1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

NELLORE
(COURT OF SESSION: NELLORE DIVISION: NELLORE):
Thursday, this the 6th day of April 2017

Present: CH.RAMACHANDRA MURTHY

IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore
Nellore
**************
SESSIONS CASE No.78/2016
(P.R.C.No. 8/2016 of Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Kovur connected to
Crime No.123/2014 of Alluru Police Station)

Name of the Complainant: State Inspector of Police, Kovur Circle

Name of the Accused:
1. Talapala Penchalaiah
son of late Penchalaiah, aged 26
years, ST-Yanadi by caste,
Tummalavarithopu, Talamanchi
Panchayat of Kodavalur Mandal

2. Buduru Audi Seshaiah,

Nature of Offence:
Plea of the Accused:
Finding of the Judge:
Sentence of Order:
son of Venkaiah, aged 25 years, ST-B
Yanadi by caste, R.D.R., Colony, Allur
village and Mandal
U/S. 302 read with 34 IPC is in further
of common intention committing
murder and under Section 379 read
with 34 IPC in furtherance of common
intention committing theft
Not guilty
Not guilty
In the result, A-2/Buduru Audi
Seshaiah, son of Venkaiah is found
not guilty for the offence under
Section 302 and 379 IPC and he is
acquitted under Section 235 (1)
Cr.P.C. However, A-1/Talapala
Penchalaiah, son of late Penchalaiah
is found guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 302 and
379 of Indian Penal Code and he is
convicted of the same under Section
235 (2) of Cr.P.C.
A-1 is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code and also sentenced to pay
 2

a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred

only) for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. In
default, he shall undergo three months
simple imprisonment.

A-1 is further sentenced to undergo

three years rigorous imprisonment for
the offence punishable under Section
379 of Indian Penal Code. He is also
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-
(Rupees five hundred only) for the
offence punishable under Section 379
of Indian Penal Code. In default, he
shall undergo three months simple
imprisonment. Both sentences shall
run concurrently.

Out of the property marked in vide

C.P.R.No.11/2016, MO-1 to MO-11
shall be destroyed after appeal time is
over. Out of cash covered in MO-12 to
MO-16, an amount of Rs.45,800/-
(Rupees forty five thousands eight
hundred only) (Recovered from
possession A-1/TalapalaPenchalaiah)
shall be return to PW-4/Raja Suneel,
son of Venkateswarlu, Coco Cola
Agency Distributor,
Padmanabhasatram, Kodavalur
Mandal, after appeal time is over.

The remaining cash of Rs.1,500/-

shall be confiscated to the state after
appeal time is over, since A-2 did not
claim the amount.
Prosecution conducted by: Sri Sk.Rafi Malik
Additional Public Prosecutor
NELLORE.
Name of the Defence counsel: Sri Veluru Ravi
Advocate,
NELLORE.

JUDGMENT

1. State, Inspector of Police, Kovur Circle laid charge sheet before the

learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Kovur against the

accused under Sections 302 379 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The
 3

learned Magistrate took cognizance in P.R.C.No. 8/2016 under Section

302, 379 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. After securing the presence

of accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate

committed the case against the accused to the Court of Sessions as the

offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is exclusively trialable by

the Court of Sessions. After assigning S.C.No.78/2016, Hon'ble District &

Sessions Judge, Nellore made over the case to this Court for disposal

according to Law.

2. The brief allegations of the prosecution are that:

(i) Nellore Venkateswarlu/PW-1, Nellore Seenamma are parents of

Nellore Vinod Kumar. Nellore Vinod Kumar is working as Sales Man in the

Coco Coal Company of Raja Sunnel/PW-4, since four years. He is sales

man with Vehicle Max Truck bearing No.AP 03 W 7052. Vinod Kumar and

A-1 used to supply coco-cola drinks to the surrounding villages of Allur

and Iskapalli to the customers and used to collect cash from them and

used to pay Raja Suneel/PW-4.

