatthedeceasedin thiscasearethepersonswhodeposedagainsttheaccusedintheearliersessions caseandtheprosecutionhasnotfiledthechargesheetorthejudgmentcopyin S.C.No.72/2007,toshowthatthedeceasedpersonswerefiguredasprosecution witnessesintheearliersessionscase.Itisalsoarguedthattheburdenisheavily liesontheprosecutiontoprovethatifsotheprosecutionhasnotatallallegedthe motivethecaseisdifferent.So,itisarguedthattheprosecutionfailedtoprove themotiveonthepartoftheaccusedtokillthedeceased.

17.

Themotive,iffullyestablished,itprovidesfundamentalmaterialto

connectchainofcircumstances.Itaffordsakeponapointtoscantheevidencein thecaseinthatprospectiveandasasatisfactorycircumstancetocorroboration. Whentheevidenceofeyewitnessistrustworthy,themotiveisirrelevant.Motive does not play important role of such importance of cases based upon eye witnesses evidence. Motive isirrelevant inthecasewhere eyewitnesses are present.Ifmotiveisprovedwouldapplyalinkinchainofcircumstances.Evenin the absence of motive there on, however cannot be ground to reject the prosecutioncase. Motiveassumesimportanceonlyincircumstantialevidence,

whichrestsuponcircumstantialcase.

18.

Nodoubt,itisasoundprincipletorememberthateverycriminal

actwasdonewithamotive,butitscorollaryisnotthatnocriminaloffencewould havebeencommitted,iftheprosecutionhasfailedtoprovetheprecisemotiveof theaccusedtocommitit.Whenprosecutionsucceededinshowingthepossibility ofthesomeirefortheaccusedtowardsthevictim,theinabilitytofurtherputon record,themannerinwhichsuchirewouldhaveswelledupinthemindofthe offender to such degree as to impel him to commit the offence, cannot be construedasavitalweaknessoftheprosecution.Itisalmostimpossibilityforthe prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental dispossession of an offendertowardsthepersonwhomheoffended.Themotiveistheemotionwhich impelsamantoaparticularact;suchimpellingcauseneednotnecessarilybe proportionatelygravetothegravecrimes. Therefore,theprosecutionneednot provethemotiveinallconceivablemodesofstrictproof. 19. Evenaspertheprosecutioncase,thereisnomotivefortheaccused

to kill his own children Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.1) and Chy.Metta Manasa(DeceasedNo.2).Buttheprosecutioncouldabletoestablishthemotive onthepartoftheaccusedforkillingtheotherdeceasedSriPylaLakshmanaRao, SriPyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati, SriMetta 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

BoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12),SriGuruvelliMohanaRao(P.W.14)andSri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17). Sri Karukola Bhaskara Rao (P.W.4) and Smt.Pyla Sarojini(P.W.8),whocategoricallydeposedthatinsessionscase,asthewitnesses deposedagainsttheaccused,theaccusedboregrudgeagainstthewitnessesand usedtoproclaimthathewillkillthevillagersandallthewitnesses. SriOota Ganapathi(P.W.9),SriOotaSriramaMurthy(P.W.11),SriBoddepalliPrakasa Rao (P.W.12), Sri Guruvelli Mohana Rao (P.W.14), and Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17),deposedcategoricallyatonevoice,thatinthesessionscasetheyare figuredasprosecutionwitnesseswhichwasendedinconvictionandtherefore, accused bore grudge against them and tried to kill them. They also further deposedthatinthepropertydisputesaroseinbetweentheaccusedandhisfamily members, Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17), Sri Oota Ganapathi (PW.19), Sri KarukolaDharmaRaoandSriOotaSriramulu(P.W.11),whoalsoactedaselders inthepanchayatandtheysupportedtheotherpartyinthesaidpanchayatdispute andassuch,theaccusedboregrudgeagainstthemandusedtosaythathewillkill them.

20.

Regarding the deaths of deceased 1 and 2, who are children of

accused,therearenoeyewitnessesforkillingofthembytheaccusedandthere arenoeyewitnessesalsoforkillingSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(Deceased No.4) and there are also no eye witnesses for killing of Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)andtheresultrestsuponcircumstantialevidence only.WhereasforkillingSriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3),SriMetta

Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) and Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6), the eye witnesseswereexaminedbytheprosecutioninthiscaseandtherefore,motive does not play any important role in the case on hand. By the evidence of prosecutionwitnessesasmentionedabove,theprosecutionwasabletoprovethat theaccusedhasgotsomeiretowardsthesaidprimewitnessesandwhichswelled upinthemindoftheaccusedtosuchdegreeastocommittheoffenceandinthe saidattempt,theaccusedkilledthewivesandbrotherofthesaidprimewitnesses asmentionedintheearlierparaandtherefore,theprosecutionneednotprovethe motiveinallconceivablemodesofstrictproof,andmotiveisirrelevantinthis case since the case rests upon the evidence of eye witnesses as well as the circumstantialevidence.

APPRECIATIONOFEVIDENCE: 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)AIR2003SC976to979in RizanVs.StateofChaatisgarhthroughThechiefSecretary,Governmentof Chaatisgarh,Raipur,Chaatisgarh. (2)1994Crl.L.J.2254at2257(Orissa)in JayalalSahuetc.v.StateofOrissa (3)AIR1994SC1251in JagadishPrasadandothersv.StateofM.P. And BawanKumarv.StateofM.P.

(4)AIR1996SC2868in MulakRajandothersv.StateofHaryana.

(5)1995Crl.L.J.248at254in NiranjanLalv.StateofHaryana. (6)1995Crl.L.J.4214(Raj)in KulvendraSinghv.StateofRajasthan.

(7)AIR1992SC1433in RajinderSinghaliasKadav.StateofPunjab (8)AIR1992SC881in PradumansinhKalubhav.StateofGujarat. (9)2004Crl.L.J.828(SC)in ShingaraSingh,SubaSinghv.StateofHaryana (10)AIR2004SC3962in HarjinderSinghaliasBholaVs.StateofPunjab. (11)AIR2004SC77in RamakantRaiVs.MadanRai. (12)AIR1992SC669in SwinderSinghvs.StateofPunjab (13)AIR1999SC3544in RammialiasRameshwarv.StateofMadhyaPradesh. (14)SAR2011(Criminal)Page82in Rathmam@RathiyanVersusStateofTamilnadu&Anr. (15)SAR2011(Criminal)Page610SCin A.ShankarversusStateofKarnataka. (16)SAR2011(Criminal)Page642SCin JalpatRai&Ors.VersusStateofHaryana (17)SAR2010(Criminal)page24SCin

GajulaSuryaPrakasaRaoV.StateofAndhraPradesh. (18)SAR2010(CriminalPage227(SC)in MusheerKhanaliasBadshanKhanandAnr.V.StateofM.P. (19)2007Crl.L.J.AP1934in GolleJacobandothersVs.StateofA.P. (20)2007SAR(Criminal)SC.229in StateofMadhyaPradeshVs.BacchuDas@BalaramandOthers. (21)2007SAR(Criminal)SC729in StateofMaharastraVs.RajuBhaskarPotphode. (22)1994Crl.L.J.Page848in PanchamYadavandanotherv.StateofU.P.

(23)1996Crl.L.J.Page889in KartikMalhrv.StateofBihar. (24)2005ALTCriminalPage161in GaddapuKannaiahandanotherv.StateofA.P.,rep.byitsPublic Prosecutor,Hyderabad. (25)2003ALTCriminalPage170in Muthuv.StateofKarnataka. (26)2008Crl.L.J.Page1651in BabuRamvs.StateofPunjab. (27)1994Crl.L.J.3602(Bombay)in DeorajDejuSuvarnaandetc.,StateofMaharastra. (28)1994Crl.L.J.1661(Rajasthan)in KhumanSinghandOthersvs.StateofRajasthan. (29)1997Crl.L.J.2654in Ayodhyaandothersv.StateofU.P.andetc.,

22.

Ongleaningandgatheringfromtheabovedecisions,thepositionof

law regarding appreciation of evidence is that the court has to analyze the evidenceandfindoutwhethertheevidenceiscogent,credibleandcourthasto adoptcarefulapproachandifitpassesacidtestofcredibilityitcanbeacted upon.Thecourthastofindoutthewitnessesarereliableandtrustworthyornot? Whenthetestimonyofeyewitnessescloudedwithgravesuspicionandserious doubtsanddiscrepantinmaterialparticulars,isnotpropertoacceptthesame. Theevidencemustbeconclusiveevidencepointingoutonlytotheguiltofthe accusedandtheprosecutionmustprovethecasebeyondallreasonabledoubtby travellingallthewayfrom maybetrue to mustbetrue. Thecourtmust seewhetherthetestimonyofwitnesseswhichiscloudedwithgravesuspicionand isdiscrepantinmaterialparticulars.Theversionofthewitnessescanbedoubted whenitiswhenitiscontradictingtoFIR.WhenthereischangeofversioninFIR, 161Cr.P.C.,Statement,theversionofprosecutionisdoubtful,benefitofdoubt shall be given to the accused. The evidence must be tested for its inherent constituency and the inherent probability of the story, constituency with undisputedfactsthecreditofwitnesses,theirdemeanourinthewitnessbox, theirpowerofgivingevidenceintrustworthymannerandtheprobablevalueof such evidence and whether the same is eligible to be put into scale for a cumulativeevaluationandgravesuspicionhoweverstrongdoesnotreplaceproof. Thematerialomissionsinevidencealsoamountstocontradiction.Thewitnesses whoareessentialtotheunfoldingofthenarrativeonwhichtheprosecutionis basedmustbecalledbytheprosecution,whentheeffectoftheirtestimonyisfor oragainstthecaseforprosecutionandthefailuretoexaminesuchwitnessmight

effectafairtrial. Nonexaminationofmaterialwitnessbenefitshallgotothe accused.Ifthebehaviourofawitnessisgrosslyagainsthumanconductthatitself isstrongcircumstancefordoubtingthestoryprojectedbyhimandifhisbehaviour isunnaturalandagainstnormalhumanconduct,itshouldbeunderstoodthatheis projectingadoubtingstoryandnotcomingforwardwithtruth. Themissions whichamounttocontradictionsismaterial,whicheffectsthetrialandrenderthe testimonyofwitnessliabletobediscreditedandsoalsomaterialimprovements beforethecourt,itcannotbesafetorelyuponsuchevidence.Ifthereisanydoubt with regard to their trustworthyness of witness, the court may discord their evidenceoftherelatedwitness,ifitpassesthemotive/acidtestoftruthfulness. When the direct evidence is not that quality, absence of motive has got significance. Therefore absence of motive is also a circumstance which goes againsttheprosecution.Thepresenceofeyewitnessesdoubtedsincesiteplannot showingtheirplacementatspotandtheirstatementsfoundcontradictoryasto reachingatandplacementatspot. Whenevidenceofwitnessesisfoundonly partlyreliableitcannotbeutilizedforthepurposeofcorroboratinganotherpartly reliablewitness.

23.

The learned counsel for the accused also relied upon several

decisionsinthelistofdecisions. Butthedecisioncopiesarenotsuppliedand therefore,theyarenotreferred. 24. POINTS1and2:

(1)Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeath

ofhissonChy.MettaDivakar(DeceasedNo.2)? (2)Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeath ofhisdaughterChy.MettaManasa(DeceasedNo.1)? A small episode of the prosecution case is that, on 30.11.2010 eveningatabout04.00p.m.,theaccusedwenttoNetajiResidentialSchoolwhere hisminorchildrenviz.,Chy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar(deceased1 and2)werestudyingandhemetSriNakkaTulasiNarayanaDas(P.W.24),whois the Principal of Netaji Residential School and obtained permission from the Principal,sayingthatthereisafunctioninhishouseandhetookhischildrenwith himonhismotorcycle.TheaccusedpurchasedwhiskyfromtheshopofSriBeri SrinivasaRao(P.W.20)andalsopurchasedtwopepsicooldrinkbottles,breadand twinebundlefromtheshopofSriGudlaKrishnaMurthy(P.W.21)andreachedto hishouseat04.50p.m.TheaccusedprovidedsuppertohischildrenChy.Metta Manasa(DeceasedNo.1)andChy.MettaDivakar(DeceasedNo.2)andhegavethe Pepsidrinkmixedwiththewhiskytohischildrenandtheywenttosleep.After confirminghimselfthattheywereindeepsleep,theaccusedbrutallyhackedthe 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 about7.30p.m.,inthemiddleroomofhishouse,wheretheyslept. 25. The another episode of the prosecution case is that, the accused

packedthecutheadsofbothChy.MettaManasa(DeceasedNo.1)andChy.Metta Divakar(DeceasedNo.2)inapolythenebagandkeptinthehouseandwenttothe houseofSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4),andbroughthimto

hishouseandwiththehelpofhim,hetookthepolythenebagcontainingthecut heads on his motor cycle to Lord Someswara temple at Srimukhalingam, by sayingtoSriPyla Venkata Rao @Venkati (Deceased No.4) thatsomeofhis friendsarecomingtothesaidtempletoofferprayerstoLordSomeswaraandthat therearecoconutsinthesaidpolythenebagandhewanttokeepthesameinthe templeinadvanceandplacedthesaidpolythenebagbythesideofsanctumof LordSomeswaraandreturnedback. 26. Thedefencetheoryasmentionedandassuggestedtotheprosecution

witnessesandasstatedintheexaminationundersection313Cr.P.C.,isthatSri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) brought the children from Netaji Residential School after obtainingpermissionfromthePrincipalSriNakkaTulasiNarayanaDas(P.W.24) andtookthechildrenwiththemandthattheyi.e.,SriPylaLakshmanaRaoand SriPylaVenkata Rao@Venkati (Deceased 3 and 4)killedboththechildren Chy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased1and2)forworshipfor gettinghidetreasures(Guptanidulu)forthem.

27.

Inthelightofsaidcontentiontakenbytheaccused,theevidenceof

SriNakkaTulasiNarayanaDas(P.W.24),whoisthePrincipalcumCorrespondent ofNetajiResidentialSchool,ismaterial,sincethechildrenoftheaccused,who aredeceased1and2(Chy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar)werestudying LKG and 3rd class respectively as hostlers in his School. Sri Nakka Tulasi NarayanaDas(P.W.24),categoricallydeposedthaton30.11.2010between04.00

p.m.,to04.30p.m.,theaccusedcametotheirschoolandsoughtpermissionto takebothhischildrenChy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased1and 2)alongwithhim,bysayingthatthereisafunctioninhishouseonthatdate.He furtherdeposedthaton01.12.2010intheearlymorning,henoticedthemissed callsfromthephoneoftheaccusedtohiscellphoneandonverificationofthe same,hemadeaphonecalltotheaccusedandtheaccusedtoldhimthathekilled sevenpersonsandthen,heaskedaboutthechildrenandtheaccusedtoldhimthat healsokilledhisbothchildren,andimmediatelySriNakkaTulasiNarayanaDas (P.W.24)cutoffthephone. SriNakkaTulasiNarayanaDas(P.W.24)further deposedthatat10.00a.m.,hewenttoMettapetavillageandfoundthetrunksof boththechildrenoftheaccusedinthehouseoftheaccusedandalsofoundthecut headsofbothchildreninLordSomeswaratempleandhewasexaminedbySub 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 withwhom and at what timethe children were sent fromthe school,andthatthepolicehasnotseizedanyregisterorhostelregisterorcell phoneofhim.HedeniedthesuggestionthatSriPylaLakshmanaRaoandSriPyla VenkataRao@Venkati(Deceased3and4)cametotheschoolandtookthe childrenwiththem.

28.

ThelearnedcounselfortheaccusedarguedthatSriNakkaTulasi

NarayanaDas(P.W.24)isachancewitnessonlyintroducedbytheprosecution,to makeitsstoryabelievableone,whybecause,accordingtotheevidenceofSri

NakkaTulasiNarayanaDas(P.W.24),on01.12.2010immediatelyafterhenoticed themissedcallinthemobile,hewenttoMettapetavillageatabout10.00a.m.,on 01.12.2010andfoundthetrunksofboththechildreninthehouseoftheaccused, buthewasexaminedonlybytheinvestigationofficeron04.12.2010.SriNakka TulasiNarayanaDas(P.W.24)categoricallydeposedthathealsosawpolicein Mettapetavillageandwhyhekeptquitewithoutinformthepoliceintheprevious dayeveningandtelephoninghimintheearlyhoursbyconfessingthathehad killedhisownchildrenisnotexplainedbytheprosecutionandnoprudentman willkeptquitewithoutinformingthesaidghastlyincidentifanytothepoliceand theinvestigationofficerhasalsonotseizedthetwomobilephonesoftheaccused aswellasthePrincipaloftheSchoolSriNakkaTulasiNarayanaDas(P.W.24), whose161statementalsodiscloseaboutthemobilephonenumbersofhimselfand the accused and investigation officer has not tried to trace out by using the technology,therecordingofmessagesandphoneconversationbetweenthemand therefore,itcanbesaidthatSriNakkaTulasiNarayanaDas(P.W.24)isaplanted witnessbytheprosecution.

29.

Sri Nakka Tulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24) himself stated in his

evidencethathedidnotinformtothepoliceoranyonetillhewasexaminedby policeon04.12.2010aboutthesaidmessagesreceivedfromtheaccusedorthe accusedmakingextrajudicialconfessiontohimbyphoneaboutthekillingofall thedeceasedincludingChy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased1 and2)orhewenttothevillageandnoticedallthedeadbodiesofthedeceased.

Naturally,whenthesituationishavocinthevillage,evenaprincipalwillnotdare enoughtoinformthefactstothepolice,sinceheallowedthechildrenChy.Metta ManasaandChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased1and2)andgavepermissionandsend themwiththeaccused,withoutobtainingthesignaturesinanyregistersanddueto fearofpolice,hemighthaveremovedallthemessagesinhismobilephone,since hewasonlyexaminedafterfourdaysaftertheincident.ItisnotsuggestedtoSri NakkaTulasiNarayanaDas(P.W.24)inthecrossexaminationthatthemobile numberasmentionedbyhiminthe161Cr.P.C.,statementdoesnotbelongtothe accusedorthattheaccusedhasnotmadeanyphonecallfromthecellphoneofthe accusedonthatdate.Thereisnoanimosityforhimtodeposeagainsttheaccused andnothingissuggestedinthecrossexaminationregarding.

30.

The evidence of the prosecution witnesses also gives vent to the

incidentandthat,thetestimonyofthewitnessSmt.KarukolaManikyam(P.W.19) who categorically deposed that on 30.11.2010 after attending the agricultural works,herself,Smt.PylaSarojini,Smt.OotaSarvani,Smt.OotaSarojini,SriKelli Appanna,Smt.SeepanaNirmalaandSmt.OotaSuramma,werereturningtothe village at about 05.30 p.m., or 06.00 p.m., and at that time, the accused was bringinghischildrentohishousefromtheschool. Therefore,theevidenceof Smt.KarukolaManikyam(P.W.19)ventstotheincidentofaccusedbringingthe childrentothehousefromtheschoolaround05.30p.m.,on30.11.2010. The learned counsel for the accused argued that they have not deposed that the childrenwasseenalongwiththeaccusedorthattheysawthechildrenatthattime

andtherefore,thelastseentheoryplacedbytheprosecutioncasedidnothelpto 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

upondecisionreportedin 2009(3)ALT13in RanjyotsinghGurudayalsinghv.StateofMaharastra Itisheldthat ThedefenceoftheAppellantinhisstatementunderSection313isoneof a blunt and complete denial. What happened after the evening of 12th February, 2001, particularly when if at all the Appellant parted with companywiththedeceased,werefactswithinthespecialknowledgeofthe Appellant. ItwasfortheAppellanttoexplainthosefacts,buthechose insteadacompletedenialinhisstatementunderSection313oftheCodeof CriminalProcedure,1973.TheadditionallinkthatconnectstheAppellant with the crime and completes the chain is provided by his blunt and outrightdenialofeveryoneoftheincriminatingcircumstances.Itwasfor theAppellantwhowaslastseeninthecompanyofthedeceasedtoexplain the circumstances in which they parted company. The failure of the Appellanttodosomustweighinthebalanceasafailuretoexplainfacts whichwerewithinhisspecialknowledge.

32.

Tobringhometheguiltoftheaccusedfortheabovetwocharges

levelled against the accused, the prosecution case only rests upon the circumstantialevidence,sincethereisnodirecteyewitnessesinthepresentcase tosaythattheaccusedhaskilledorcuttheheadsofboththechildrenandtookthe cutheadsofthechildrentoLordSomeswaratemple,Srimukhalingamandplaced bythesideofthesanctum. 33.
It is well established rule in criminal jurisprudence that

circumstantialevidencecanbereasonablymadethebasisofanaccused persons conviction, if it is of such a character that the same is wholly inconsistentwithinnocenceoftheaccusedandisconsistentonlywithhis guilt.Theincriminatingcircumstancesforbeingusedagainsttheaccused 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 circumstantialevidence,thewholeendeavorandeffortoftheCourtshould betofindoutwhetherthecrimewascommittedbytheaccusedandthe circumstancesprovedformthemselvesintoacompletechainunerringly pointingtotheguiltoftheaccused. Ifthecircumstancesprovedagainst the accused in a case are consistent either with the innocence of the accusedorwithhisguiltheisentitledtothebenefitofdoubt.

34. Therefore, the principles that the inculpatory fact must be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanationsonanyotherhypothesisthanthatofguiltdoesnotmeanthat extravaganthypothesiswouldbesufficienttosustaintheprinciples,but thatthehypothesissuggestedmustbereasonable.Inacasewherethere isplethoraofcircumstanceswhichareplentyandoverlappingandareso twinedsoastofarmastoutcordwhichropetheaccusedinsuchaway thattheescapefromtheconclusionofthereguiltbecomesdifficult,nay, impossible,thentheconvictionmaybebasedoncircumstantialevidence. Whenacaserestspurelyoncircumstantialevidencesuchevidencemust

satisfy3tests.Firstly,thecircumstancesfromwhichaninferenceofguilt issoughttobeprovedmustbecogentlyandfirmlyestablished.Secondly, the circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances taken cumulativelymustformachainsocompletethatthereisnoescapefrom conclusionthatwithinallhumanprobabilitythecrimewascommittedby theaccusedandnoneelse. Thatistosay,thecircumstancesshouldbe incapableofexplanationonanyreasonablehypothesissavethatofguiltof theaccused(extractedfromtheHonourableApexCourtsJudgments).

35.

Asalreadypointedoutintheaboveparasthatthereisnomotivefor

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 sentencedtodeathorimprisonmentforlife,andalsosincehiswifedied,hefelt resentmentthathiswifeisnomoreandentirevillagersstoodagainsthimtopush himawayfromhisrelativesandfromthevillage,sincetheydidnothelphimin gettingacquittalinthedowrydeathcaseofhiswifeinwhichhewasconvicted. TheevidenceofSriKunaVenkati(P.W.3)whoisnootherthanthefatherinlaw oftheaccusedlendssupportsthesaidcontentionoftheprosecution,sinceSri KunaVenkati (P.W.3) deposedthatafterthedeathofhisdaughter,hehasno connection with the accused after registering the case against the accused for whichheisthedefactocomplainantandcategoricallydeposedthatafterthedeath 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

knowaboutthedeath,hewenttoMettapetavillageandfoundthetrunksofthe childrenoftheaccused.So,thecontentionoftheprosecutionthatafterthedeath orimprisonmentforlifetotheaccused,therewillbenoonetolookafterhis childrenandtherefore,theaccuseddecidedtokillthemcanalsobeaccepted. 36. Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,theaccusedwhilebringingthe

childrenChy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased1and2)onhis motorcycle,ontheway,hepurchasedwhiskyfromtheshopofSriBeriSrinivasa Rao(P.W.20)andalsopurchasedtwopepsicooldrinkbottles,breadandtwine bundlefromtheshopofSriGudlaKrishnaMurthy(P.W.21)andtheaccusedalso purchasedtwoknivesfromthemakeroftheknivesSriPalakaThavudu(P.W.25) andreachedthehouseatabout04.50p.m.,on30.11.2010andatabout07.30p.m., the accused provided supper to his deceased children Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.MettaDivakar(deceased1and2)andaftersupper,hegavepepsidrinkmixed withwhiskytohisbothchildren,whowenttodeepsleepandtheaccusedbrutally hackedtheheadsofbothChy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased1 and2)anddecapitatedtheheadswiththeswordrelentlesslyinthemiddleroomof hishouse,wheretheyslept. 37. SriBeriSrinivasaRao(P.W.20)deposedthattheaccusedcameto

hisshopaboutoneyearbackandpurchasedthreeouncesofOfficersChoice whiskyforRs.5000andhecameonhismotorcycleandlefttotheplaceatabout 04.45p.m.,andafterfourdays,policeexaminedhim.SriGudlaKrishnaMurthy (P.W.21)deposedinevidencethatoneyearback,theaccusedcametohisshopat about05.00p.m.,andpurchasedtwopepsicooldrinks(smallbottles)andbread

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.17andM.O.22fromhim,andfourdaysafterpurchase,theaccusedpaid Rs.3000tohim.Therefore,theevidenceofSriBeriSrinivasaRao(P.W.20),Sri GudlaKrishnaMurthy(P.W.21)andSriPalakaThavudu(P.W.25)establishthe factthattheaccusedmadeallhisbriskpreparationsforcommittingthecrime. 38. Thoughtheprosecutionallegedthattheaccusedgavewhiskymixed

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 evidenceestablishedbytheprosecutiontothateffectsincethemedicalevidence does not support the said allegation. Dr.H.Aruna Kumari, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Narasannapeta (P.W.30) who conducted postmortemexaminationoverthetwosegmentsofthedeadbodyofChy.Metta Manasa (Deceased No.1) on 01.12.2010 and commenced at 10.40 a.m., and observedinEx.P.26postmortemcertificatethatthestomachandcontentscontains Mucose Membrane congested, pale, contains mucus fluid. No peculiar smell. SmallintestinesanditscontentsMucusmembranecongestedandlargeintestines anditscontentscontainsgasandfaecusandthereisnodefiniteopiniongivenby themedicalofficertotheeffectthatthereisanycontentsofalcoholorpepsidrink inthestomachofthedeceasedChy.MettaManasa(DeceasedNo.1). Likewise, 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 examinationat02.00p.m.,alsoobservedinEx.P.35postmortemcertificatethat thestomachispaleandemptyandsmallintestinespale,cutsectionmucuspale andlargeintestinesdistendedpaleandboththemedicalofficersopinedthatthe deathsofdeceasedChy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased1and2) areduetocompletedecapitationofheadsofthemleadingtodeath.Therefore,the medicalevidencedoesnotsupporttheprosecutiontheorythattheaccusedmixed alcoholwithpepsiandgaveittohischildrenChy.MettaManasaandChy.Metta Divakar(Deceased1and2)beforehackingtheirheads. 39. In the present case on hand, it is an admitted fact that both the

childrendiedduetocompletedecapitationoftheirheadsandallthewitnessesand investigationofficersalsodeposedthatboththetrunksofthedeceasedchildren werefoundinthemiddleroomofthehouseoftheaccusedonamatinapoolof bloodasseenfromEx.P.4sceneobservationreportofsceneofoffence,wherethe trunksarelocated.TheevidenceofP.W.1SriDasariRambabu,whoistheVRO, deposedcategoricallythathealongwithVROSriKarakavalasaMadhusudhana Rao(L.W.54notexamined)ofJalumuru,actedasmediatorsattherequestofthe CircleInspectorofPoliceSriP.UmapathiVarma(P.W.46)andtheywenttothe house of the accused bearing Door No.125 and foundthe trunks ofthe dead bodiesofChy.MettaManasaandCh.MettaDivakar(Deceased1and2)inthe middleroominapoolofbloodonmatandnoticedachart(Ex.P.3)inthesaid roomcontaininglettersAIManddiagramofweepingtearsofaperson,whichis

seizedunderthecoverofEx.P.4sceneobservationreportandtheycategorically deposed that the clues team also got photographed and vediographed and the Inspector of Police, Amadalavalasa Sri P.Umapathi Varma (P.W.46) prepared roughsketch(Ex.P.48)andinquestalsoheldoverthetrunksofthedeadbodiesof Chy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakarandExs.P.7andP.8inquestreports werepreparedonwhichtheysignedaspanchayatdars. 40. P.W.1SriDasariRambabu,VRO,Nagirikatakam(P.W.1)andSri

PankuPakeeru,VRO,Yelamanchili(P.W.26)alsodeposedintheirevidencethat aspertheinstructionsoftheInspectorofPolice,AmadalavalasaSriP.Umapathi Varma (P.W.46), they visited Someswara temple and observed the scene and foundtwocutheadsofChy.ManasaandChy.Divakar(Deceased1and2)inan openedpolythenebaglyingbythesideofsanctumofLordSomeswaraandgot prepared Ex.P.12 scene observation report and the Inspector of Police, AmadalavalasaSriP.UmapathiVarma(P.W.46)preparedroughsketch(Ex.P.49) andvideoswerealsotakenbythecluesteam,andInquestreportsunderEx.P.10 andP.11werepreparedintheirpresence. 41. Therefore, admittedly the said deceased Chy.Metta Manasa and

Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased1 and2)diedby complete decapitation oftheir headsandthetrunkswerefoundinthemiddleroomofthehouseoftheaccused where as the heads were found at the sanctum of Lord Someswara temple at Srimukhalingamandtheprosecutionwitnessesalsodeposedofnoticingthesame andadmittedlytheChy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased1and2) diedbydecapitationoftheirheads. Althoughtheprosecutionallegedthatthey

haveseizedEx.P.3chartunderthecoverofEx.P.4sceneobservationreportand although the prosecution alleges that the Sub Divisional Police Officer Sri T.PanasaReddy(P.W.48)on04.12.2010allegedtohaveseizedEx.P.14longnote bookandsend bothofthem tothe handwriting expert SriN.KrishnaPrasad, ScientificOfficer,ForensicScienceLaboratory(P.W.40),whodeposedthatthe handwritingpresentbothonEx.P.3chartandEx.P.14longnotebookcontaining writingsonseveralpagesareoneandthesameandgaveopinionofhimunder Ex.P.40regardingthesame.ThesaidEx.P.3chartEx.P.14longnotebook,does notrevealanythingconnectingtothecrime,exceptitshowsthementalattitudeof the accused that the animosity with the villagers and that he wrote about the characterofthepersonsoftheirvillagersinEx.P.14longnotebook,includingthe saidprimewitnesseswhodeposedagainsthiminthesessionscase. Therefore, Ex.P.3orEx.P.14doesnothelpfultotheprosecutioncaseinanywaytoconnect withtheabovecrime. Thecontentionoftheaccusedisthatafterarrestofthe accused, theSubDivisionalPoliceOfficer,SriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48)has madewritingsinthepolicestationofentireEx.P.14longnotebookandfabricated Ex.P.3bycompellingtheaccusedtowritethesame,alsocannotbeacceptable since there are no incriminating writings connected to the above crime and if reallytheinvestigationofficerwanttofabricatethesaiddocumentsbymakingthe accusedtowritethewritingseitheronEx.P.3chartorEx.P.14longnotebook, theywillseethatthesaidwritingsareconnectedtotheabovecrimeonly,howthe accused has planned the prime witnesses to kill and at least ought to have mentionedthereasonforkillinghisownchildreninEx.P.3chart.Butthereisno

whisperofthesameintherecitalsofEx.P.3.Therefore,Ex.P.3orEx.P.14isno wayhelpfultothecaseoftheprosecution. 42. Asalreadypointedout,theprosecutionrestsuponthecircumstantial

evidenceonlyregardingthedeathsofChy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar (Deceased1and2). Intheearlierpara,itisdiscussed thatSriNakkaTulasi Narayana Das (P.W.24) who is the Principal Netaji Residential School categoricallydeposedthattheaccusedcametohisschoolandtookthechildren 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)alsocategoricallystatedthatshealongwithotherladies,whilereturning fromtheagriculturalworkstothevillage,theaccusedbringinghischildrentohis houseatthattimewhentheyreachedthevillage.Smt.PylaRamanamma(P.W.6) alsodeposedthatwhenherselfandothercoolieswerereturningfromtheland afterdoingcooliworkatabout05.00p.m.,toherhousewhichisonlyintervened bytwohousewiththehouseoftheaccused,shenoticedChy.MettaManasaand Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2) playing in front of the house of the accusedandsheenquiredabouttheirwelfareandthenwashedherhandsandlegs andwentintoherhouse.SriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.w.12)alsodeposedthat on30.11.2010atabout6.00p.m.,whilehewasreturninginauto,hesawboththe childrenoftheaccusedChy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased1 and2)playingintheverandahofthehouseoftheaccused. 43. Besides that, the prosecution also relied upon the extra judicial

confessionmadebytheaccusedinthepresentcase. Smt.PylaSarojini(P.W.8)

andSriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9)deposedintheirevidencethataccusedcameto thehouseofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)andcalledhimbyshoutingto 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 (DeceasedNo.5),andalsokilledherhusbandSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati (DeceasedNo.4).SriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)alsostatedthesameinhis evidence.ThePrincipalSriNakkaTulasiNarayanaDas(P.W.24)alsodeposedin evidencethatonnoticingthemissedcallsfromthecellphoneoftheaccused,he madeaphonecalltotheaccusedandtheaccusedstatedthathehaskilledseven personsandwhenhestatedwhathappedtohischildren,theaccusedstatedtohim thathehaskilledhisbothchildrenandsosaying,theaccusedcutoffthephone.

44.

Besidesthat,itisthecaseoftheprosecutionthat atabout06.00

p.m., on 01.12.2010, the accused went to Panchayat office of Nagirikatakam whereSriDasariRambabu,VROandSriGedelaVijayaBabu,VROofPagodu were present and before them, he also made a confession statement (Ex.P.13) whichisrecordedbythemonwhichbothofthemsignedandtheaccusedalso signedandtheyproducedtheaccusedalongwithconfessionstatementbeforeSub DivisionalPoliceOfficerSriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48)atJalumurupolicestation atabout08.00p.m.,on01.12.2010.Aspertheevidenceofinvestigationofficer SriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48),healsorecordedseparateconfessionstatementof theaccusedat08.30p.m.,to11.00p.m.,on01.12.2010underEx.P.52andseized theknife(M.O.13)andjunglefab(M.O.14)underthecoverofthesame.

45.

Itiswellestablishedlawthattheconfessionmadebytheaccused

before police officer is inadmissible in evidence under section 25 of Indian EvidenceAct.Buthereinthepresentcase,theconfessionwasalsomadebythe accusedbeforeSriDasariRambabu(P.W.1)andSriGedelaVijayaBabu(P.W.2) whoareVROsunderEx.P.13.Besidesthataspointedoutintheearlierpara43, thereisextrajudicialconfessionmadebytheaccused. Now,alittlequestion arises how far the said extra judicial confession evidence is admissible in evidence?

46.

Asperthecontentionoftheaccusedandtheputforwarddefence

theoryassuggestedtotheprosecutionwitnessesandasstatedinthe313Cr.P.C., examinationisthat,SriPylaLakshmanaRaoandSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati (DeceasedN.3and4)havecuttheheadsofthechildrenoftheaccusedandthey broughtthesamefromthePrincipaltogethiddentreasuresonlyandaccusedalso statedin313Cr.P.C.,examinationthatonthatnighton30.11.2010,hewentto2nd showcinematoNarasannapetavillageandsleptatbusstandandcametovillage atabout03.30a.m.,Therefore,thedefencepleaofelibitakenbyaccusedthaton thatnight,whenhereturnedat04.00a.m.,hefoundthecuttrunksofhischildren Chy.ManasaandChy.Divakr(Deceased1and2)andpaintedandonthenextday morning,itwasinformedbythevillagersthatSriPylaLakshmanaRaoandSri PylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.3and4)killedhischildrenforwant ofhiddentreasurersanddecapitatedtheheadsofthechildrenforworshippingthe

godisonlyoninventedstory.Buttheevidenceisclearthattheaccusedhimself broughthischildrenontheearlierdayon30.11.2011. Therefore,itisforthe accusedtoexplainhowthechildrenmetwithhomicidaldeath.

47.

Moreover,inthepresentcase,mostoftheprosecutionindependent

witnessesandthevillagersofMettapetavillage,categoricallystatedthattheysaw theaccusedcommittingtheoffenceofarson,mischief,criminalintimidationand murdersofevenSriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3),Smt.VootaParvathi (DeceasedNo.6)andSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)andtheyalso noticedtheaccusedthroughoutthenightmovinginthevillagebyhidingafter commissionofoffenceandinfurtheranceofoffencebywearingjunglefabdress, armedwithswordandknivesandtheyalsodeposedabouttheexplosionofbombs bytheaccused.Therefore,thetheoryoftheaccusedthathewasnotpresenton thatnight,cannotbeacceptableforanymoment.

48.

Theaccusedinthepresentcasetookapleaoffalseimplicationand

whenheraisethesamedefencehastolaythefoundationtherefor,theaccusedhas notadducedanydefenceevidencetosaythatwhoisthepersonthatinformedto himaboutthedeathofhischildrenChy.ManasaandChy.Divakar(Deceased1and 2)forthefirsttimeandwhoinformedaboutthedeathsoftheotherpersonsalso andhasnotplacedanyevidencethathewasnotinthevillageonthatnightandif reallythecontentionoftheaccusedistobeacceptableforamoment,whyhekept quitewithoutreportingthesametothepoliceoranyothervillagersandvirtually

noevidenceisplacedbytheaccusedabouthistheoryofdefence.Theaccuseddid notexplainthegroundforunnaturaldeathofhischildrenwhenandoutsiderhas noaccesstohishousewherethetrunksofchildrenwerefound. 49. UnderSection106oftheIndianEvidenceAct,theburdenofproving

afactespeciallywithintheknowledge,theburdenisonlyontheaccusedhimself howthecrimewascommittedorhowthedeceasedchildrendied.Itisincumbent upontheaccused,whoisthefatherofboththedeceased,howthepoolofblood wasfoundfromthedeadbodiesofthetrunksofthedeceasedontheflooratthe sceneofoffence,whichisnothingbutthehouseoftheaccused,wheretheaccused alone is residing inthe said house. Inthe present case, there is plethora of circumstanceswhichareplentyandoverlappingandaresotwinedsoastofarma stout cord, which rope the accused in such away that the escape from the conclusionofthereguiltbecomesdifficult,nay,impossible,thentheconviction maybebasedoncircumstantialevidenceonly.Allthecircumstancesthemselves formintocompletechainunerringlypointingtheguiltoftheaccusedonlyand theyleadonlytohypothesisoftheguiltandreasonablyexcludedeverypossibility oftheinnocenceoftheaccused.Theaccuseddidnotexplainthecrucialaspect howthechildrenstrunkswerefoundinhishouse,whenthereisnoaccesstoany one to enter in to his house. Hence, it can be said that it can be taken an additionallinksoastolendassurancetotheprosecutioncase.Hence,thereisno qualmtoholdthataccusedhaskilledhisbothchildrenonlywithanintentionto killthem.Accordingly,points1and2areanswered.

50.

POINTNo.4:

Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontoscreentheevidencefrom legal punishment kept the heads of the deceased children Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased No.2) and Chy.Metta Manasa (DeceasedNo.1)inthesanctumofthetemple? IntheearlierpointNo.1and2itself,itispointedoutthatthecaseis completely rests upon the circumstantial evidence for killing the deceased Chy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased1and2)whoarenoother thanthechildrenoftheaccused.Evenaspertheprosecution,SriPylaVenkata Rao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)helpedtheaccusedintakingthecutheadsina polythenebagonthemotorcycleoftheaccusedtoLordSomeswaratempleand kept the said polythene bag containing the two cut heads of the deceased Chy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakarandplacedthesameatthesanctumof LordSomeswara. ThesaidSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4) also killed by the accused later and therefore, there is no evidence from the prosecutiontosaythataccusedhastakenthesaidcutheadsofChy.MettaManasa andChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased1and2)toLordSomeswaratempleandkept them by the side of the sanctum of Lord Someswara. Therefore, there is no evidenceplacedbytheprosecutionthattheaccusedhasscreenedtheevidenceby placingthecutheadsofChy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakar(Deceased1 and2)atthesanctumofLordSomeswaratemple. Therefore,theprosecution failedtoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedfortheoffencepunishableundersection 201oftheIndianPenalCodebeyondallreasonabledoubt.

51.

POINTNo.3:

Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeathof SriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)? Tosubstantiatetheaccusationagainsttheaccusedandinorderto bring home the guilt of the accused for the above charge levelled against the accused,forkillingSriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3),theprosecution mainlyreliedupontheevidenceofSmt.PylaRamanamma(P.W.6),whoisthe wifeofthedeceasedSriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)andKum.Pyla Anuradha (P.W.7), who is the unmarried daughter of the deceased Sri Pyla LakshmanaRao,whoarealsosaidtohavebeentheallegedeyewitnessestothe 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.24inquestreportandtheevidenceofSubInspectorofPolice,Narasannapeta SriN.TirupathiRao(P.W.41)tospeakaboutconductinginquestandalsoscene observationreportandtospeakaboutEx.P.41roughsketchpreparedbyhimand the evidence of investigation officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48). The prosecutionalsowantstorelyupontheevidenceofSriDasariRambabu(P.W.1) andSriGedelaVijayaBabu(P.W.2),whoareVROstospeakaboutthecontents ofEx.P.5sceneobservationreportcoupledwiththeevidenceofSubInspectorof PoliceSriN.TirupathiRao(P.W.41)ofNarasannapeta. Dr.T.AnilKumar,Civil AssistantSurgeon,CommunityHealthCentre,Tekkali(P.W.37)isexaminedby the prosecutiontospeak aboutthecontentsofEx.P.37 postmortem certificate,

who conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased Sri Pyla LakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3).

52.

P.W.6Smt.PylaRamanamma,whoisthewifeofthedeceasedSri

PylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3),deposedthatthehouseoftheaccusedand theirhouseareintervenedbytwohouses.Shedeposedthatherself,herhusband SriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)andherdaughterKum.PylaAnuradha (P.W.8)tooktheirsupperinbetween07.00p.m.,to08.00p.m.,on30.11.2010and sheiscleaningutensilsandsheappliedointmenttoherhusbandasheisfeeling pains.Bythattime,theaccusedcameandaskedheraboutherhusbandbycalling herassister.Then,shetoldhimthatherhusbandgotbackpainandtakingrestin thehouseandeventhoughherhusbandalsorepliedthathewillnotcomefrom insideandthen,theaccusedforciblyenteredintoherhouseandtookherhusband withhim. Bythatherselfandherdaughtersuspectedandwatchedtheaccused fromnearbythehouseofSriSeepanaKesavabyhidingbehindthewall.Butthey deposedinthecrossexaminationthattheywitnessedtheincidentfromthehouse of Sri Karukola Simhachalam. P.W.6 Smt.Pyla Ramanamma categorically deposedthattheaccusedhackedherhusbandSriPylaLakshmanaRao(Deceased No.3)withaknifeatthebackyardsiteofhouseofaccusedandmadecutinjuryto theneckofherhusbandandherhusbandfelldownandlater,theaccusedalso coveredthebodyofherhusbandwithcoconutleaves.Outoffear,theyhidedin theirhouse. Shefurtherdeposedthatatalaterpointoftime,theaccusedalso wenttothehouseofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12),whosehouseispresent

threehousesawayfromherhouseandcalledhimoutandthreatenedhimtokill saying that he already killed her husband Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3)inthebackyardandalsokilledSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)andhis bothchildrenandalsokilledSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4). ShedeposedthatM.O.15istheknifewithwhichweapontheaccusedkilledher husbandandM.O.16isthepuncheofherhusband.P.W.6Smt.PylaRamanamma deposedinthecrossexamination,thattheaccusedtookherhusbandforciblyby 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 accusedtakingawayherhusbandwithhim.Shedeposedinthecrossexamination 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) deposedinhercrossexaminationthatherself,Kum.PylaAnuradha(P.W.7),Sri MamidiDharmaRao(L.W.9,notexamined)andSriDhavalaRamu(L.W.10,not examined)alsonoticedtheaccusedwhilehewastakingawayherhusbandtohis house.ThelearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorhasnotexaminedthemforthe reasonsbestknowntohimandhegaveuptheevidenceofhesaidwitnesses. 53. Aspertheprosecutioncase,theSubDivisionalPoliceOfficer,Sri

T.PanasaReddy(P.W.48)whoisinvestigationofficerinthiscasehasinstructed alltheSubInspectorsofPoliceandInspectorofPolice,Amadalavalasatocometo Mettapeta village and he also request the Mandal Revenue Officers to depute VROs,ofalltheneighbouringvillageswhoattendedtoMettapetavillageby07.00

a.m.,itselfandlater,heinstructed,SriN.ThirupathiRao,SubInspectorofPolice, Narasannapeta(P.W.41)whohaschosenSriDasariRambabu,VRO(P.W.1)and SriGedelaVijayaBabu(P.W.2)toobservethesceneofoffence.BothP.Ws.1and 2andtheSubInspectorofPoliceSriN.ThirupathiRao(P.W.41)categorically deposed intheir evidence that they went tothe sceneofoffencewhichis the backyardsiteoftheaccusedandtheetheyfoundthedeadbodyofthedeceasedSri PylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3).Theyobservedthesceneofoffenceunder thecoverofEx.P.5sceneobservationreportandseizedthecontrolledearthand bloodstainedearthunderthecoverofEx.P.5sceneobservationreport.Theclues teamalsogotphotographedandvideographedthesceneandtheSubInspectorof PoliceSriN.ThirupathiRao(P.W.41)alsopreparedEx.P.41roughsketchandhe also deposed that M.O.8 towel was seized under the cover of Ex.P.5 scene observationreport. 54. Like wise, Sri N.Thirupathi Rao, Sub Inspector of Police,

Narasannapeta(P.W.41)wasinstructedbytheSubDivisionalPoliceOfficerSri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48) to conduct inquest over the dead body ofSriPyla LakshmanaRaoandhehaschosenSriBasavaYogeswaraRao(P.W.28),whois the ExSarpanch of Srimukhalingam, who deposed that himself along with Kaliapadi, cooptex member (not examined) went to the scene of offence and foundthedeadbodyofthedeceasedSriPylaLakshmanaRao(deceasedNo.3)in thebackyardsiteofthehouseoftheaccusedandtheinquestwasheldoverthe 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)andinquestreportEx.P.24wasprepared. 55. Dr.T.Anil Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health

Centre,Tekkali(P.W.37)conductedpostmortemexaminationoverthedeadbody ofthedeceasedSriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)andhecommencedthe postmortem examination at about 11.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010 and noted the externalandinternalinjuriesinEx.P.24postmortemcertificateissuedbyhimand opined that the death is due to cardio respiratory arrest and due to massive hemorrhage. Inthecrossexamination,thedefencecounselhasnotdisputedthe causeforthedeathofthedeceasedSriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)and nosuggestionismaderegardingthesame. 56. Themainpointurgedbythelearnedcounselfortheaccusedisthat,

theprosecutionexaminedonlySmt.PylaRamanammaandKum.PylaAnuradha (P.Ws.6and7)whoarethefamilymembersofthedeceased,whoareallegedeye witnessesandarguedthattheywereplantedforthepurposeofthecaseandtheir evidence cannot be believed and they observing the accused killing Sri Pyla LakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)fromthehouseofSriSeepanaKesava,whenit isdarkatthattimecannotbebelievedandifreallytheyobservethesame,they oughttohaveraisedcriesandmakealarmsandSmt.PylaRamanammadeposedin 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 examinationthat,onthenextdayoftheincident,shewasexaminedbythepolice 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

(DeceasedNo.3),deposedinthecrossexaminationthatonthenextdaymorning atabout06.00am.,only,theywenttothehouseoftheaccusedandsawthedead bodyofSriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)andatthattime,nooneone presentandtheymadeaphonecalltotheirmaternaluncleandthepolicecameto 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)deposedthatM.O.15istheknifeusedbytheaccusedtokill herhusband,whereasKum.PylaAnuradha(P.W.7)deposedthatM.O.17isthe knifewithwhichtheaccusedkilledherfather. 57. Smt.PylaRamanamma(P.W.6)deposedcategoricallythatthehouse

of the accused and their house are intervened by two houses. But Kum.Pyla Anuradha(P.W.7)statedinhercrossexaminationthatthehouseoftheaccusedis presentinadifferentstreetwhereastheirhouseispresentinanotherstreet.Their houseispresentinsouthernstreetofthestreetinwhichtheaccusedhouseis situated. ThehouseofSriKarukolaSimhachalamisinlockedcondition. She categoricallystatedinthecrossexaminationthattheaccusedtookherfatherSri PylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)tohishouseandatfirsttheaccusedentered intoherhouseandherfatherwentonlythroughthelaneintothebackyardsiteof theaccusedandthereisnoelectricityinthehouseoftheaccusedatthattimeand theyhaveseenfromthesideofthehouseofSriKarukolaSimhachalamaboutthe incident, but they did not go to the back side of the house of Sri Karukola Simhachalamandshedeniedsuggestionthatshedidnotstatetothepolicethat

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

InspectorofPolice,NarasannapetaSriN.ThirupathiRao,(P.W.41),andasperthe entiretotalroughsketchpreparedbySriT.PanasaReddy,whoistheinvestigation officer(P.W.48)underEx.P.51,SriKarukolaSimhachalamhouseispresentonly bythesideofthehouseoftheaccusedandthehouseoftheaccusedandSri Karukola Simhachalam house are intervened by the site of the accused. Therefore, there is every possibility for watching the accused killing Sri Pyla LakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)inthebackyardsiteofthehouseoftheaccused, fromthehouseofSriKarukolaSimhachalam. 59. As already pointed out in points 1 and 2 in para 43 about extra

judicialconfessionmadebytheaccusedbeforethewitnesses,whodeposedalso thattheaccusedstatedbeforethemthathehasalreadykilledSriPylaLakshmana Rao(DeceasedNo.3)andotherdeceasedpersons. Therefore,theextrajudicial 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,insuchcircumstances,theextrajudicialconfessionmadeby theaccusedhasgotmuchevidentiaryvalueandmoreover,thereisnothingon recordtosuggestthatSmt.PylaRamanammaandKum.PylaAnuradha(P.Ws.6 and7)areunreliableandmoreovertheirevidenceisveryclean,emphaticand 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 contradictionsintheevidenceofSmt.PylaRamanammaandKum.PylaAnuradha (P.Ws.6and7).Evenminordiscrepanciesontrivialmattersnottouchingthecore ofthecaseifpresent,theycannotbeweighedmuch. 60. ThelearnedcounselfortheaccusedmainlyarguedthatSmt.Pyla

RamanammaandKum.PylaAnuradha(P.Ws.6and7)arethewifeanddaughterof thedeceasedSriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)andrelatedwitnessesand theirevidencecannotbeweighedmuchortakencredenceofthesame. Atthis juncture,thelearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorrelieduponadecisionreported 2011ACR370in StateofU.P.v.Nareshandothers. WhereinitisheldinPara24that Amererelationshipcannotbeafactortoaffectcredibilityofawitness. Evidence of a witness cannot bediscarded solely on the ground ofhis relationshipwiththevictimoftheoffence.Theplearelatingtorelatives evidenceremainswithoutanysubstanceincasetheevidencehascredence anditcanbereliedupon.Insuchacasethedefencehastolayfoundation if plea of false implication is made and the Court has to analyse the evidenceofrelatedwitnessescarefullytofindoutwhetheritiscogentand 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,theirevidencecannotbediscardedonthegroundthattheyarerelatedto thedeceasedSriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3).Besidestheirevidence, thereisalsosupportingextrajudicialconfessionmadebytheaccusedbeforethe witnesses as pointed in para 43 and also made confession before Sri Dasari RambabuandSriGedelaVijayaBabu,VROs(P.Ws.1and2regardingthesame.

Whentheevidenceofeyewitnessesistrustworthyandbelievedbythecourt,the motiveisirrelevant.Moreover,inthepresentcase,themotiveisestablishedby the prosecution as discussed in the earlier paras. So, the motive provides fundamentalmaterialtoconnectchainofcircumstances. Itaffordsakepona pointtoscantheevidenceinthecase,inthatprospectiveandasasatisfactory circumstancesofcorroboration. 62. Merely because the witnesses are closely related to the deceased

person,theirtestimoniescannotbediscarded.Arelationwouldnotconcealactual culpritandmakeagainstinnocentperson.Courthastoseewhethertheevidence ofthesaidwitnessesiscogentandcredibleevidenceandtheirevidencetobe examinedwithcareandcautionandsuchwitnesseswoulddefinitelynotshield realculpritsandnamesomebodyelsebecauseofenmity.Eventheevidenceofthe eyewitnesses,cannotbediscardediftheirnamesdonotfiguredintheinquest report.Moreover,inthepresentcase,thewitnessesSmt.PylaRamanammaand Kum.PylaAnuradha(P.Ws.6and7)wereputthroughgruelingcrossexamination, but nothing is elicited to discard their testimonies. When there are marginal variationsinthestatementsofthewitnesses,itcannotbedubbedasimprovements assomemaybeelaborationsofstatementsmadebywitnessesearlier.Ifpleaof falseimplicationasraised,itisfortheaccusedtolaydownfoundationtherefor. Aspointedout,theaccusedhasnotplacedanyevidencetoprobabaliseofhis defenceofelbi.TheevidenceofSmt.PylaRamanammaandKum.PylaAnuradha (P.Ws.6and7)whoseevidencetruthfullydescribedeventsandtheevidencevent totheincidentwhichtheyhaveseenwithoutanyexaggeration.Therefore,their

evidencecannotbediscardedonthegroundthatbothareinterestedwitnessesor relatedwitnesses. 63. Forthereasonsdiscussedabove,Ihavenoqualmtoholdthatthe

accusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeathofSriPylaLakshmanaRao (DeceasedNo.3).Oncarefullyponderingoftheevidencediscussedsupra,thereis nodubiousnessorqualmtoholdthattheprosecutionestablishedtheguiltofthe accusedfortheoffencepunishableundersection302oftheIndianPenalCode beyondallreasonabledoubtforkillingofSriPylaLakshmanaRao(Deceased No.3). 64. POINTNo.11:

Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontoscreentheevidencefrom legalpunishmentkeptthedeadbodiesofSriPylaLakshmanaRao (Deceased No.3) and Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) by coveringthedeadbodieswithcoconutleaves? 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 hackingSriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3),heplacedcoconutleavesover thedeadbodythereitself.Therefore,hehasnotmovedthedeadbodyandhided 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 LakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3),onlydeposedtotheextentthataccusedhacked her husband in the backyard site and on noticing herself and her daughter, frightenedbywitnessingthesameandhidedinthehousebynotcomingoutside fromthesame. Therefore,theprosecutionhasfailedtoprovetheguiltofthe

accusedfortheoffencepunishableundersection201oftheIndianPenalCode beyondallreasonabledoubt. 65. Asperthechargesheetallegations,afterkillingSriMettaYerrayya

(Deceased No.5) who is the paternal uncle of the accused, the accused also draggedthedeadbodyofthedeceasedSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)and keptitbythesideofSriPylaLakshmanaRaos(DeceasedNo.3)deadbodyand boththedeadbodiesarecoveredwithcoconutleavestoscreentheevidence.But asperthelegalevidenceletinbytheprosecutionbeforethiscourt,theaccused hacked Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) by taking into his house and Sri MettaYerrayyacameoutfromthehousewithinjuryovertheneckcoveredwitha towelandcameuptohishouseandfelldownandlatertheevidencealsocamein thiscasethat,oneofthevillagersmadeaphonecallto108ambulanceandthe108 ambulance came and Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) was shifted to the government hospital, Narasannapeta and there, he died and the postmortem examinationandinquestwasheldonlyatthegovernmenthospital,Narasannapeta. Therefore,theoryputforwardbythepoliceattheearliestpointoftimethatthe accusedafterkillingthedeceasedSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5),thedead bodywasdraggedandkeptbythesideofthedeadbodyofSriPylaLakshmana Rao(DeceasedNo.3)andcoveredboththedeadbodieswithcoconutleavesisnot thecaseoftheprosecutionaspertheevidenceplacedbytheprosecution and therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonabledoubtfortheoffencepunishableundersection201oftheIndianPenal Codewithwhichhewaschargedforscreeningtheevidencetocoverthedead

bodiesofbothSriPylaLakshmanaRaoandSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.3 and5respectively)withcoconutleavesasallegedbytheprosecution. Hence, prosecutionfailedtoprovetheabovechargeofSection201ofIndianPenalCode againsttheaccused. 66. POINTNo.5:

Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeathof SriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)? To prove the above charge levelled against the accused, the prosecutionmainlyreliedupontheevidenceofSmt.PylaSarojini(P.W.8)whois thewifeofSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)andSriYevvari PrakasaRao(P.W.16)independentwitnessandalsotheevidenceofSriDasari Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) who along with Talayari Talasamudram Raja Rao (L.W.56notexamined)actedasamediatortospeakaboutthecontentsofscene observation report Ex.P.2 and seizureofM.Os.1to6 bythe SubInspector 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 preparesceneobservationreportandtoheldinquestoverthedeadbodyofthe deceasedandtosaythattheyhavealsoconductedinquestoverthedeadbodyof thedeceasedSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)andpreparationof Ex.P.6 inquest report. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of Dr.N.Madhavi,CivilAssistantSurgeon,Narasannapeta(P.W.31)tospeakabout thecontentsofEx.P.28postmortemcertificateissuedbyher. Besidesthat,the prosecution also want to rely upon the extra judicial confession made by the

accusedandtheconfessiongivenbytheaccusedtoSriDasariRambabuandSri GedelaVijayaBabu,VROs(P.Ws.1and2)underEx.P.13. 67. Smt.Pyla Sarojini (P.W.8), who is the wife of deceased Sri Pyla

VenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)deposedinherevidencethatherselfand herhusbandsleptinfrontofthehouseofverandahofherinlawshousewhichis presentinfrontoftheirhouseandtheaccusedcameonmotorcycleandwokeup herhusbandatabout10.00p.m.,on30.11.2010andwhenherhusbandrefusedto comealongwithhim,accusedtookawayherhusbandonhismotorcycleandher motherinlawSmt.PylaChinnammadu(notexamined)questionedtheaccusedand theyrepliedthattheywilltakesomealcoholandcomeback.Butherhusbanddid notreturnedback.ShefurtherdeposedthatthehouseofSriBoddepallaiPrakasa Rao(P.W.12)ispresentinoppositerowinfrontofthehouseofherinlawshouse andtheaccusedinthatnightbywearingarmydressandcarryingabaginhis hand,cametothehouseofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)challenginghim tocomeoutfromthehouseandalsostatedthathealreadykilledbothhischildren Chy.Metta Manasa and Chy.Metta Divakar (Deceased 1 and 2), Sri Pyla LakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)andalsokilledherhusbandSriPylaVenkata Rao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)inthefieldsandwillnotcareanyoneandthen onlyshecametoknowthatherhusbandwaskilled.Then,herselfandhermother inlaw Smt.Chinnammadu (not examined) and fatherinlaw Sri Neelayya (not examined)wentinsearchofherhusbandinthefieldsandfoundthedeadbodyof Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (Deceased No.4) in the field of Sri Metta VenkataRaoatabout3.30or4.00a.m.,on01.12.2010andatabout07.15a.m.,

police came to the village. As per the evidence Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1),M.O.3fullhandsshirtoftheaccusedandM.O.5plasticricebagand M.O.14junglefabbelongingtotheaccusedandredtowelM.O.18andM.O.6is thetinwithcottonandalsonoticedapairofchapelsnearthedeadbodyofthe deceasedSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)wasseized.Smt.Pyla Sarojini(PW.8)alsodeposedthatshedonotknowtowhomtheybelongandit does not belong to her husband and it is M.O.1 chappals. The evidence of Smt.PylaSaroji(P.W.8)isnotmuchhelpfultothecaseoftheprosecutionsince sheisnotaneyewitnesstotheincident.Theevidenceisonlyhelpfultosaythat theaccusedtookherhusbandalongwithhimandaccusedmadeaextrajudicial confessionbeforeSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12),herselfandothers. 68. The evidence of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) vents to the

incidentwhovividlystatedinhisevidencethaton30.11.2010atabout10.00p.m., whenhimselfandhisotherfamilymemberswerepresentinthehouse,thepetdog barkedandatwhichtime,heopenedthewindowtoknowthesameandheard criesofthevillagersatadistanceandalsoheardthecriesoftheaccusedandSri PylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4). Hedeposedthathishouseis locatedseparatelyfromthevillageandheonlyheardthevoiceoftheaccusedand SriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)andhecouldnotobservethem andheheardSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)sayingthatnotto killhimandheheardthevoiceoftheaccusedthathewillnotleavehim. He categoricallydeposedthatheheardthevoiceofSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati (Deceased No.4) that AMMO CHACHIPOYANU and later he do not know

whathappened.Therefore,theevidenceofSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)is onlyhelpfultosaythatheheardthevoiceofbothaccusedandSriPylaVenkata Rao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)atthattimeofkillingandhishouseislocated separatelyfromthevillageneartothesaidfieldofSriMettaVenkataRao@ VenkatifieldwherethedeceasedSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(Deceased No.4)wasfounddead,asseenfromEx.P.42roughsketch. 69. TheevidenceofmediatorSriDasariRambabu,VRO(P.W.1)and

the evidence of Sub Inspector of Police Sri S.Prakasa Rao, Narasannapeta (P.W.42)isonlyhelpfultothecasetosaythattheyobservedthesceneofoffence, whichisthefieldofSriMettaVenkataRao,whichisalonelyplaceandseized onepairofchappalsM.O.1,M.O.2readcolourtowel,M.O.3 fullhandsshirt, M.O.4lungi,M.O.5plasticbagandM.O.6plastictinwithcottonunderthecover ofEx.P.2sceneobservationreportandtheSubInspectorofPoliceSriS.Prakasa Rao(P.W.42)preparedEx.P.42roughsketchatabout08.30a.m.,on01.12.2010 andlaterinquestwasheldoverthedeadbodyofSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati (Deceased No.4) in the presence of Panchayatdars Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1),SriChintadaMadhavaRao,SriHanumanthuLaxmanaRaoandSmt.Pyla Sridevi and also in the presence of blood relations of the deceased Sri Pyla VenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)andinquestreportEx.P.6wasprepared. 70. Besidesthesaidevidence,theprosecutionalsowanttorelayupon

theevidenceofextrajudicialconfessionmadebytheaccusedbeforethewitnesses as mentioned in para 35 that he also killed Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @ Venkati (DeceasedNo.4)inthefields.Hereinthepresentcase,SriYevvariPrakasaRao

(P.W.16)isnotarelativetothedeceasedadmittedly. Hecategoricallydeposed abouttheconversationbetweenthedeceasedSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati (Deceased No.4) and the accused while committing the offence, the deceased requestingtheaccusednottokillhimandatthetimeofkilling,thedeceased raisedcriesasAMMOCHACHIPOYANU.Theevidentiaryvalueoftheextra judicialconfessionmadebytheaccusedisdiscussedinthebelowparasandthis charge purely rests upon the circumstantial evidence. So, in the said circumstances,themotiveplaysveryimportantrolewhentheevidenceisrests uponthecircumstantialevidence.Thepersonstowhomtheallegedextrajudicial confessionmadearethepersonswhoaresaidtohaveunbiasedandtheirevidence iscredibleandthisisacasewherethemotiveisfullyestablishedwhichaffordsa 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 contradictionsintheevidenceofSmt.PylaSarojini(P.W.8)orSriYevvariPrakasa Rao(P.W.16),ofcoursetherearesomeomissions. So,onreadingtheirentire evidence, it appears that there is ring of truth in the prosecution case. The evidenceofextrajudicialconfessionisveryclean,emphaticandreliable. 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 Prosecutorreliedupondecisionreportedin 2011CRI.L.J.5013in BisawanV.State.

WhereinitisheldatPara27that While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whethertheevidencefthewitnessreadasawholeappearstohavearing oftruth. Oncethatimpressionisformed,itisundoubtedlynecessaryfor theCourttoscrutinizetheevidencemoreparticularlykeepinginviewthe deficiencies,drawbacksandinfirmitiespointedoutintheevidenceasa wholeandevaluatethemtofindoutwhetheritisagainstthegeneraltenor oftheevidencegivenbythewitnessandwhethertheearlierevaluationof the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepanciesontrivialmattersnottouchingthecoreofthecase,hyper technicalapproachbytakingsentencestornoutofcontexthereorthere fromtheevidence,attachingimportancetosometechnicalerrorcommitted bytheInvestigatingOfficernotgoingtotherootofthematterwouldnot ordinarilypermitrejectionoftheevidenceasawhole.IftheCourtbefore whomthewitnessgivesevidencehadtheopportunitytoformtheopinion about the general tenor ofevidence given bythewitness, theappellate Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciationofevidencebythetrialCourtandunlesstherearereasons weightyandformidableitwouldnotbepropertorejecttheevidenceonthe groundofminorvariationsorinfirmitiesinthematteroftrivialdetails. Evenhonestandtruthfulwitnessesmaydifferinsomedetailsunrelatedto the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Crossexamination is an unequal duelbetweenarusticandrefinedlawyer.

The learned counsel for the accused also relied upon a decision reportedin 1987CRI.L.J.1644in NirmalSinghv.StateofHimachalPradesh. Itisobservedinpara10that Beforeweadverttotheevidencewewouldliketopointoutthatincase wheretheprosecutionendeavourstointroduceatthetrialanewversionor aversionwhichismateriallydifferentfromtheoriginal,asnarratedinthe firstinformationreport,theCourt,asaruleofprudence,isrequiredtoact with utmost care and circumspection in scrutinizing thee evidence and normallyitshouldbereluctanttoaccepttheprosecutionevidenceasitsface valueunlessasatisfactoryandcogentexplanationisgivenforthedeviations andimprovementsmade.Thisruleofprudencewascompletelyignoredby

thetrialCourtintheinstantcase,thoughitwasfullyapplicable.

72.

Ontheotherhand,thelearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorrelied

upondecisionreportedin (2011)ACR370SCin StateofU.P.versusNareshandothers. Itisheldatpara25that Exaggerationspersedonotrendertheevidencebrittle.Butitcanbeone ofthefactorstotestcredibilityoftheprosecutionversion,whentheentire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility. Therefore,meremarginalvariationsinthestatementsofa witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborationsofthestatementmadebythewitnessearlier.

73.

So, when there are no contradictions in the evidence of the

statementsofthewitnessesandwhentherearesomeomissionsalthoughpresent, itcouldnotbepropertorejecttheirevidenceandthestatementscanberelied upon. Apart from the extra judicial confession made by the accused to the witnessesasmentionedinpara43,thereislotofothercorroborativematerialon recordwhichestablishtheguiltoftheaccused.Aspointedout,theextrajudicial confessionstatementsoftheevidenceisalsocorroboratedbytheothermaterialon record. Atthisjuncture,thelearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorreliedupona decisionreportedin 2009ACJSC414in ShivakarampayaswamiTewariV.StateofMaharasthtra Whereinitisheldinpara4that 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 confessionjustlikeanyotherevidencedependsonveracityofthewitness towhomitismade.ItisnotinvariablethattheCourtshouldnotaccept the evidence if actual words as claimed to have been spoken are not reproducedwhenthesubstanceisgiven.Itwilldependoncircumstanceof thecase,ifsubstanceitselfissufficienttoproveculpabilityandthereisno ambiguity about such substance and not actual words he been stated. Humanmindisnotarecorderwhichrecordswhathasbeenspokenword byword. Thewitnessshouldbeabletosayasnearlyaspossibleactual wordsspokenbytheaccused.Thatwouldruleoutpossibilityoferroneous interpretationofanyambitiousstatement. Ifwordbywordrepetitionof statementofthecaseisinsistedmoreoftenthannotevidentiaryvalueof extrajudicialconfessionhasthrownoutasunreliableandnotuseful.That cannotbearequirement. Therecanbesomepersonswhohaveagood memoryandmaybeabletospeakexactwordsandtheremayhemanywho are possessed of normal memory and so. It is for the Court to judge credibilityofthewitnessscapacityandtheretodecidewhetherhisorher evidencehastobeacceptedornot. IfCourtbewitnessesbeforewhom confession is made andissatisfied that confession voluntary basing on such evidence, conviction can be founded. Such confession should be clear,specificandunambiguous.

74.

Therefore,theevidenceisenoughtoindoctrinatethattheaccused

withanintentiontokillthedeceasedSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(Deceased No.4)duetoprioranimosity,sinceSmt.PylaSarojini(P.W.8)whoisthewifeof thedeceasedasperevidence,sheistheinquestdarforthedeathofthewifeofthe deceased in the dowry death case, in which case the accused faced trial and convicted.Therefore,thereisnodubiousnessorqualmtoholdthattheaccused killedthedeceasedSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)withan intentiontokillhimonlyandassuch,theprosecutioncouldabletoprovetheguilt oftheaccusedfortheabovechargeforkillingthedeceasedSriPylaVenkataRao @ Venkati (DeceasedNo.4) punishableundersection 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code.

75.

POINTNo.6:

Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontoscreentheevidencefrom legal punishment kept the dead body of Sri Pyla Venkata Rao @Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)inthebushes? As per the case of the prosecution, the accused killed Sri Pyla VenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)inthefieldofSriMettaVenkataRao, whichisaremoteareaintheoutskirtsofthevillage.Thereisnoeyewitnessesto thesaidkillingofthedeceasedSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4). Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,afterkillingthedeceasedSriPylaVenkataRao @Venkati(DeceasedNo.4),theaccusedhasmovedthedeadbodyintonearby busheswithanintentionofscreeningthesaidevidencefromlegalpunishment. Butthereisnocogentevidenceplacedbytheprosecutiontothateffectandas such,theprosecutionfailedtoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedpunishableunder Section201oftheIndianPenalCodebeyondallreasonabledoubt.

76.

POINTNo.10:

Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeathof SriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)? Inordertosubstantiatetheaccusationagainsttheaccusedforthe abovecharge,theprosecutionreliedupontheevidenceofSriKarukolaBhaskara Rao(P.W.4),Smt.PylaRamanamma(P.W.6),Kum.PylaAnuradha(P.W.7),Sri OotaGanapathi(P.W.9),Smt.OotaMutyalamma(P.W.18)andtheevidenceof mediatorSriGedelaVijayaBabu,VRO(P.w.2)coupledwiththeevidenceofSub

Inspector of Police, Laveru Sri S.Satyanarayana (P.W.43) to speak about the contentsofEx.P.17sceneobservationreportandaboutthecontentsofEx.P.18 inquestreport. Theprosecutionalsoreliedupontheevidenceofmedialofficer Dr.H.Aruna Kumari, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Narasannapeta (P.W.30), to speak about the contents of opinion regarding the deathasmentionedinEx.P.27postmortemcertificate,besidestheotherevidence ofinvestigationofficerSriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48),andtheprosecutionalso relied upon the extra judicial confession made before Smt.Pyla Ramanamma (P.W.6),SriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9),SriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(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 DivisionalPoliceOfficerSriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48)underEx.P.52.

77.

ThedeceasedSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)isnootherthan

thepaternaluncleoftheaccused.P.W.4SriKarukolaBhaskaraRaocategorically deposedinhisevidencethatthedeceasedSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5) chastised the accused for hurling bombs and moving armed with knives and creatingterrorinthemindsofthepublicandmovingontheroads. Then,the accusedtookthesaidSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)alonghimtohishouse andthatheobservedthesamefromthepialofhishouseandtheaccusedwentinto hishousealongwithSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)andSriMettaYerrayya havingreceivedbleedinginjuries,cameoutfromthebackyardofthehouseofthe accusedtohishouseandfelldownathispialandhefrightenedonseeingthesame

andimmediatelyhewentintohishouse. HishouseandSriMettaYerrayyas houseareseparatedbythreehouses. Smt.PylaRamanamma(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 questioningtheaccusedforlittingfiretohayheap,cattleshedandcart,atwhich timeSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)cameandquestionedtheaccusedand theaccusedrepliedthathelitfiretothehayheapsandthatchedshed,buthedid notopenthewatertapandwhenSriMettaYerrayyainterfered,hetookhiminto thehouseandhackedwithaknifeandonseeingthat,theyfrightenedandreturned backtotheirhouse. SriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9)alsodeposedthesameversion and further deposed that Smt.Oota Mutyalamma (P.W.18) also witnessed the same.Smt.OotaMutyalamma(P.W.18)alsodeposedofthesame,butshefurther deposedthataftertheaccusedhackedSriMettaYerrayyaonhisneck,SriMetta Yerrayyacameoutfromthehousebyclosingwithatoweltotheinjuryoverthe neckandwenttohishouseandfelldownatthepialofhishouseandoutoffear, shewentintotheirhousebyclosing theirdoors. SriBoddepalliPrakasaRao (P.w.12) also deposedofthe sameby corroboratingthe evidence ofSmt.Oota Mutyalamma in the same lines. He further deposed that Sri Metta Yerrayya (DeceasedNo.5)felldownwithinjuriesathispial,theladieswhowenttobring watertohimfromborewell,presentbythesideoftheroad,andhetoldthat accusedhackedSriMettaYerrayya,headvisedtheladiestomakeaphonecallto 108ambulanceasheisnotinapositiontomove(sinceheishandicappedandhis legisamputatedandhavingartificiallegonlyasperhisevidence).Itisalsocame

in evidence that Sri Metta Yerrayya was shifted to government hospital, Narasannapetain108ambulancewherehedied.

78.

Therefore,thereiscogentandconsistentevidenceandtheevidence

oftheabovewitnessesiscorroboratedwitheachotherandthereisnodiscrepancy ofevidenceinbetweentheirtestimoniesandtheirevidenceinspiresconfidenceto thecourtthattheyarespeakingtruthonly.Nothingiselicitedduringtheircross examinationevidencetodiscredittheirevidence.Theyarenotrelatedwitnesses tothedeceasedSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)andmoreover,thedeceased himselfisthejuniorpaternaluncleoftheaccused. Whentherearedirecteye witnessestotheincidentwhoseevidenceistrustworthyandbelievedbythecourt, motive is irrelevant. Motive only assumes importance in the circumstantial evidencewhichrestsuponcircumstantialcase. Motivedoesnotplayimportant role of such importance of cases based upon eye witnesses evidence. The evidenceoftheaboveeyewitnessescannotbediscardedandevenifthereareany marginal variations in the statements of the witnesses, itcannot be dubbed as improvementsassomemaygiveelaborationsofstatementsmadebywitnesses earlier. 79. Thelearnedcounselfortheaccusedarguedthatthechargesheetis

filed by the police alleging that after killing the deceased Sri Metta Yerrayya (DeceasedNo.5),theaccuseddraggedthedeadbodyintohisbackyardsiteand placedhimbythesideofdeadbodyofSriPylaLakshmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3) andcoveredwithcoconutleaves.Butthelegalevidenceletinbytheprosecution

isdifferentaspointedabove.So,theinvestigationofficerdoesnotinvestigateinto 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, truthfulnessofprosecutioncasehastobejudgedonbasisofevidenceavailable. Defectiveinvestigationneednotnecessarilyleadtorejectionofprosecutioncase whenincidentisotherwiseproved. 80. TheotherevidenceofthemediatorSriGedelaVijayaBabu,VRO

(P.W.2)andtheevidenceofSubInspectorofPolice,LaveruSriS.Satyanarayana (P.W.43)orthecontentsofsceneobservationreportEx.P.17andinquestreport Ex.P.18arenotmaterialinthepresentcase,sincethischargeisbaseduponthe evidence of the eye witnesses only. The medical evidence is also not much helpfulinanywaytothecaseoftheaccusedsinceheisnotdisputedaboutthe deathofSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5).TheMedicalOfficerDr.H.Aruna Kumari(P.W.30)categoricallystatedthattherearefiveexternalinjuriesandthe deceasedwouldappeartohavebeendiedduetoeffectsofinjuriesantimortemin natureandissuedEx.P.27postmortemcertificatetothateffectandInjuryNo.4 whichisonecrushinglaceratedwound4x4throughplacedobliquely on the left side of the neck above supra sternol Knotch and 3 below external occipital protuberance involving all the structures at the correspondinglevelwithfractureof3rdto5thcervicalvertebrae.Hyoidbone andthyroidcartilagewithportionsofthefracturedbonesandsofttissues. Irregularlyabraded.Themarginsofthelaceratedwoundsareirregularand

extravasitedbloodinandaroundwhichcorrespondstothespecificovertactof theaccusedofhackingthedeceasedonhisneckbytheaccused,whichisthemain causeforthedeathofthedeceasedandthereisnocrossexaminationofmedical officerforthereasonsforthedeathorwhetherthesaidinjuryissufficienttocause deathornotandtherefore,themedicalevidencealsocorroboratestheevidenceof prosecutionwitnessesasstatedabove,whocategoricallydeposedthattheaccused hackedtheneckofthedeceasedSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5).Therefore, this court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the accused with an intentiontocausedeathhaskilledthedeceasedSriMettaYerrayya(Deceased No.5)andcausedhisdeathbyhackinghisneck.Therefore,thereisnoqualmto holdthattheprosecutionprovedtheguiltoftheaccusedfortheoffencepunishable undersection302oftheIndianPenalCodeforkillingthedeceasedSriMetta Yerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)whoisnootherthanthepaternaluncleoftheaccused. 81. POINTNo.16:

Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeathof Smt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6)?

Inordertobringhometheguiltoftheaccusedtoprovetheabove

chargelevelledagainsttheaccused,theprosecutionreliedupontheevidenceof SriOotaKrishna(P.W.10),whoisthesonofSmt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.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.OotaAnasuyamma(P.W.15)andSriOotaSimmanna(P.W.17)whoisthe husbandofthedeceasedSmt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6). Theprosecution

alsoreliedupontheevidenceofSriGedelaVijayaBabu,VRO(P.W.2)whoisthe mediatortospeakaboutthecontentsofEx.P.16sceneobservationreportandalso relied upon the evidence of Sri Ravada Thyaga Rao, VRO, Kondapolavalasa (P.W.29)tospeakaboutthecontentsofEx.P.25inquestreportandtheevidenceof SubInspectorofPolice,GaraSriN.SanyasiNaidu(P.W.44)andalsotheevidence of Medical Officer Dr.G.Guru Murthy, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community HealthCentre,Narasannapeta(P.W.32),tospeakaboutthecontentsofEx.P.29 postmortemcertificateetc.,byhimandtheevidenceofSubInspectorofPolice, GaraSriN.SanyasiNaidu(P.W.44),whopreparedEx.P.45roughsketchandthe evidenceofinvestigationofficerSriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48),whopreparedtotal roughsketchofsceneofoffenceEx.P.51. 82. So,SriOotaKrishna(P.W.10),whoisthesonofdeceasedandSri

OotaSimmanna(P.W.17)whoisthehusbandofthedeceased,SriOotaSrirama Murthy(P.W.11)whoisthebrotherofSriOotaSimmanna(P.W.17)areonlysaid tobetherelatedwitnesses. WhereasSriGuruvelliMohanaRao(P.W.14)and Smt.OotaAnasuyamma(P.W.15)arenotrelatedwitnessestothedeceased. Sri Oota Krishna (P.W.10), Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17) and Sri Oota Srirama Murthy(P.W.11)categoricallydeposedatonevoice,thaton01.12.2010atabout 04.00a.m.,theaccusedcametotheirhouseandknockedtheirdoorwhilethey were sleeping in their house, and Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) who is partiallydeafopenedthedoorsandtheaccusedknockedthedoorsbycallingas sistersisterandsheopenedthedoorandwhenSmt.OotaParvathiopenedthe door,theaccusedhackedheronthebacksideoftheneckandrighthandwristand

alsorighthandlittlefingerandlefthandfingerandcausedinjuriesontheright sideofthechestandonseeingthat,theyfrightenedandranoutsidethehouseand thedeceasedSmt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6)alsoresistedandtriedtoran awayandeventhen,theaccusedchasedSmt.OotaParvathibyhackingher,upto thehouseofTavitayyawherealsotheaccusedhackedherandshefelldownatthe pial of Tavitayya where she died. Sri Oota Srirama Murthy (P.W.11) further deposedthatwhenSmt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6)raisedcries,theaccused repliedthatafterherdeath,herhusbandi.e.,SriOotaSimmanna(P.W.17)also willcookforhimselfsincetheaccusedisalsonowcookingforhimselfandbyso saying,helefttheplacewiththeknife.SriOotaSimmanna(P.W.17)alsofurther deposedthathiswifeSmt.OotaParvathirequestedtheaccusednottokillher,but hedidnotshowanymercyandhimselfandhissonSriOotaKrishna(P.W.10) noticedthesameandduetofear,theyranawayfrombacksideofthehouseand SriOotaSimmanna(P.W.17)ranawaytoNagirikatakamvillageandonlythey returnedafter,policecametotheirvillage.WhereasSriOotaKrishna(P.W.10) deposedthathehidedbyrunningawaythroughthebackyardsiteandhealsocame tothehouseonlyafterpolicecametothevillage. 83. Sri Guruvelli Mohana Rao (P.W.14), who is handicapped person

alsodeposedthathesawtheaccusedcomingtoOotastreetandaccusedknocked thedoorofthehouseofSriOotaSimmanna(P.W.17)andthedeceasedSmt.Oota Parvathi(DeceasedNo.6)whoisthewifeofSriOotaSimmanna(P.W.17)opened thedoorsandtheaccusedhackedonthehandsofSmt.OotaParvathiandshecame with injuries by running to the house of his sister Smt.Oota Anasuyamma

(P.W.15)andtheaccusedaskedhimtotakehisdaughterfromthesaidcradleand takeawayfromthatplaceandthereafter,hetookhisdaughterandwenttothe houseofSmt.OotaSarojiniandtheaccusedhackedSriOotaParvathi(Deceased No.6)atthepialofhouseofSmt.OotaAnasuyamma(P.W.15),whoisthewifeof SriOotaTavitayya.Hefurtherdeposedthattheaccusedaskedhimforkerosene andhetoldthatheisnothavingkerosenewithhimandhewenttothehouseof Smt.Oota Anasuyamma (P.W.15), where the dead body of Smt.Oota Parvathi (DeceasedNo.6)wasfoundandtheaccusedwhocamearmedwithaknifeandleft theplace.SriGuruvelliMohanaRao(P.W.14)furtherdeposedthatM.O.14isthe knifewithwhichtheaccusedhackedSmt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6). He deposedinthecrossexaminationthathewenttothehouseofSriOotaThavitayya i.e.,husbandofSmt.OotaAnasuyamma(P.W.15)andthereisnoelectricityinthe village.Itissuggestedtohimthatheisspeakingfalseandnothingiselicitedin thecrossexaminationtodiscredithisevidence. 84. Smt.OotaAnasuyamma(P.W.15),whoisnootherthanthewifeof

SriOotaThavitayyaalsodeposedthatshesawfromthewindowofherhouse whileaccusedhackingSmt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6)andshewaspraying theaccusedtoshowmercynottokillherandmakingrequestbyfoldingwithboth hands,buteventhen,theaccusedhackedSmt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6)and lefttheplace. Therefore,thereisevidenceofboththefamilymembersofthe deceasedSmt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6)aswellasothertwoindependent witnessesandSriGuruvelliMohanaRao(P.W.14)isachancewitnessandtheir evidencevividlystatedabouttheoffencecommittedbytheaccusedofhacking

Smt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6)fromherhouseuptothehouseofSriOota Thavitayyaandthereisnothingprobabilitieswhatsoevertoshattertheevidence wassuggestedinthecrossexaminationandtheevidenceventtotheincidentand the witnesses vividly stated about the incident all through from the time of knockingthedoorsofSriOotaSimmanna(P.W.17)andopeningthedoorsbythe deceasedSmt.OotaParathi(DeceasedNo.6)andtheaccusedhackingherandeven thoughsherequested,hedraggedherandshewentbyrunningandeventhen,he hashackedSmt.OotaParvathitillshediedinfrontofthepialofthehouseofSri Oota Thaitayya. The evidence is enough to indoctrinate the case of the prosecution.Theevidenceofthemiscogentthroughoutwithoutanyvarianceor devianceandiscorroboratedbyeachandeverymaterialaspect. Althoughthe defencecounseltriedtoshaketheirevidenceinthegruelingcrossexamination, nothing is elicited in favour of the accused and nothing is suggested to them whethertheyhavegotanyanimosityagainsttheaccusedtospeakfalseagainst him.Therefore,theirevidenceistrustworthyandbelievable. 85. Evenifasolitarywitnessevidenceifitistrustworthyandcredible

can be counted without any corroboration. But here in the present case five witnessesasmentionedspokeabouttheincident. Thelearnedcounselforthe accusedpointed outthatthereare improvements andomissions inthe caseof prosecutionandtherefore,theprosecutiontheoryandtheirevidencecannotbe believable.Atthisjuncture,thelearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorreliedupon adecisionreportedin 2012CRI.L.J.621in

TakdirSamsuddinSheikhv.StateofGujarat&Anr. Whereinitisheldinpara9that Weareoftheviewthatallomissions/contradictionspointedoutbythe appellantscounselhadbeentrivialinnature,whichdonotgototheroot ofthecause. Itissettledlegalproposition thatwhileappreciating 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 matterswithoutaffectingthecaseoftheprosecutionshouldnotbemade the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. The court after going throughtheentireevidencemustformanopinionaboutthecredibilityof thewitnesses. ThatisthelogicofSection134oftheEvidenceAct,1872.Butifthereare doubtsaboutthetestimony,thecourtwillinsistoncorroboration.Infact, itisnotthenumber,thequantity,butthequalitythatismaterial.Thetime honouredprincipleisthatevidencehastobeweighedandnotcounted. Thetestiswhethertheevidencehasaringoftruth,iscogent,credibleand trustworthyorotherwise. Thelegalsystemhaslaidemphasisonvalue, weight andquality ofevidence rather than onquantity, multiplicity or pluralityofwitnesses.Itis,therefore,opentocompetentcourttofullyand completelyrelyonasolitarywitnessandrecordconviction.

86.

Therefore,asperocularevidence,therearenodiscrepanciesandthe

evidenceoftheeyewitnessesiscorroborated.Evenifthereareanydiscrepancies incriminalinvestigation,truthfulnessofprosecutioncasehastobejudgedbasing on available evidence. Defective investigation need not necessarily lead to rejectionoftheprosecutioncasewhenincidentisotherwiseproved. 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.Theevidenceoftheabovewitnesses,truthfullydescribedeventsthey haveseenwithoutanyexaggeration. Theirevidencecannotbediscardedonthe

groundthattheyaretherelatedorinterestedwitnesses.Thecourthastoseeonly whetherthereisringoftruthintheprosecutioncase.Theaccusedtookapleaof falseimplication,butthedefencehasnotlaidanyfoundationtherefor. 87. Themedicalofficeralsosupportstheevidenceoftheprosecution

witnessesandthepostmortemcertificateofthedeceasedismarkedasEx.P.29and theMedicalOfficerDr.G.Gurumurthy(P.W.32)whodeposedthatthepostmortem was conducted from 02.30 p.m., to 04.30 p.m., on 01.12.2010. The Medical Officer,opinedthat,thedeathisduetothefractureC3C4cervicalvertebraeand hemorrhage leading to cardiopulmonary arrest. When the Medical Officer deposedofthesame,itisnotevensuggestedthatthesaidinjuriesarenotpresent or the death is not caused due to the only the said injuries. The only cross examinationisdonewithregardtotheappropriatetimeofdeathsincemedical officer opined that the time of the death is 24 hours prior to his postmortem examination.Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,thedeceasedSmt.OotaParvathi (DeceasedNo.6)waskilledatabout04.00a.m.,andpostmortemwasconductedat about 02.30 p.m. Therefore, there is only 10 hours duration from commencementofpostmortemexamination.Theexacttimeofdeathcannotbe givenbytheMedicalOfficerinhisopinionandmoreoverthepostmortemreport isclearthattheinjurysustainedbythedeceasedSmt.OotaParvathi(Deceased No.6)wasfatalandduetothesaidinjuriesonly,thedeceaseddied. Therefore, thereiscorroborationfromthemedicalevidencealsointheabovecaseregarding thedeathofSmt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6). 88. The other evidence i.e., the contents of scene observation report

Ex.P.16ortheevidenceofmediatorSriGedelaVijayaBabu,VRO(P.w.2)with regardtotheinquestconductedbythemandtheevidenceoftheSubInspectorof Police,GaraSriN.SnyasiNaidu,Gara(P.W.44)andtheevidenceofinvestigation officerSriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48)isnotmaterialinthepresentcase,sincethere isdirectevidenceandtheeyewitnesseswhoseevidenceisnotshakeninthecross examination and whose evidence is corroborated with each other, which is supportedbymedicalevidenceandtheevidenceiswhollyconsistentthroughout andtheirevidencegivesventtotheincidentonlyandhence,theprosecutionis abletoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedfortheoffencepunishableundersection302 oftheIndianPenalCodeforcausingdeathofSmt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6) whointentionallykilledher. 89. POINTNo.17: Whethertheaccusedwithanintentiontokillcausedthedeathof Smt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)? Theprosecutioncaseinsuccinctisthat,theaccusedattackedthe houseofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.w.12)whoclosedthegrillsdoorsofthe house,andtheaccusedaskedhimtocomeoutfromthehouseandwhenhedidnot comeout,healsothrownbombsoverhishouseandduetofear,SriBoddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and his inmates who are the deceased Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi(DeceasedNo.7),whoisnootherthanthewifeofSriBoddepalli PrakasaRao(P.W.12),hischildrenandmotherinlawallwentoutofthehouse through backyard site and scattered to different places for hiding and in that process,Smt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)wentontotheterraceof

the house of Sri Pyla Suryanaryana for hiding and the accused observed the deceasedSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)goingontotheterraceand healsowenttotheterraceandkilledher. 90. Toprovetheabovecharge,theprosecutionmainlyrelieduponthe

evidence of Sri Boddepalli Prakas Rao (P.W.12), who is the husband of the deceasedSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)onlyprimewitnessandhe isthetargetedpersonbytheaccusedtokillhim.Tocorroboratetheevidenceof Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12), the prosecution also relied upon the evidenceofSmt.PylaChinnammi(P.W.13)whoisnootherthanthemotherofSri Pyla Suryanarayana on whose terrace Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7)waskilled.SriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12),deposedinhisevidence, aboutthemotivepartthatasaccusedwasconvictedinthedowrydeathcaseofhis wifeandhisjobwasremoved,heusedtoproclaiminthevillagethathewillkill allthepersonswhodeposedagainsthim.Besidesstatingotherfactsofthecase, healsodeposedthattheaccusedcameuponhimstatingthathewasresponsible forallthethingsandduetofear,hewentinsidethehousebylockedthegrillsdoor andwentinsidethehousealongwithhiswife,childrenandmotherinlawkeeping insidethehouse. Then,theaccusedarmedwithalongknifeandalsohandling twoothersmallknivesandabagonhisshoulderanddemandedhimtocomeout andthreatenedtokillhim.Then,hequestionedtheaccusedfrominsidethegrills andtheaccusedrepliedthathealreadykilledhisownchildren,killedSriLaxmana 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,hecatchedDandiofthecotandbeatonthegrillsforcibly.Onthat, theaccusedwentalittlebitbackandthen,theaccusedhurledbombsoverhis houseandthebombsexplodedandduetosmoke,hecouldnotseeanythingand immediatelytheyrushedinsidethehousebylockingthedoorsandranoutsidethe housethroughthebackyardsite.Theaccusedalsodamagedhisauto,whichwas keptoutsideatSriMettaVenkataraoshouseandalsoproclaimedthathedamaged theautoandthreatenedtokillhimbychallenginghimtocomeoutfromthehiding place.Inthatprocessofhiding,hiswifeSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(Deceased No.7)wentontotheterraceofSriPylaSuryanarayanahouse.Buthedidnotsee hiswifeSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)goingtotheterracedhouse ofSriPylaSuryanarayanaoraccusedgoingtothesaidhousetotheterrace.He onlyheardhiswifeprayingtheaccusedbysalutinghimwithfoldedhandstoshow mercyonherandnottokillher.Thentheaccusedrepliedthatitisherbounden dutytostopherhusbandtogiveevidenceonthatdayagainsthimintheSessions case,butshedidnotdoso,andthereforeheaskedhertocallhiminordertokill him. Healsodeposedthathiswiferepliedthatshedoesnotknowwhereheis hidingandthereafter,hedidnothearanywords.Hefurtherdeposedthataccused wenttoSmt.PylaThavitammassitewhichisthreehousesawayfromhishouse andinthesaidsite,hehasthrowntheknivesandothersandlefttheplaceby running away and that, the accused also stated that he already killed his wife Smt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)andthen,hewenttotheterraceof SriPylaSuryanarayanashouse,wherehefoundthedeadbodyofhiswifeand foundamajorhackinginjuryovertheneckofhiswifeandotherinjuriesallover

thebody. 91. ThereisalsocorroborativeevidencefromthemouthofSmt.Pyla

Chinnammi (P.W.13) who is the mother of Sri Pyla Suryanarayana on whose terraceofthehousethedeceasedSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7) waskilled. Smt.PylaChinnammi(P.W.13)deposedthatsheheardthesoundof bombexplosion atthehouseofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)andshe watchedfromtheirverandahatthegrillsfrominsideandaccusedcameuponthe houseofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)beatwithastickonthegrillsofhis houseandaccusedstoodbackalittledistanceandthenhurledbombsandonlyone bomb was exploded and Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) went outside through his backyard site and that she observed Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (DeceasedNo.7)goingontotheterracehouseofSriPylaSuryanarayana,whois hersonandsheheardtheSmt.Damayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)salutingtheaccused tosaveherandnottokillher,andshealsoheardthewordsoftheaccused,who saidthatasDamayanthishusbanddeposedagainsthiminthesessionscase,he wantstokillherhusbandandherhusbandescapedandnowhewillkillher.She deposedthatabout04.00a.m.,thevillagerscametotheirhousetotheterraceand theyalsocameoutfromthehouseandwenttotheterraceandtheynoticedthe 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 (DeceasedNo.7)whoisrelative. ButSmt.PylaChinnammi (P.W.13) isnota relatedwitnesstothecase. Theywerecrossexaminedatlength,butnothingis elicitedintheircrossexaminationevidencetodiscardtheirevidence.Itisalready pointed out in the earlier paras that legal position and decision that a single testimonyofthewitnesswhenitiscredibleitselfissufficienttolayaconviction. Hereinthepresentcase,notonlytheevidenceofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao (P.W.12),butalsotheevidenceofSmt.PylaChinnammi(P.W.13)corroboratedon each and every material aspect. The medical evidence is also supporting the prosecutioncaseaboutthespecificovertactsoftheaccusedincausinginjuriesto thedeceasedSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)whichresulteddeath ofthedeceased.PostmortemreportEx.P.34,whichclearlygoestoshowthatthe injuriessustainedbythedeceasedSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7) arevitalandsufficienttocausedeath. TheMedicalOfficer,SriDr.E.Aravind, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Narasannapeta (P.W.36), conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Smt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)from11.45a.m.,to01.45p.m.As perhisevidence,therearetwolaceratedinjuriesovertherightsideoftheneck and back of the neck and he opined that the death is due to hemorrhage and cervicalspinalfractureleadingtocardiopulmonaryarrest.Healsonotedthatthe tracheaispale,completefractureofcervicalspine,majorvesselscut.Thecross examinationisonlydonebythedefencecounselwithregardtoapproximatetime ofdeathopuined.ItisnotsuggestedeventotheMedicalOfficerbythelearned

defencecounselthatthedeathisnotpossibleduetothesaidinjuryasnotedbythe medicalofficerandtherefore,themedicalevidencealsosupportsthecaseofthe prosecution. 93. The other evidence with regard to the evidence of Sri Kinjarapu

MohanaRao,VRO,Basivadavillage(P.W.27)ortheSubInspectorofPolice, Amadalavalasa Sri R.Appala Naidu (P.W.45) or the investigation officer Sri T.PanasaReddy(P.W.48)orthecontentsofsceneobservationreportex.P.22or thecontentsoftheinquestreportEx.P.23haslessweightofevidenceintheabove matterandmoreoverthedeathofSmt.BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)is notdisputedbytheaccusedandthesceneofoffenceisalsonotdisputedbythe accusedandtheaccusedhasalsonotdeniedthepresenceofhackedinjuryoverthe neckofthedeceased.Thedefencetheoryiscompletedenialoftheoffenceand alsoputelibidefenceasstatedintheexaminationundersection313ofCr.P.C., forwhichnoevidenceisplacedbythelearnedcounselfortheaccusedandthe motivedoesnotplayimportantroleofsuchimportanceofcasesbaseduponeye witnessesevidenceandtheevidenceofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)and Smt.PylaChinnammi(P.W.13)istrustworthyandbelievedbythecourtandmore over, the motive is irrelevant, but the prosecution also established the motive beyondallreasonabledoubtinthepresentcase.Whenmotiveisfullyestablished, itprovidesfundamentalmaterialtoconnectthechainofcircumstances.Itaffords akeponapointtoscantheevidenceinthecase,inthatprospectiveandasa satisfactorycircumstancesofcorroboration.Oncarefulponderingoftheevidence oftheprosecutionwitnessesasdiscussedabove,thereisnodubiousnessorqualm

toholdthatprosecutionestablishedtheguiltoftheaccusedbeyondallreasonable doubtforthechargepunishableundersection302oftheIndianPenalCodefor causing the death of Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased No.7) with an intentiontokillher.

94.

POINTNo.8:

Whethertheaccusedcausedmischiefbylittingfiretothehay heap, bullock cart and cattle shed and thereby committed any offencepunishableundersection435oftheIndianPenalCode? Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,theaccusedlitfiretothecattle shed, hay heap and bullock cart which is in the thrashing floor of Sri Oota Ganapathi(P.W.9)ataboutmidnightof30.10.2011/01.11.2010between01.00 a.m.,to02.00a.m.Outofwhich,hayheapandcattleshedbelongtoSriOota 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 LakshmaRao(DeceasedNo.3),husbandofSriPylaRamanamma(P.W.6)onhis necknearthehouseofSriSeepanaKesavaandoutoffear,theywentintotheir houseandthattheynoticedthefirefromthehayheapsandallthepersonshided duetofearinthehandsofaccusedandlatertheynoticedSriMettaYerrayya (DeceasedNo.5),whoisthepaternaluncleoftheaccusedquestionedtheaccused

forhislittingfiretothehayheapandopeningthetap.Thentheaccusedreplied thathehasnotopenedthetapandthathehaslitfiretohayheapwhichbelongsto SriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9). SriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9)andSmt.OotaSarvani whoisthewifeofOotaGanapathi,questionedtheaccusedregardingthesame,at whichtime,SriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)interferedandquestionedthe accused.Therefore,besidestheevidenceofSmt.PylaRamanamma(P.W.6)and Kum.PylaAnuradha(P.W.7),thereisextrajudicialconfessionstatementmadeby the accused regarding the litting fire to the hay heap of Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9).Smt.PylaSarojini(P.W.8)whoisthewifeofdeceasedSriPylaVenkata Rao@Venkati(DeceasedNo.4)deposedinherevidencethatatabout01.00a.m., on01.12.2010,shenoticedsomeflamesofburningandtheirvillagersrushingto thatplaceforputtingoffthefireandreturnedby03.00a.m.,on01.12.2010.Sri OotaGanapathi(P.W.9)alsodeposedinevidencethatinthemidnight,theyheard thecriesofthevillagersandfoundthecattleshed,hayheapandbullockcartwere burningandonseeingtheflames,theywentthereandSriYevvariPrakasaRao (P.W.16)hasinformedhimthattheaccusedlitfiretothecattleshed,hayheapand bullockcartandSriYevvariRamaKrishnamadeaphonecalltothefireengine officeandtheyalltriedtoputofffireandmeanwhile,thefireenginealsocame andputoffthefire.SriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9)furtherdeposedthathewentin searchoftheaccusedforabouttwohoursandtheaccusedmovedescapingaround thevillageandreturnedbackatabout02.00a.m. 96. SriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)alsodeposedthatheheardthe

criesofthevillagersataboutmidnightbyrunningthatSriOotaGanapathis (P.W.9)hayheapsareburning.Ashisleftlegisamputatedandonlyartificialleg ispresent,hedidnotgotoseeandcameouttothepialtoseeandsawtheflames andpeoplewererunningtowardsthrashingfloorofSriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9). SriGuruvelliMohanaRao(P.W.14)deposedinhisevidencethatinthemidnight, 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 villagersofgoingtothethrashingfloor,wherethehayheapandotherarticles wereburnt,butshedidnotcomeoutfromthehouse. SriYevvariPrakasaRao (P.W.16)categoricallydeposedinhisevidencethatatabout01.00a.m.,allthe familymembersareinthehouseandhisdaughterisstudyingbooksandheis studyingnewspaperandhispetdogbarkedonseeingthebacksideofthehouseat thattime.Heopenedthewindowandhenoticedburningofhayheapandthatched cattleshedofSriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9)andhekeptthebullockcartinthesaid thrashingfloorofSriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9),whichwasalsoburntawayandhe noticedtheaccusedintheflamesandhisbullockcartwasalsoburntandhewept andhedidnotcomeoutfromthehouse.Hefurtherdeposedthataftersometime, nearly 15 to 20 villagers came towards their street. Among them, Sri Oota Ganapathi Rao,SriGuruvilliThammayya,SriSinguriDharmaRao,SriMetta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) and others came and Sri Oota Ganapathi (P.W.9) questionedhim,whyhewasinsidethehousewhenhisbullockcartisburningand then,herepliedthattheaccusedlitfireandsohedidnotcomeoutfromthehouse andthen,theyaskedhimtocomeoutandallofthemwentandmadeaphonecall

tofireengineandfireenginecameandputoffthefire. 97. Besidesthesaidocularevidencefromtheabovewitnessesregarding

the offences of arson, there is also extra judicial confession supporting and corroborating the evidence. Smt.Oota Mutyalamma (P.W.18) stated that she observedtheaccusedwhilehewassayingtoSriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9)andhis wifeSarvanithathehasalreadylitfiretothehayheap,buthehasnotremovedthe watertapasallegedagainsthim.Smt.KarukolaManikyam(P.W.19)alsodeposed thattheaccusedcameoutfromhidingandatwhichtime,Smt.OotaSarvani,Sri RamaKrishnaandSriOotaGanapathicametothevillage,afterburningofhay heapalongwithothersandquestionedSriOotaGanapathisayingthataccusedhas litfiretohayheapandcattleshed. 98. Therefore, there is only evidence of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao

(P.W.16)tosaythatheobservedtheaccusedinthesaidflamesfromhishouse throughthewindow. Inthecrossexamination,hedeposedthatbythetime,he sawallthethreei.e.,hayheap,cattleshedandbullockcartwereburning. He deposedthathedidnotmakeanyphonecalltothefireserviceandsomeonemade aphonecalltothefireserviceandhedeposedthatbullockcartisnotcompletely burntanddeposedthatbullockcartwhichisinthecattleshedwasremovedafter burningtotheoutsideandthethrashingfloorisatadistanceof200yardsfromthe villageandhedeposedthathecannotsaywhichamongthethreewasburntat first. Therefore,thereisnocogentevidenceplacedbytheprosecutionthatthe accusedisthepersonwholitfiretothehayheap,cattleshedorbullockcartand whichamongthemwaslitfireatfirstandwhetherthesaidflamesspreadoverto

theothersornot.

99.

TheinvestigationofficerSriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48)alsohasnot

movedhislittlefingertoinvestigateintotheaspectthatwhomadephonecallto thefireengineandnotexaminedanyfireengineofficerswhoputoffthefireand notestimatedthelossoftheburninghayheap,cattleshedorbullockcart.More over,theInvestigationOfficerhasalsonotcollectedanymaterialobjects,likeash etc.,atsceneofoffenceornotseizedhalfburntbullockcartorhasnotfiledany photographs and not prepared any scene observation report and therefore, the investigationofficerhasnotinvestigatedintothataspectwhethertheaccusedlit firetothesaidhayheap,cattleshedandbullockcartasallegedbytheprosecution andtherefore,thereisnocogentevidenceplacedbytheprosecution.Theocular evidenceevenifany,cannotbesaidtohavedirectnexuswiththecrimeandthus, theprosecutionfailedtoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedfortheoffencepunishable undersection435oftheIndianPenalCodebeyondallreasonabledoubt. 100. POINTS9AND13:

Whethertheaccusedcommittedcriminalintimidationbythreatening SinguruManikyam,OotaGanapathi,MettaYerrayya(deceasedNo.5) andotherswithgrievousinjuriesandcausedeathandtherebycommitted anoffencepunishableundersection506(2)ofIndianPenalCode? WhethertheaccusedcommittedcriminalintimidationbythreateningSri BoddepalliPrakasaRaowithgrievousinjuriesandtocausedeathand therebycommittedanoffencepunishableundersection506(2)ofthe IndianPenalCode?

In the present case, almost all prosecution independent witnesses otherthanthemediatorsorpunchwitnessesdeposedcategoricallythataccusedon

thatnightthroughoutarmedwithweaponsandcarryingabagandhurledbombsat thehouseofSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)andSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao (P.W.12) and attempted to hurl bombs over the house of Sri Oota Simmanna (P.W.17)andothersandallthevillagersfrightenedandalsoallofthemdeposed thattheaccusedcreatedfearinthemindofallthepublicmovingontheroadand createdhavocsceneontheinterveningnightof30.11.2010/01.12.2010.

101.

Smt.PylaSarojini(P.W.8)deposedinherevidencethattheaccused

cametothehouseofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)andcalledhimby shoutingandalsoextrajudicialconfessionthathealreadykilledhistwochildren, Sri Pyla Lakshmana Rao (Deceased No.3) and Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5)andkilledherhusbandSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(Deceasedno.4) andduetofear,SriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)stayedinsidethehouseand questionedtheaccusedforaimingtokillhim. SriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9)also deposedofthesameversionandevenSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)also deposed of the same. Smt.Pyla Sarojini(P.W.8) further deposed that accused hurledbombsoverthehouseofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)andoutof fear,thepublicscatteredandwenttotheirhousesbyrunningandshealsocameto knowbythenonlythatherhusbanddiedandkilledbytheaccused.

102.

SriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9)alsodeposedthatwhenhimselfandSri

YevvariRamaKrishna(notexamined)returningtotheirhousesfromthrashing floor,Smt.KarukolaManikyam(P.W.19)raisedcriesofnoticingtheaccusedand

theywentthereandfoundtheaccusedwearingjunglefabdressbyholdingalong knifeandcarriedabagandthreatenedwithdireconsequencesandusedfilthy languageagainsthim. Hefurtherdeposedthatonhearinghiscries,hiscousin sisterSmt.OotaSarvani(notexamined)cameoutfromthehouseandquestioned theaccusedforhishighhandedbehaviourforlittingfiretothehayheap,cattle shedandbullockcartandforthreateningtokillSriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9)and then,theaccusedcameuponSriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9)tokillhimandtheywent adistancebyrunning.SriOotaGanapthi(P.W.9)alsodeposedthatafterhacking SriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5),theyallfrightenedandranaway.SriOota Ganapathi(P.W.9)alsodeposedthathissonSriOotaGurunadhaRaoobserved theaccusedcominginashortcutrootandduetofearofdeath,theyrushedtothe houseofSriYevvariRamaKrishanaandlockedthegrillsfrominsidethehouse. SriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9)alsodeposedthatSriOotaKrishna(P.W.10),SriOota SriramaMurthy(P.W.11)andSriOotaSimmanna(P.W.17)alsodeposedinone voice, that the accused came to the house ofSriOota Simmanna(P.W.17) to attack him and Smt.Oota Parvathi (Deceased No.6) opened the doors and the accusedhackedSmt.OotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6)anddraggedherbyhacking heruptothehouseofSriOotaTavitayyawhereshedied,andduetofearofdeath inthehandsoftheaccused,theyalsoranfromthehousethroughthebackyard site. 103. SriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)alsodeposedinhisevidencethat

atabout04.00a.m.,hecameouttogetmilkfromthecow,atwhichtime,Sri SinguruDharmaRaocamebyrunningfromthevillageandaskedhimtogoin

sidethehousesayingmurdersarecommittedinthevillagebytheaccusedandhe alsowentinsidethehousebyclosingthedoorsandSriSinguruDharmaRaoalso toldhimthatduetofearonly,hecametohishousebyjumpingfromtheirback yardsiteandrantohishouse.SriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)furtherdeposed that at 04.30 a.m., the accused came upon his house and called him to come outsidethehouseandduetofear,hedidnotcomeoutandtheaccusedabusedhim infilthylanguageandhiswifequestionedtheaccusedwhatharmtheydidagainst himandtheaccusedaskedhiswifetosendherhusbandfromthehouseandhe willkillhimandwhenhedidnotcomeout,theaccusedhurledbombsoverhis houseonthedoorsandwallsandontheelectricalmeterandsmokespreadover thehouseandtheaccusedleftthehousesayingthathewillcomeagainandthen duetofear,hemadeaphonecalltoNagirikatakamvillagerSriPanchireddiRaja Rao(PW.5)whocamealongwith20to30personsofhisvillageandwiththem, helefttoNagirikatakamvillageandreturnedonlyafterpolicecametothevillage. Therefore,thereisampleevidenceasstatedabovethattheaccusedthreatenedthe villagersincludingSriOotaGanapathiandothersandthreatenedthemtocause grievous injuries and to cause death and thereby committed and offence punishableunderSection506(2)ftheIndianPenalCodeandtheothercharge underSection506(2)oftheIndianPenalCodeisalsoprovedbytheprosecution thatthreateningofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)withgrievousinjuries andtocausedeathandtherebycommittedtheoffencepunishableundersection 506(2)oftheIndianPenalCodeandtheprosecutionwasabletoproveforboth thechargesofSection506(2)oftheIndianPenalCode.

104.

POINTS7AND12:

Whethertheaccusedisinunlawfulpossessionofthecountry madebombsandtherebycommittedanyoffencepunishableunder section5ofExplosiveSubstancesAct? Whether the accused hurled bombs over the house of Sri BoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)andthuscommittedanoffence ofSection4(a)oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct?

ThesanctionordertoprosecutetheaccusedwasgivenbyDistrict CollectorunderEx.P.53proceedingsdated09.04.2011. Inthepresentcaseon hand,theaccusedallegedtohaveattackedthehouseofSriYevvariPrakasaRao (P.W.16) and Sri Boddepalli Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and also Sri Karukola BhaskaraRao(P.W.4).SriKarukolaBhaskaraRao(P.W.4)categoricallydeposed inevidencethathesawtheaccusedhackingSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5) whocameoutfromthebackyardsiteoftheaccusedwithbleedinginjuryandfell downathispialandonseeing,hequestionedandimmediatelyhecameandhe wentintohishouse,thentheaccusedcametohishouseandhurledbombsoverhis house,anddoorswerebrokenbybombhurling andheenteredintohishouse armed with knife to find him and on noticing the same, he went through the backyardsitealongwithhiswifeRamulammaandaccusedalsoenteredintohis backyard site and hurled bombs and bombs also exploded. P.W.6 Smt.Pyla Ramanamma(P.W.6)andherdaughterKum.PylaAnuradha(P.W.7)alsodeposed intheirevidence,thattheaccusedcameuponthehouseofSriBoddepalliPrakasa Rao(P.W.12)andthreatenedhimwithdireconsequences,whenhedidnotopen

thedoorsandlater,theaccusedpeltedbombsoverthehouseofSriBoddepalli PrakasaRao(P.W.12). SriOotaGanapathi(P.W.9)alsodeposedofthesame versionanddeposedcategoricallythataccusedhurledtwoorthreebombsoverthe houseofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12),whichexplodedandthevillagers outoffearranaway.SriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)himselfdeposedthat accusedarmedwithlongknifeandholdingabagonhisshoulderandalsoarming twoknives,demandedhimtocomeoutfromthehouseandthreatenedtokillhim whenhequestionedfrominsidethegrills,healsomadeextrajudicialconfession ofkillingotherdeceasedandhecatchedaDandiofthecotandbeatonthegrills forciblyandaccusedwentalittlebitbackandhurledbombsoverhishouseand bombexplodedandduetosmoke,hecouldnotseeanythingandimmediatelythey rushed inside the house by locking the doors and ran outside from the house throughthebackyardsite. Healsofurtherdeposedthat,theaccuseddamaged auto. Smt.PylaChinnammi(P.W.13)alsodeposedthatsheheardthesoundsof bombexplosionatthehouseofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)andwas watchingfromtheirverandahoftheirgrillskeepinginside.Shealsodeposedthat sheheardonlyonebombexplosionsound. 105. Sri Kinjarapu Mohana Rao, VRO (P.W.27), Basivada village

deposedthathimselfandSriGundabalaAnnajiRao(L.W.60notexamined)who is VRO of Jonanki village were called by the Sub Inspector of Police, AmadalavalasaSriR.AppalaNaidu(P.W.45)andhetookthemtothesceneof offenceofhouseofSriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.W.12)andtheSubInspectorof Police Sri R.Appala Naidu (P.W.45) also deposed of the same version and

deposedthattheyobservedinfrontoftheverandahofhouseofSriBoddepalli PrakasaRao(P.W.12)andnoticed17unexplodedbombspresent,outofwhich, oneisalittlebitscratchedinconditionandtherearetracesofbombexplosive smokemarksonthewallandtheyalsonoticedthebombexplosivematerialof threadpiecesandclothpiecesfellinconditiononthepialandthecurrentmeter 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,SubInspectorofPolice,Amadalavalasa(P.W.45)furtherdeposedthatthe said 17 bombs which were seized at the pial of the house of Sri Boddepalli PrakasaRao(P.W.12),wereimmersedinabucketofwater,sothatitcannotbe explodedandthenseizedthesameandthebombexplosivematerialofthread piecesandclothpieceswereseizedandcurrentmeterM.O.23andmeterboard piecesM.O.12werealsoseizedandwoodenpiecesM.O.25andbombpiecesand threadpiecesM.Os.10and11wereseizedandtheyalsocollectedsmokemarkings onthewallbyusingcottonswabandcollectedcontrolledcottonswabsunderthe coverofEx.P.22sceneobservationreport. 106. AspertheevidenceoftheinvestigationofficerSriT.PanasaReddy

(P.W.48),on15.12.2009hesentawordtoSriPankuPakeeru,VRO(P.W.26)and alsopickedupanotherVROMadhusudhanaRao(L.W.54notexamined)andthey werecalledtothepolicestationandfromthepolicestation,theyweretakento Indrakshammahills andthere19bombswerediffusedinthepresenceofsaid mediatorsandEx.P.21mediatorreportwaspreparedtothateffectandtheburnt bombmaterialwasalsoseizedforsendingthesametotheanalysisandtheexpert

ofthebombshascollectedthesameandhealsosignedonthemediatorreport Ex.P.21. 107. Sri Pedada Surapu Naidu (P.W.35), A.R.S.I., in District Armed

Reserveandwhoisinchargeofbombdetectionanddiffusalteam,deposedthat afterobtainingpermissionfromtheMagistrate,theSuperintendentofPolicegave permissiontothemtodiffusethebombsandon15.12.2010attheinstructionsof theinvestigationofficerSriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48),theydiffused17+2=19 bombs which were country made bombs and the mediators who are VRO Sri KinjarapuMohanaRao(P.W.27)andanother,weresuppliedtothemandtheyall wenttothehillandinthepresenceofmediators,SubInspectorofPoliceandDSP hedefusedallthe19countrymadebombsintheirpresence. Thedefusedand securedmaterialswerehandedovertotheSDPOinordertosendthesameto RFSLandEx.P.33certificateregardingdiffusionofbombsbyhimwasissued. 108. Sri Md.Moinuddin Hasan Khan (P.W.39), Assistant Director,

ForensicScienceLaboratorydeposedinhisevidencethathereceivedtwosealed paperparcelsforchemicalexaminationandopinedthatitemNo.1,2,2Aand3 and4areanalyzedandfoundcontainedpotassium,Nitrate,Chlorate,Arsenic, SulphideandSulpher.ThesaidingredientsoflowexplosivemixtureofPotassium Nitrate, potassium chloride, arsenic sulphide and sulphate, which would be commonlyusedinthepreparationofcountrymadebombsofthrowndowntype arefoundinitemNo.1and2andnoexplosivesubstanceisfoundinitemNo.2A and4andhegaveEx.P.39reporttothateffect. 109. Oncarefulponderingoftheevidenceoftheprosecutionwitnessesas

mentionedsupra,thereisnodubiousnessorqualmtoholdthattheprosecution establishedtheguiltoftheaccusedbothfortheoffencesundersection5and4(a) ofExplosiveSubstanceActandtheaccusedalsofailedtoexplainhowthesaid countrymadebombswereinhispossessionandfailedtoexplainwhetherthesaid bombs were in possession and control for lawful object and the prosecution establishedthefactthattheaccusedhurledbombstotheoutwallofthehouseof SriBoddepalliPrakasaRao(P.w.12)onlywithanintentiontocauseendangerthe 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 chargedwith. 110. Sincetheprosecutionprovedtheguiltoftheaccusedfortheoffence

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 necessaryfortheoffenceundersection5ofExplosiveSubstanceAct.Section5 ofExplosiveSubstanceActisinclusiveofSection4(a)ofExplosiveSubstance Act andtherefore,noseparatesentencenecessarilybeorderedfor Section5of ExplosiveSubstanceAct. 111. POINTS14AND15:

Whethertheaccusedunlawfullyandmaliciouslycausedexplosion through country made bombs over the house of Sri Yevvari PrakasaRaoandtherebycommittedanoffencepunishableunder section3ofExplosiveSubstancesAct? Whethertheaccusedcommittedhousetrespassbyenteringinto

thedwellinghouseofSriYevvariPrakasaRaoandhurledbombs andbrokeopenthedoorsofthehouseandtherebycommittedany offencepunishableundersection450oftheIndianPenalCode? Tobringhometheguiltoftheaccusedforthechargeundersection3 of Explosive Substance Act and under section 450 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecutionmainlyreliedupontheevidenceofSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16) and the corroborative evidence of other independent witnesses and more particularlytheevidenceofSriDasariRambabu,VRO(P.W.1)andtheevidence ofSubInspectorofPolice,SarubujjiliSriS.PrakasaRao(P.W.42)coupledwith documentsEx.P.9sceneobservationreport,tospeakabouttheseizureofM.Os.9 to12underthecoverofEx.P.9sceneobservationreportandtheevidenceofSub InspectorofPolice,SarubujjiliSriS.PrakasaRao(P.W.42)whopreparedEx.P.43 rough sketch of the scene of offence of house of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16). 112. SriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16),deposedinhisevidencethatat

about04.30a.m.,theaccusedcameuponhishouseandcalledhimtocomeout fromthehousewhenhehidedduetofearaftercomingtoknowthrough Sri SinguruDharmaRaothataccusedcommittedmurdersandtheaccusedcameand chastisedandabusedhiminfilthylanguageandeventhenhedidnotcomeout fromthehouseduetofear.Thenhiswifequestionedtheaccusedwhatharmthey didagainsthimtokillhimandtheaccusedrepliedhiswifetosendhimoutandhe willkillhimandthen,theaccusedhurledbombsoverhishouseonthedoorsand onthewallandontheelectricalmeter.Smokespreadandthen,theaccusedleft the place by saying that he willcome again. Then, he made a phone call to

NagirikatakamvillagerSriPanchireddyRajaRao(P.W.5)andnarratedtheentire incidenttohimonphone.ThesaidSriPanchireddyRajaRao(P.W.5)camealong with20to30personsofhisvillageandalongwiththem,himself,hiswife,his daughterandSriSinguruDharmaRaowenttoNagirikatakamvillage.

113.

SriPanchireddiRajaRao(P.W.5),alsocategoricallydeposedthaton

thatnight,SriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)telephonedtohimthatsomeone peltingbombsonhishouseandaskedtocomeforhelpandhetookpeopleand wenttoMettapetavillage.Hedeposedthattheynoticedsmoke,causedduetothe explosionofbombstothehouseofSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)andafter thattheyknockedthedoorsandSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)andhiswife Smt.Kamala(L.W.37notexamined)cameoutfromtheirhouseandthathenoticed allthedeadbodiesofsevendeceasedpersonsatMettapeta.Healsocategorically deposedinthecrossexaminationthatSriYevvariPrakasaRaoinformedbyphone that one Sankar was pelting bombs over his house. Therefore, there is only evidenceofSriPanchireddiRajaRao(P.W.5)tocorroboratetheevidenceofSri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16). Besides the said evidence, there is no other independentwitnessevidenceinthepresentcase. Butinthecrossexamination, nothingwassuggestedwhatsoevertoshattertheirevidence. Theevidenceof themgivesventtotheincidentandSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)vividly statedabouttheentireincidentandalthoughSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16) wasputtogruelingcrossexamination,nothingiselicitedinfavouroftheaccused todiscardhistestimonyandtheevidenceofSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)

truthfullydescribedtheeventwithoutanyexaggeration.Besidesthesaidocular evidence, there is also supporting evidence from the evidence of Sri Dasari Rambabu,VRO(P.W.1)andcoupledwiththeevidenceofSubInspectorofPolice, SarubujjiliSriS.PrkasaRao(P.W.42)whocategoricallydeposedintheirevidence thatSriDasariRambabu,VRO(P.W.1)andSriTalasamudramRajaRao,Talayari (notexamined)werepickedupbytheSubInspectorofPolice, SarubujjiliSri S.PrakasaRao(P.W.42)andwenttosceneofoffenceandwenttothehouseofSri YevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)andobservedthesceneofoffenceofthehouseof Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) and got prepared Ex.P.9 scene observation reportandseizedM.O.9woodenpiece,M.O.10and11elementsofclothpieces andtwinethreadpieceandM.O.12currentmeterandtheSubInspectorofPolice prepared Ex.P.43 rough sketch also. Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16) also categoricallydeposedinthecrossexaminationthathehasshownM.Os.9to12to thepoliceandM.Os.9to12wereseizedinhispresenceandsceneobservation reportwasalsopreparedinhispresenceonly.ItwasnotsuggestedtoSriYevvari PrakasaRao(P.W.16)inthecrossexaminationthatM.Os.9to12donotbelongto himorthatM.Os.9to12wereplantedforthepurposeofthiscasebythepolice andasuggestionismadethatpolicehasnotseizedthesameinhispresence. 114. Theevidenceabove,insidesthefactthataccusedhurledbombsover

thehouseofSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.12)whichisacountrymadebomb whichislikelytoendangertolifeorcauseseriousinjurytothepropertyand therefore,thereisringoftruthintheprosecutioncasethattheaccusedhurled bomboverthehouseofSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.12)tocauseendangerto

hislifeandcauseddamagetothepropertyalsoandthus,theprosecutionwasable toprovetheguiltoftheaccusedfortheoffencepunishableundersection3of ExplosiveSubstanceActbeyondallreasonabledoubt. 115. ToattracttheoffenceofSection450oftheIndianPenalCode,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 committedmischiefbyexplosivesubstancewithanintentiontodestroythehouse whichisalsoanoffencecontemplatedundersection436oftheIndianPenalCode andSection3ofExplosiveSubstanceAct. Butinordertoattracttheoffence under section 450 of the Indian Penal Code with which he is charged, the prosecutionmustestablishthataccusedmadehousetrespass. Evenasperthe evidenceofSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16),theaccusedhasnotmadeany housetrespassinordertocommitanyoffence. Sincetheprosecutionfailedto prove that the accused made any house trespass of Sri Yevvari Prakasa Rao (P.W.16),theoffenceundersection450oftheIndianPenalCodeisnotmadeout andassuch,theprosecutionfailedtoprovetheguiltoftheaccusedundersection 450oftheIndianPenalCode,beyondallreasonabledoubt.

116.

Wheneyewitnessisexaminedatlengthitisquitepossibleforhimto

makesomediscrepancies.Notruewitnesscanpossiblyescapefrommakingsome discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfullymakehistestimonytotallynondiscrepant.ButCourtsshouldbearin 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 variationsfallinginthenarrationofanincident.Thecourthastoseewhether theevidenceoftheprosecutionwitnessesreadasawholeappearstoheavearing oftruth.Minordiscrepanciesontrivialmattersnottouchingthecoreofthecase, hypertechnicalapproachbytakingsentencestornoutofcontexthereorthere fromtheevidence,attachingimportancetoonetechnicalerrorcommittedbythe investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permitrejectionoftheevidenceasawhole.Unlesstherearereasonsweightyand formidableitwouldnotbepropertorejecttheevidenceonthegroundofminor variationsorinfirmitiesinthematteroftrivialdetails.Evenhonestandtruthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident, because powerofobservation,retentionandreproductiondifferwithindividuals. Mere relationshipcannotbeafactortoeffectcredibilityofawitness.Theevidenceof witnessescannotbediscardedsolelyonthegroundofrelationshipwithvictimof offence. Plearelating torelativesevidenceremains withoutanysubstancein caseevidence hascredence anditcanberelied upon. In allcriminal cases, normally discrepancies are bound to occur in depositions of witnesses due to normalerrorsofobservations,errorsofmemoryorduetomentaldispositionat thetimeofoccurrenceasinthepresentcaseonhand. 117. Thelearnedcounselfortheaccusedattackedtheentirecaseofthe

prosecutionmainlyonthegroundoftheinvestigationlatchesoftheinvestigation

officerSriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48),whoisSubDivisionalPoliceOfficer.The InvestigationOfficerSriT.PanasaReddy(P.W.48)isadirectrecruitintoservice 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 InspectorofPolice,SarubujjiliPoliceStation,SriS.Satyanarayana,SubInspector ofPolice,LaveruPolcieStation,SriN.SanyasiNaidu,SubInspectorofPolice, GaraPoliceStation,SriR.AppalaNaidu,SubInspectorofPolice,Amadalavalasa PoliceStationandSriN.Sai,SubInspectorofPolice,Jalumuru(P.Ws.41to45 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 selectingtwoVillageRevenueOfficersforeachSubInspectorforhisassistance andalsotoconductinquestsoverthedeadbodiesofdeceasedChy.MettaManasa, Chy.MettaDivakar,SriPylaLakshmanaRao,SriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati, Sri Metta Yerrayya, Smt.Oota Parvathi and Smt.Boddepalli Damayanthi (Deceased1to7respectively).ThesaidSubInspectorswhoconductedinquests andobservedthesceneofoffenceonlyandalsopreparedExs.P.41toP.49rough sketches of scene of offences and stated in their evidence that they orally examinedthewitnesses,buttheyhavenotrecordedany161Cr.P.C.,statementsof any of the witnesses. The Sub Divisional Police Officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy (P.W.48),whoisinvestigationofficeralsodeposedthatheentrustedtheworkto alltheofficersandhealsoverifiedallthescenesofoffencesandheispresentall through and prepared entire rough sketch of all the scene of offences under

Ex.P.51andhehasnotrecordedany161Cr.P.C.,statementsofanywitnesseson thatdateof01.12.2010onwhichdatetheinquestswereheldoverthedeadbodies ofallthedeceasedandonwhichdate,thesceneobservationreportsExs.P.2,P.4, P.5,P.9,P.12,P.16andP.17arepreparedand,therefore,herecordedthe161 Cr.P.C.,statementsonthenextdayi.e.,on02.11.2010exceptthestatementofSri DasariRambabuwhoisVRO(P.W.1)whichheallegedtohaverecordedthesame on01.12.2010atabout11.00p.m.,aspertheendorsementsonthestatements.

118.

ThelearnedcounselfortheaccusedalsopointedoutthattheFIR

registeredat06.00a.m.,on01.12.2010andaspertheendorsement,theJudicial MagistrateofFirstClassreceivedtheoriginalFIR(Ex.P.50)atabout01.50p.m, on01.12.2010.HearguedthattheJudicialMagistrateofFirstClassCourtisonly atadistanceof14km.,fromJalumurupolicestationanditwilltakeonlyhalfan hourtoreachthecourt,butthereisdelayofsixhoursinsubmittingtheoriginal FIRtocourtinthepresentcase,whichisnotexplainedbytheprosecution.Itis 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),basingonEx.P.1report,atabout06.00a.m.,whichwasgivenbyVRO SriDasariRambabu(P.W.1)whocamealongwithTalayariSriTalasamudram RajaRaoandtheSubInspectorofPolice,JalumuruSriN.Sai(P.W.47)hasnot recordedthestatementsofeitherP.W.1SriDasariRambabuorthesaidTalayari SriTalasamudramRajaRao. Itisalsopeculiartoknowthattheinvestigation officerhasalsonotrecordedthe161Cr.P.C.,statementofSriTalasamudramRaja

Raoandhealsocategoricallyadmittedinthecrossexaminationofthesaidaspect. SriDasariRambabu,VRO(P.W.1)deposedinevidencethattheSubInspectorof Policerecordedhisstatement,buttheSubInspectorofPolicedidnotdeposeof thesameandaspertherecord,theinvestigationofficerrecordedthestatementof Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) on 01.12.2010 at about 11.00 p.m., at the policestation. ItisalsonoteworthythattheinvestigationofficerSriT.Panasa Reddy(P.W.48)deposedinevidencethatherecordedthestatementsbytaking helpofSubInspectorofPolice,JalumuruSriN.Sai(P.W.47)whodraftedthesaid 161Cr.P.C.,statementsandcountersignedbyhim,butthereisnoendorsementon 161Cr.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 scribedbySubInspectorofPoliceandthesignatureofinvestigationofficeris presenton161Cr.P.C.,withoutanyendorsement.

119.

Thelearneddefencecounselarguedmainlyontheaspectthatex.P.1

isnotthefirstinformationreportandtheinvestigationofficerSriT.PanasaReddy (P.W.48),suppressedthefirstinformationreportintheabovematter. Allthe villagersarehavingphonesandwhenthevillagersareawareofthefactthatthe accusedcommittedtheoffencesofdeathsallthroughthenight,whynoneofthe villagers has not made a phone call to the police is not explained by the prosecution. Moreover,fireenginehascometoputofffireinthemidnight. Necessarilysomeinformationwillbeavailablewiththefireoffice,whowilltake thereportsandwhowillalsoinformtothepoliceregardingtheincidentsand

moreover,itcameintheevidenceofSriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)thatat 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 Mettapetavillageandwiththem,SriYevvariPrakasaRao(P.W.16)andhiswife wentalongwithSriPanchireddiRajaRao(P.W.5).Itisalsocameintheevidence of Sri Panchireddi Raja Rao (P.W.5) that Sri Dasari Rambabu, VRO (P.W.1) residinginhishouse,so,theVROmustbeknownaboutthesaidincidentsevenby 05.00a.m.,sinceSriPanchireddiRajaRaoallegedtohavereceivedphonecall aboutthedeathsofthevillagerswhoarekilledbytheaccused.Therefore,alleges thatTalayariSriTalasamudramRajaRaoinformingSriDasariRambabu,VRO (P.W.1) about the incident for the first time at about 05.00 a.m., cannot be believedinthecircumstances. So,itisallegedthattheearlierfirstinformation report to the police was suppressed by the investigation officer Sri T.Panasa Reddy(P.W.48).

120.

ThelearnedcounselfortheaccusedmainlyattackedEx.P.1report

allegingthatitisantitimedoneasstatedabove,theallegedreportwasgivenat 06.00 a.m., on 01.12.2010. In Ex.P.1 report, it is mentioned by Sri Dasari Rambabu,VRO(P.W.1)whogavereportthatSriTalasamudramRajaRaowhois Talayariinformedhimatabout05.00a.m.,thattheaccusedkilledthepersonsand alsomentionedinthereportthatSriTalasamudramRajaRaostatedtohimthatthe accused hacked Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) and he was shifted to governmenthospital,Narasannapetawherehedied. ButasperEx.P.18inquest

report,thedeceasedSriMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)waslostseenbythe dutydoctorat08.15a.m.,on01.12.2010.Therefore,givingreportat06.00a.m., on01.12.2010inwhichreportalsostatingthatSriMettaYerrayyadiedinthe hospitalcannotbesaidtobetrueortherecitalinEx.P.18inquestreportofthe deceased Sri Metta Yerrayya (Deceased No.5) that he was lost seen by the MedicalOfficermaybenottrue. So,eitherofthemmustbeafalseone. The court has to see whether there is ring of truth in the prosecution case. The evidencecannotberejectedonthegroundofminorvariationsorinfirmitiesinthe matteroftrivialdetails.Evenhonestandtruthfulwitnessesmaydifferinsome detailsunrelatedtothemainincidentbecausepowerofobservation,retentionand reproductiondifferwithindividuals.

121.

Theleanedcounselfortheaccusedalsoarguedandpointedoutin

the written arguments that the nonexamination of Talayari Sri Talasamudram RajaRao,whoistheveryimportantandcrucialwitness,aspertheprosecution case,heisthepersonwhohadfirstwitnessedtheincidentsonthatnightinthe villareorcametoknowaboutthesameandhadinformedthesametoSriDasari Rambabu,VRO(P.W.1)whointurnpreparedEx.P.1reportandpresentedtoSri N.Sai, Sub Inspector of Police, Jalumuru. For the best reasons known to the prosecution,hedidnotexaminehimwhichisafatalblowtoitswholecase.The prosecutionhassuppressedtheevidenceofTalayariSriTalasamudramRajaRao. ItisalsoarguedthatwhenTalayarisriTalasamudramRajaRaoinformedabout thesameincidenttoSriDasariRambabu(P.W.1),VROatfirst,whythesaidVRO

hasnotrecordedthestatementofthesaidTalayariSriTalasamudramRajaRaois oneoftheaspectwhichthrowsadoubtabouttheprosecutioncaseandalsoalleged thattheotheraspectisthatSriDasariRambabu(P.w.1),VROisexpectedtotake thesignatureofSriTalasamudramRajaRao,whoisTalayarionEx.P.1withan endorsementthatthesamewasreadovertohimandadmittedhimtobecorrect andlaterheshouldhavepresentedthesametothepolice. SriDasariRambabu (P.W.1) did not choose either of the modes which he ought to have done. Therefore,itisarguedbythelearnedcounselforthedefencethatEx.P.1isnotthe firstinformationreportanditisantitimedone. 122. Thelearnedcounselfortheaccusedalsopointedoutthatevenasper

theevidenceofalltheprosecutionwitnessesandInvestigationOfficer,theentire sceneofoffenceandconductinginquestwasalsophotographedbythecluesteam andthecluesteamalsogotvideographedthescenes.Theprosecutionalsofiled Ex.P.30bunchof27positivephotosintheabovematterandconnecteddiskof negatives. Buttheprosecutionhasnotfiledthesaidvideographforthereasons best known to the investigation officer. The learned counsel for the accused arguedthattheinvestigationofficerhasnoauthoritytodelegatethepowerstothe SubInspectorsofPoliceandInspectorofPolice,whoalsomadeinvestigationin the present case, by collectingtheevidencei.e., bydraftingsceneobservation reportsandseizureofthematerialobjectsunderthecoverofsceneobservation reports and also conducting inquests over the dead bodies of the deceased. Therefore,thelearnedcounselfortheaccusedarguedthattheentireprosecution

casehastobethrownoutforthesaidinvestigationlatchesinthiscase.

123.

The learned counsel for the accused also argued that as per the

prosecutioncase,allthematerialobjectswereseizedon01.12.2010butForm66 wassenttothecourtonlyon27.04.2011andreceivedon28.04.2011i.e.,more than4months. AscouldbeseenfromForm66,theForm66isproducedby 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 sendingthepropertytothecourt.TheForm66wasonlyfiledalongwithcharge sheetwhichisalsofiledon18.04.2010. TheinvestigationofficerSriT.Panasa Reddy(P.W.48),deposedinhisevidencethat,hesent161Cr.P.C.,statementsto the Magistrate on 10.03.2011 except the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Sri Dasari Rambabu,VRO(P.W.1)whichhefiledon18.04.2011alongwithchargesheet.It isalsopointedoutthatwhenSriDasariRambabu,VROandSriGedelaVijaya Babu,VRO(P.Ws.1and2)recordedtheconfessionstatementoftheaccused,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 officerdeposedinhisevidencethatonlytoascertainthedetailsoftheaccused,he hasrecordedanotherconfessionstatementoftheaccusedunderEx.P.52.Evenby thetimeofrecordingconfessionstatementoftheaccusedbytheinvestigation officer,hehasalreadyrecorded161Cr.P.C.,statementofallthewitnessesasper theprosecutioncase.Thelearnedcounselfortheaccusedarguedthattwothings tokeepalltheevidenceputforwardbytheprosecutiononthepanelofjusticeand

tokeepthedefencespokenbytheaccusedasstatedintheexaminationunder section313ofCr.P.C.,inthesecondpanelofJusticeandwhetherthesamewhich isprobableandallegesthattheprosecutioncaseisdoubtfulandprosecutionhas notprovedtheguiltoftheaccusedbeyondallreasonabledoubt.

124.

The court has to see whether there is any ring of truth in the

prosecutioncase. Itiswellestablishedthatdefectiveinvestigationisneednot necessarilybeleadtorejectionofprosecutioncasewhenincidentisotherwise proved.Atthisjuncture,thelearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorreliedupona decisionreportedin 2012CRI.L.J.1263in VishwanathUpadhyayandOrs.V.TheStateofU.P.andAnr. Whereinthesaiddecisioncase,theinvestigationwasdonebytheHeadConstable whowasnotauthorizetoconductinvestigationandheldatpara12that Inmyopiniontheinvestigationwasconductedbythepolicewhoissaid tobetheHeadConstablewillnotvitiatetheentiretrial.Onthebasisof submission of charge sheet after investigation the entire proceedings cannotbequashedmerelybecausetherewasanyillegalityorirregularity intheinvestigation.

125.

The learned counsel for the accused argued that in all the scene

observationreports,theV.R.Osofvariousvillagersarethemediatorsforallthe scenesofobservation.Theprosecutiondidnotexplainwhynoneofthewitnesses oranypersonfromMettapetavillagedidnotcomeforwardtoactasmediatorin anyofthesceneofoffenceswhenadmittedlytheSarpanch,wardmembersand othereldersofthevillagearepresentinthevillage.Theprosecutionalsofailedto

explainwhytheinvestigationofficerdidnotchoosetheindependentmediatorsis notexplainedbytheprosecution.TheV.R.Osactingasmediatorsforseizure,for thescenesofobservationandalsofortheinquestsandassuchitisverydoubtful withregardtotheirrespectiverolesplayedintheinvestigationasnoneofthe villagerscameforwardtoparticipateinthesaidinvestigationsaidtohavebeen made by various investigation officers with respect to all the deaths of the deceased.

126.

Thecourthastoseewhetherthereisanymiscarriageofjusticewas

doneandtheaccusedfailedtoshowanymiscarriageofjusticeorprejudiceis causedtohimforconductinginquestsoverthedeadbodiesofallthedeceasedby variousSubInspectorsofPoliceandpreparingsceneobservationreports.

127.

Itiswellsettledlawthatwhetherthelatchesofanyinvestigation

officer,theentirecaseoftheprosecutioncannotbethrownout.Thecourthasto seewhetherthereisanyringoftruthintheprosecutioncase.Asobservedinthe earlierpointsinseveralpointsasdiscussed,oncarefulponderingoftheevidence oftheprosecutionwitnessesandonscrutinizingtheevidencecarefully,thereisno dubiousnessorqualmtoholdthattheevidenceofprosecutionwitnessestruthfully describedtheeventstheyhaveseenwithoutanyexaggerationandtheirevidence cannotbediscardedeventhoughsomeofthewitnessesarerelatedtothedeceased orsaidtobeinterestedwitnesses.Moreover,whenthedefencetheoryisthatthe accusedonthatdatei.e.,on30.11.2010wentto2ndshowcinemaatNarasannapeta

toseeamovieandafterthat,hereturnedtothevillageintheearlyhoursatabout 4.00a.m.,andfoundhisbothchildrentrunksinhishouseandhewasinformedby some villagers (not named) that the children were killed and the heads of his childreni.e.,Chy.MettaManasaandChy.MettaDivakarweredecapitatedbySri PylaLakshmanaRaoandSriPylaVenkataRao@Venkati(Deceased3and4)f althoughtheaccusedputapleaoffalseimplication,thedefencehasnotlaidany foundationtherefor. 128. On careful pondering the entire evidence on record and for the

reasonsdiscussedintheearlierpoints,theprosecutionfailedtoprovetheguiltof theaccusedfortheoffenceundersection201oftheIndianPenalCodeinthree countsandfailedtoprovetheoffencepunishableundersection435oftheIndian PenalCodeandtheprosecutionalsofailedtoprovetheoffencepunishableunder section450oftheIndianPenalCodebeyondallreasonabledoubtandassuch,the accusedisfoundnotguiltyfortheoffencepunishableundersection201ofthe IndianPenalCodeinthreecountsandunderSection435oftheIndianPenalCode andalsoUnderSection450oftheIndianPenalCodeandaccordinglytheaccused isacquittedundersection235(1)ofCodeofCriminal Procedure forthesaid offences.

129.

Thereasonsdiscussedintheearlierpointsandmullingoverthefacts

andcircumstancesofthecase,thiscourtheldthattheprosecutioncouldableto provetheguiltoftheaccusedfortheoffencepunishableundersection302ofthe

IndianPenalCodein7countsbeyondallreasonabledoubt,andalsoprovedthe guiltoftheaccusedbeyondallreasonabledoubtsfortheoffencepunishableunder section506(2)oftheIndianPenalCodeintwocountsandalsoprovedtheguiltof theaccusedbeyondallreasonabledoubtsfortheoffenceundersection3,4(a)and 5oftheExplosiveSubstanceActandassuchtheaccusedisfoundguiltyforthe offencepunishableundersection302oftheIndianPenalCodeinsevencounts and under section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code in two counts and under section3,4(a)and5ofExplosiveSubstanceActandaccordinglytheaccusedis convictedundersection235(2)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureforthesaid offences. DictatedtothePersonalAssistant,transcribedbyhim,correctedand pronouncedbymeinOpenCourt,thisthe30thdayofApril,2012.

Sd/.K.V.RamanajiRao, IADDITIONALDISTRICT&SESSIONSJUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

130.

When questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, the

accusedstatedthat NENUTAPPUCHEYALEDU(inTelugu) Ihavenotcommittedanyoffence.

131.

ThelearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorarguedthat thisisafit

casetoimposecapitalpunishmentofdeathsentenceandinsupportthereof,he reliedupondecisionsreportedin 2010ACR168SCin JagdishversusStateofM.P. Wherein, the husband committed murder on his wife and five minor childrenandheldthat Assailantwasinadominantpositionandapositiontotrustashewasthe headofthefamily,hecrimewasenormousinitsproportionstheentire familyhadbeendoneaway,anddeathsentenceisimposed. Anotherdecisionreportedin (2010ACR489SCin AjayKumarPalVs.StateofJharkhand Whereinalsohusbandlacedfoodwithpesticidesandthereafterassaulted fiveinmatesofhouseandburntthemandinthesaidprocess,theentire housewasdamagedbyfire Whereinitisheldthat The act is nothing but brutal and merciless and wherein also death sentencewasimposed.

132.

The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of 5 (five) years for each count for the offence punishable under

section506(2)oftheIndianPenalCodefortwocounts whichshallrun concurrently.

133.

ItisobservedinPara110abovethataseparatesentenceneednotbe

given for Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act since the offence is also inclusiveof Section 4(a) ofExplosive Substance Act forwhich,theseparate sentenceisnotpassed.Therefore,noseparatesentenceisnecessarilybegiven tosection5ofExplosiveSubstanceAct.

134.

Theaccusedisalsosentencedtosuffersimpleimprisonmentfora

period of 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00000 and in default of paymentoffine,toundergosimpleimprisonmentforfurtherperiodofonemonth fortheoffencepunishableundersection3ofExplosivesSubstanceAct. 135. Theaccusedisalsosentencedtosuffersimpleimprisonmentfora

period of 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00000 and in default of paymentoffine,toundergosimpleimprisonmentforfurtherperiodofonemonth fortheoffencepunishableundersection4(a)ofExplosivesSubstanceAct. Thesentenceimposedof10yearsfortheoffenceunder section3ofExplosive Substance Act and the sentence imposed for Section 4(a) of Explosive SubstanceActareorderedtorunconcurrently.

136.

Itisfurtherorderedthatthesentenceimposedfortheoffenceunder

section 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code on two counts and the sentence

imposedfortheoffenceundersection3,andthatof Section4(a)ofExplosive SubstanceActareorderedtorunconsecutively.

137.

It is further ordered that the period of remand undergone by the

accusedisorderedtobesetoffundersection428(1)ofCr.P.C.Theaccused isinremandinjudicialcustodysince01122010. 138. Now,ashortquestionfallsforconsiderationis; Whether the death sentence to be imposed or life imprisonmenttobeimposedfortheoffenceundersection302ofthe IndianPenalCodeforthesevencounts?

139. Deathsentenceremainsinthestatutebookanditsconstitutional validity stands approved by the Constitution Bench in the celebrated decisionin AIR1980SC898ofBachanSinghv.StateofPunjab The . ConstitutionBenchwhileupholdingthevalidityofdeathsentences,haslaid 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 preciselywhatistherarestoftherarecasesinwhichthealternativeoption isthusforeclosed. However, aThreeJudgeBenchofSupreme Court in AIR 1983 SC.957 in Machhi Singh and Ors. V. State of Punjab has elaboratedtheratioinBachanSinghsupra. TheBenchlaidstressonthe reactionofthecommunityatlargeincaseswhenitscollectiveconscience isshockedthatitwillexpecttheholdersofthejudicialpowercenterto inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirabilityorotherwiseofretainingdeathpenalty.Rarestofrarecases

wouldbediscernedwhenthecrimeisviewedfromtheplatformofthe motivefor,orthemannerofcommissionofthecrime,ortheantisocialor abhorrentnatureofthecrime. TheBenchhassuggestedafewinstances thereofasguidelinesandhasobservedthatinordertoapplythoseguidelines the following questions may be asked and answered: (1) was there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonmentforlifeinadequateandcallsforadeathsentence:(2)Were the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after accordingmaximum weightage to the mitigatingcircumstanceswhichspeakinfavouroftheoffender? 140. Theaccusedinthepresentcasenotonlykilledhisownchildren butalsoattemptedtokilltheprimewitnesseswhodeposedagainsthimin thedowry death case ofhiswife, inwhich hewas convicted andinthe processofthat,attemptedtokillprimewitnessesandalsokilledthewives andbrotheroftheprimewitnesses,whentheprimewitnessesescapedfrom hishands. Thiscourtwouldbefailinginitsdutyinnotimposingdeath punishment for a crime which had been committed not only against the individualvictimsbutalsoagainstsocietywhichthecriminalandthevictim belongs. If he is not punished with the adequate punishment of death sentence,thepubliclooseconfidenceinthecriminaljusticesystemitselfand noonewillcomeforwardtogiveevidencebeforeanycourtiftheyarebeing killedwhentheydeposedinthecourtoflawagainsttheoffenderandthe publicwillloosefaithinthejudicialsystemitself.Ifthistypeofpersonis allowed to escape from death penalty, it would result in miscarriage of justiceandcommonmanwouldlossfaithinjusticesystem.

141. Bearinginmind,theprinciplegoverningthesentencingpolicy, particularly the death sentence and considering overwhelming evidence

placedbytheprosecutionwhichiscogentandconsistentthroughout,this court hasnodoubt that thisisoneofthe rarest ofrare ofcases not merelybecausetheaccusedkilledsevenpersonsincludinghischildrenand paternaluncleinaninhumanmannerinwhichheplottedtheschemeand executed with extreme pedravity. The court is satisfied that the extreme depravitywithwhichtheoffencewascommittedandthemercilessmanner inwhichdeathwasinflictedonthevictims,bringsitwithinthecategoryof rarest ofrarecases. Innocent livesweresnuffedoutbytheaccused. The murders are extremely brutal, grotesque, barbaric, and diabolical in distortedlymannerandmerciless.Preparationsmadeexecutingtocriminal designandmannerofitsactualexecutionbytheaccusedleavenomannerof doubtinthemindofcourtthatitfallsundercategoryof rarestofrare cases.Sheerenormityofthecrime,thediabolicalmannerofmurders,and thefilingofabhorrencewhichwouldundoubtedlyberaisedinthemindof thecourtarefactorswhichpersuadethiscourttoimposethedeathsentence.

142.

Hence,fortheaforesaidreasons, theaccusedissentencedto

death and direct that the accused be HANGED BY THE NECK TILLHEISDEAD forthe offence undersection302oftheIndian PenalCodeforsevencounts.
143. M.Os.1 to 26 material objects and unmarked property if any are

orderedtobedestroyedafterappealtimeisover. 144. Theaccused isinformedthathehasgotrightofappealtomove

beforeHonourableHighCourtunderSection366(4)ofCr.P.C.,

145.

Sincethedeathsentenceisimposedagainsttheaccused,theofficeis

directed to submit the entire proceedings duly indexed and duly translated, urgently to the Honourable High Court for confirmation of death sentence as requiredundersection366(1)ofCr.P.C.,withacoveringletter,aftercertifying thesamebyChiefMinisterialOfficerasperprovisionof199&200ofCriminal RulesofPractice. Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronouncedbymeinOpenCourt,thisthe30thdayofApril,2012. Sd/.K.V.RamanajiRao, IADDITIONALDISTRICT&SESSIONSJUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

WitnessesExamined PW.1:DasariRambabu,VRO.,NagarikatakamPanchayat. PW.2:GedelaVijayaBabu,VRO,Pagodu. PW.3:KunaVenkati PW.4:KarukolaBhaskaraRao PW.5:PanchireddiRajarao PW.6:PylaRamanamma PW.7:PylaAnuradha PW.8:PylaSarojini PW.9:VootaGanapathi PW.10:VootaKrishna PW.11:VootaSriramaMurty PW.12:BoddepalliPrakashaRao PW.13:PylaChinnammi PW.14:GuruvelliMohanaRao PW.15:VootaAnasuyamma

PW.16:YevvariPrakasarao PW.17:VootaSimmanna PW.18:VootaMutyalamma PW.19:KarukolaManikyam PW.20:BeriSrinivasarao PW.21:GudlaKrishnaMurty PW.22:BasavaSubbarao,(Priest) PW.23:ThammannagariSriKrishna,(Priest) PW.24:NakkaTulasiNarayanaDas PW.25:PalakaThavudu PW.26:PankuPakeeru,VRO,YelamanchiliPanchayat. PW.27:KinjarapuMohanaRao,VRO,BasivadaVillage. PW.28:BasavaYogeswaraRao PW.29:RavadaThyagaRaju,VRO,Kondapolavalasa. PW.30:Dr.H.ArunaKumari,C.A.S.,CommunityHealthCenter, Narasannapeta. PW.31:Dr.N.Madhavi,C.A.S.,CommunityHealthCenter,Narasannapeta. PW.32:Dr.G.GuruMurty,C.A.S.,CommunityHealthCenter, Narasannapeta. PW.33:AnanthapatnaikuniSrinivasaRao,PC660,Photographer(Clues Team). PW.34:V.H.L.Nagesh,InspectorofPoliceandF.P.Expert,Srikakulam. PW.35:PedadaSurapuNaidu,ARSI775I/cB.D.T.Team,Etcherla. PW.36:Dr.E.Aravind,C.A.S.,CommunityHealthCenter,Narasannapeta. PW.37:Dr.T.AnilKumar,C.A.S.,CommunityHealthCenter,Tekkali. PW.38:N.Adinarayana,Asst.Director,RFSL.,Karasa,Visakhapatnam. PW.39:Md.MoiniddinHasan,Asst.Director,FSL.,Hyderabad. PW.40:N.KrishnaPrasad,ScientificOfficer,FSL.,Hyderabad.

PW.41:N.ThirupathiRao,S.I.,ofPolice,NarasannapetaP.S. PW.42:S.PrakasaRao,S.I.,ofPolice,SarubujjiliP.S. PW.43:S.Satyanarayana,S.I.,ofPolice,LaveruP.S. PW.44:N.SanyasiNaidu,S.I.,ofPolice,GaraP.S. PW.45:R.AppalaNaidu,S.I.,ofPolice,AmadalavalasaP.S. PW.46:P.UmapathiVarma,InspectorofPolice,AmadalavalasaCircle. PW.47:N.Sai,S.I.,ofPolice,JalumuruP.S. PW.48:T.PanasaReddy,SDPO.,SrikakulamSubDivision. ExhibitsMarked ForComplainant: Ex.P.1/1122010 Ex.P.2/1122010 Ex.P.3/ Ex.P.4/1122010 Ex.P.5/1122010 Ex.P.6/1122010 Ex.P.7/1122010 Ex.P.8/1122010 Ex.P.9/1122010 : : : : : : : : : ReportgivenbyPW.1toPolice,dated01.12.2010. SceneObservationReportdated01.12.2010at7.00a.m. ChartinItemNo.37. SceneObservationReport,dtd.01.12.2010at7.00a.m. SceneObservationReport,dtd01.12.2010at8.00a.m. InquestReportofdeceasedPylaVenkatarao(Deceased No.4)atabout8.30hours. InquestReportofTrunkofthedeceasedMettaManasa (DeceasedNo.1)at8.30a.m. InquestReportofTrunkofthedeceasedMettaDiwakar (DeceasedNo.2)at11.30hours. SceneObservationReportmarkedbyPW.1dtd.1.12.2010 at1.00p.m. InquestReportofheadofthedeceasedMettaManasa (DeceasedNo.1)at1.45p.m. InquestReportofheadofthedeceasedMettaDiwakar (DeceasedNo.2)at3.00p.m. SceneObservationReportdtd.01.12.2010at4.45p.m. ConfessionStatement NoteRuleBook NoteBookSeizedunderthecoverofMediatorsReport dtd.4.12.2010at11.00a.m. SceneObservationReportmarkedthroughPW2, dtd.01.12.2010at7.00a.m. SceneObservationReport,dtd.01.12.2010at11.00a.m. InquestReportofMettaYerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)at1.00 p.m.

Ex.P.10/1122010 : Ex.P.11/122010 Ex.P.12/1122010 Ex.P.13/ Ex.P.14/ Ex.P.15/4122010 : : : : :

Ex.P.16/1122010 : Ex.P.17/1122010 : Ex.P.18/1122010 :

Ex.P.19/ Ex.P.20/ Ex.P.21/151210

: : :

Ex.P.22/1122010 : Ex.P.23/1122010 : Ex.P.24/1122010 : Ex.P.25/1122010 : Ex.P.26/1122010 : Ex.P.27/1122010 : Ex.P.28/7122010 : Ex.P.29/8122010 : Ex.P.30/ Ex.P.31/ Ex.P.32/3122010 Ex.P.33/151210 : : : :

Ex.P.34/4122010 :

MajorPortionof161Cr.P.C.,StatementofP.W.22 MajorPortionof161Cr.P.C.,StatementofP.W.23 MediatorsReport,dated.15122010at4.00P.M.,marked throughP.W.26. MediatorsReportmarkedthroughP.W.27, dtd.01.12.2010at7.00a.m. InquestReportofBoddepalliDhamayanthi(Deceased No.7)at8.30a.m.,markedthroughP.W.27. InquestreportofdeceasedPylaLaxmanaRao(Deceased No.3)at8.30a.m.,markedthroughPW.28. InquestreportofdeceasedOotaParvathi(DeceasedNo.6) at8.30hoursmarkedthroughPW.29. PostmortemCertificateofdeceasedMettaManasa (DeceasedNo.1)markedthroughPW.30. PostmortemCertificateofdeceasedMettaYerrayya (DeceasedNo.5)markedthroughPW.30. PostmortemCertificateofdeceasedPylaVenkataRao (DeceasedNo.4)markedthroughPW.31. PostmortemCertificateofdeceasedOotaParvathi (DeceasedNo.6)markedthroughPW.32. Bunchof27positivephotos. C.D.connecteddiskofEx.P.30Photos. Letterdated03.12.2010markedthroughPW.34. Certificatewithregardingdiffusionofbombsmarked throughPW.35. PostmortemCertificateofdeceasedBoddepalli Damayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)markedthroughPW.36. PostmortemCertificateofoverthetrunkdeceasedMetta Diwakar(DeceasedNo.2)markedthroughPW.36. PostmortemCertificateofovertheheadofdeceasedMetta Diwakar(DeceasedNo.2). PostmortemCertificateofdeceasedPylaLaxmanaRao (DeceasedNo.3)markedthroughPW.37. Reportdated29.01.2011markedthroughPW.38. Opiniondated01.02.2011markedthroughPW.39. HandwritingreportofF.S.L.,markedthroughPW.40. RoughSketchofsceneofoffenceofdeceasedPyla LaxmanaRao(DeceasedNo.3)markedthroughPW.41.

Ex.P.35/4122010 : Ex.P.36/4122010 :

Ex.P.37/4122010 :

Ex.P.38/290111 Ex.P.39/0122011 Ex.P.40/1922011 Ex.P.41/011210

: : : :

Ex.P.42/011210

RoughSketchofsceneofoffenceofdeceasedPyla VenkataRao(DeceasedNo.4)markedthroughPW.42. RoughSketchofsceneofoffenceofdeceasedPyla VenkataRao(DeceasedNo.4)markedthroughPW.42. RoughSketchofsceneofoffenceofdeceasedMetta Yerrayya(DeceasedNo.5)markedthroughPW.43. RoughSketchofsceneofoffenceofdeceasedOota Parvathi(DeceasedNo.6)markedthroughPW.44. RoughSketchofsceneofoffenceofdeceasedBoddepalli Damayanthi(DeceasedNo.7)markedthroughPW.45. RoughSketchmarkedthroughPW.45forthedeadbodyof BoddepalliDamayanthi(DeceasedNo.7). RoughSketchmarkedthroughPW.46. RoughSketchmarkedthroughPW.46. OriginalFIRmarkedthroughPW.47. RoughSketchmarkedthroughPW.48. Confessionstatementdt.1.12.2010at8.30p.m.,marked throughPW.48. SanctionOrdersdt.9.4.2011markedthroughPW.48.

Ex.P.43/1122010 :

Ex.P.44/1122010 : Ex.P.45/1122010 :

Ex.P.46/1122010 : Ex.P.47/1122010 : Ex.P.48/011210 Ex.P.49/1122010 Ex.P.50/1122010 Ex.P.51/1122010 Ex.P.52/1122010 Ex.P.53/942011 ForDefence: Ex.D.1/ : : : : : : :

Portionin161Cr.P.C.StatementofOotaKrishna (PW.10).

MaterialObjectsMarked

M.O.1

M.O.2 M.O.3 M.O.4 M.O.5 M.O.6 M.O.7 M.O.8

: : : : : : :

Pairofchappalsblackincolourrelatingtothedeadbodyofthe deceasedVenkatarao(DeceasedNo.4)seizedunderEx.P.2 Sceneobservationreport. RedcolourtowelofDeceasedNo.4PylaVenkataRao. FullhandsShirtofDeceasedNo.4PylaVenkataRao. LungioftheDeceasedNo.4PylaVenkataRao. Plasticbag. Plasticbox(Dokku)withcottoninit. MotorcyclebearingNo.AP30D3982. TowelseizedundersceneobservationreportEx.P.5.

M.O.9 M.Os.10 &11 M.O.12 M.O.13 M.O.14 M.O.15 M.O.16 M.O.17 M.O.18 M.O.19 M.O.20 M.O.21 M.O.22 M.O.23 M.O.24 M.O.25 M.O.26

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Woodendoorpieces. Pieceofclothandthreadpieces. Current(electricity)meterdoorpiece. KnifeseizedbyD.S.P.atthetimeofconfessionofaccused. JungleFab(pair)markedthroughPW.1. Knife(markedthroughPW.2). PanchawithgreencolourborderofdeceasedNo.3Laxmanarao (markedthroughPW.6). KnifemarkedthroughPW.7initemNo.26. Orangecolourblackstripstowel. SareeofdeceasedNo.7(markedthroughPW.12). BlouseofdeceasedNo.7(markedthroughPW.12). Bluecolourbag(markedthroughPW.12). Smallknife(markedthroughPW.25). Currentmeter(markedthroughPW.27). Bottle(markedthroughPW.45underEx.P.22). Woodendoorpiece(markedthroughPW.45seizedunder Ex.P.22). DriedbreadwithcoverSeeta(markedthroughPW.45seized underEx.P.22).
Sd/K.V.RamanajiRao,

IADDL.DISTRICT&SESSIONSJUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.
CopysubmittedtotheRegistrar(Judicial),HonourableHighCourtofAndhraPradesh, Hyderabad. CopytothePrincipalDistrict&SessionsJudge,Srikakulam. CopytheDistrictCollector,Srikakulam. CopytotheSuperintendentofPolice,Srikakulam. CopytothelearnedJudl.MagistrateofIClass,Srikakulam. Note: AsperOrderdated01.05.2012ontheofficenotedated01.05.2012,theM.O.7 motor cycle bearing No.AP.30 D3982 is ordered to be confiscated to State after appealtimeisover,astheaccuseddidnotclaimthesame.

Sd/K.V.RamanajiRao, IADDL.DISTRICT&SESSIONSJUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

INTHECOURTOFTHEIADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE, SRIKAKULAM. Present:SriK.V.RamanajiRao,M.A.,B.L., IAddl.DistrictandSessionsJudge, Srikakulam Monday,this30thdayofApril,2012

SESSIONSCASENO.64/2011
(CrimeNo.51/2010ofJalumuruPoliceStation) (P.R.C.6/2011onthefileofJudl.MagistrateofIClass,Kotabommali)
1.Dateofoffence:30112010 2.Dateofcomplaint:30112010 3.Dateofapprehensionoftheaccused:25072011 4.Whethertheaccusedareonbailorinjail:Accusedinjail. 5.Dateofcommitment: 17052011 6.Dateofcommencementoftrial:12122011 7.Dateofcloseoftrial: 12032012

8.DateofJudgment: 9.Sentenceororder:

30042012

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

punishableundersection201oftheIndianPenalCodeinthreecountsandunder Section435oftheIndianPenalCodeandalsoUnderSection450oftheIndian PenalCodeandaccordinglytheaccusedisacquittedundersection235(1)ofCode ofCriminalProcedureforthesaidoffences. Intheresult,theaccusedisfoundguiltyfortheoffencepunishableunder section302oftheIndianPenalCodeinsevencountsandundersection506(2)of theIndianPenalCodeintwocountsandundersection3,4(a)and5ofExplosive SubstanceActandaccordinglytheaccusedisconvictedundersection235(2)of theCodeofCriminalProcedureforthesaidoffences. The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence before imposingsentence. Theaccusedissentencedtoundergosimpleimprisonmentforaperiodof5 (five)yearsforeachcountfortheoffencepunishableundersection506(2)ofthe IndianPenalCodefortwocountswhichshallrunconcurrently. AseparatesentenceneednotbegivenforSection5ofExplosiveSubstance ActsincetheoffenceisalsoinclusiveofSection4(a)ofExplosiveSubstanceAct forwhich,theseparatesentenceisnotpassed.Therefore, noseparatesentence

isnecessarilybegiventosection5ofExplosiveSubstanceAct.
Theaccusedisalsosentencedtosuffersimpleimprisonmentforaperiodof 10(ten)yearsandtopayfineofRs.1,00000andindefaultofpaymentoffine, toundergosimpleimprisonmentforfurtherperiodofonemonthfortheoffence punishableundersection3ofExplosivesSubstanceAct. Theaccusedisalsosentencedtosuffersimpleimprisonmentforaperiodof 10(ten)yearsandtopayfineofRs.1,00000 andindefaultofpaymentoffine,to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month for the offence punishableundersection4(a)ofExplosivesSubstanceAct.Thesentenceimposed

of10yearsfortheoffenceundersection3ofExplosiveSubstanceActandthe sentenceimposedforSection4(a)ofExplosiveSubstanceActareorderedtorun concurrently. Itisfurtherorderedthatthesentenceimposedfortheoffenceundersection 506(2)oftheIndianPenalCodeontwocountsandthesentenceimposedforthe offenceundersection3,andthatofSection4(a)ofExplosiveSubstanceActare orderedtorunconsecutively. Itisfurtherorderedthattheperiodofremandundergonebytheaccusedis orderedtobesetoffundersection428(1)ofCr.P.C.,

Theaccusedissentencedtodeathanddirectthattheaccusedbehangedby thenecktillheisdeadfortheoffencepunishableundersection302oftheIndian PenalCodeforsevencounts. M.Os.1to26materialobjectsandunmarkedpropertyifanyareorderedto bedestroyedafterappealtimeisover. Theaccusedisinformedthathehasgotrightofappealtomovebefore HonourableHighCourtofA.P.,HyderabadunderSection366(4)ofCr.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 requiredundersection366(1)ofCr.P.C.,withacoveringletter,aftercertifying thesamebyChiefMinisterialOfficerasperprovisionof199&200ofCriminal RulesofPractice. 10.Explanationforthedelay: a)IncommittalCourt:Videdocketextractenclosed.

b)InthisCourt:

Onreceiptofcommittalordersdated17052011

passedinP.R.C.6/2011onthefileofJudicialMagistrateofIClass,Kotabommali, thiscasewastakenonfileon25062011fortheoffencesunderSection302,435,

450,452,427ofIPCandSecs.3,4and5ofExplosivesSubstanceAct.Accused producedfromCentralPrison,Visakhapatnamunderprisonerstransferwarrant. ChargeswereframedunderSection302,302,302,201,302,201,Sec.5of ExplosivesSubstanceAct,435ofIPC,506(2)ofIPC.,302,201ofIPC,4(a)of ExplosivesSubstanceAct,506(2)ofIPC., Sec.3ofExplosivesSubstanceAct, Sec.450ofIPC.,Sec.302and302ofIPCinthiscaseon08112011andtheac cused is directed to kept in the District Jail, Srikakulam and preliminary trial schedulewasgiveninthiscasetoLWs.1to35from12.12.2011to23.12.2011and trialwascommencedon12.12.2011.PWs.1to5examinedandExs.P.1toP.18 andM.Os.1to15weremarkedandinthemeanwhileon14.12.2011theaccused filedanapplicationforadjournmentstatingthattheCounselsfatherdiedandre questedtimetill28.12.2011,inthecircumstancestheschedulewascancelledand issuedfreshschedulefrom02.01.2012to11.01.2012toLWs.5to35.PWs.6to15 wereexaminedandEx.D1markedandM.Os.16to21weremarked. Further trial schedule was issued from 23.01.2012 to 02.02.2012 to LWs.36to65andPWs.16to29wereexaminedandExs.P.19toP.25andM.Os.22 and23weremarked. FurthertrialschedulewasalsoissuedtoLWs.66to90from03.02.2012to 08.02.2012andPWs.30to38wereexaminedandExs.P.26to38weremarkedand remaining trial schedule was issued on 08.02.2012 to LWs.88 to 98 from 27.02.2012to07.03.2012andPWs.39to48wereexaminedandExs.P.39toP.53 andM.Os.24to26weremarked.

Accusedisexaminedu/Sec.313CriminalProcedureCodeon20032012

forwhichtheaccusedisdeniedtheprosecutionevidenceandon28.03.2012re portedthattheaccusedhasnodefencewitnessestobeexaminedonhisbehalf. Oral Arguments commenced on 04.04.2012 and heard in part on 09.04.2012, 10.04.2012,11.04.2012,12.04.2012,13.04.2012,16.04.2012,18.04.2012andcon cludedon19.04.2012. Writtenargumentsfiledon2704.2012. Judgmentwas pronouncedon30042012.HencethereisnoavoidabledelayinthisCourt. RemandParticulars: Theaccusedisinremandfrom01122010tilltodate. Fineamountnotpaid.

Sd/.K.V.RamanajiRao, IADDL.DISTRICT&SESSIONSJUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.