(ii) On 1.8.2014 at 8.30 A.M., Vinod Kumar went for duty and

returned to home at 3-00 P.M. After taking lunch, Vinod Kumar went

outside to attend duty. At about 9.30 P.M., Venakateswarlu/PW-1

contacted his son Vinod Kumar over phone and enquired about

whereabouts. He replied that he along with A-1 at Iskapalli and they

collected cash of Rs.57,000/- from the customers and proceeding in the

vehicle. Vinod Kumar did not turn up till 11.30 P.M. Venkateswarlu/PW-1

contacted Raja Suneel/pw3-4 over phone and informed that phone of

Vinod Kumar was switched off. Raja Suneel replied that he also contacted
 4

Vinod Kumar through his phone. Later Venkateswarlu/PW-1 met Raja

Suneel and they searched for Vinod Kumar along with staff at Iskapalli,

Allur and its surrounding places. But he was not traced.

(iii) On 2.8.2014 at 10-00 hours, Tandra Venkata Seshaiah/PW-3,

Appikuti Gunnaiah/PW-5 and Appikuti Seenaiah/PW-6 while searching

reached the Malapatemma thumulu on Alluru to Iskapalli road and found

dead body of Vinod Kumar under culvert. They also found that big stone

was also placed on the chest of the dead body. On knowing about the

same, PW-1/Venkateswarlu visited the place and found the dead body of

his son. On that he gave report to the police and a case was registered in

crime No.123/2014.

(iv) During investigation, PW-14/Inspector of police visited the

scene of offence in the presence of Padeti Anandham/PW-12 and Vijaya

Kumar/LW-12 and also got photographed scene of offence, held inquest

over the dead body of deceased and recorded the statements of

witnesses. The dead body was referred to Government Hospital for

postmortem.

(v) On 3.8.2014 A1 and A-2 were arrested and recorded their

statements in the presence of mediators Padeti Anandham/PW-12 and

Vijaya Kumar/LW-12 and recovered weapon and also cash of Rs.47,300/-

under cover of mahazarnama. The accused were remanded to judicial

custody.

(vi) From the facts collected during investigation, it was established

that the accused with an intention to commit theft of cash from the

deceased Vinod Kumar, they killed and committed theft of cash and
 5

thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302, 379 read

with 34of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the charge.

3. On appearance of A-1 and A-2 and on hearing both sides charges

were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for the

offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and 379 read

with 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused. Accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. On behalf of the prosecution PWs 1 to PW-14 were examined and

Exs.P-1 to P-16 and MO-1 to M0-16 were marked.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

PW-1 Nellore Who is defacto complainant and

Venkateswarlu father of deceased.
PW-2 Nellore Seenamma Who is mother of deceased
PW-3 Tandra Venkata Who searched for deceased
Seshaiah Vinod Kumar and traced his
PW-5 Appikuti Gunnaiah dead body

Pw-6 Appikuti Seenaiah

PW-4 Raja Suneel who is Coco Cola Cool Drinks
Agency Distributor
PW-7 Konduru Tirupati Who witnessed the deceased
PW-8 Jaladanki and accused collecting the cash
Venkateswarlu from the customers

PW-9 Dr.P.Ramesh Who conducted postmortem

over the dead body of the
deceased
PW-10 Kathi Prasad Who speaks about the boarding
of his Auto by A-1 and A-2
PW-11 Mannem Who saw A-1 and A-2 got down
Venakateswarlu from the Auto of PW-10
PW-12 Padeti Anandham Who is mediator present at the
time of observing the scene of
offence, inquest over the dead
body of the deceased and also
at the time of arrest of
accused.
PW-13 Ch.Vasu The then Sub Inspector of
 6

Police, who registered a case

PW-14 T.Ashok Vardhan The then Inspector of Police,
who investigated t he case.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1 Statement of PW-1 recorded by the police
Ex.P-2 Postmortem certificate
Ex.P-3 Inquest report
Ex.P-4 Observation report of scene of offence, where the
dead body was lying
Ex.P-5 Observation report of scene of offence
Ex.P-6 and Relevant admissible portions in the statement of A-1
Ex.P-7 and A-2 respectively
Ex.P-8 Relevant admissible portion in the mediators report
for seizure of blood stained clothes of A-1
Ex.P-9 Relevant admissible portion for seizure of black bag
Ex.P-10 Relevant admissible portion for seizure of iron rod.
Ex.P-11 First Information Report
Ex.P-12 Rough sketch of scene of offence
Ex.P-13 Rough sketch of scene of offence (second)
Ex.P-14 Forensic Science Laboratory Report dated 23.12.2014
Ex.P-15 and Wound certificates of A-1 and A-2 respectively
Ex.P-16

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1 :- Rose Colour Ball point pen

MO-2 :- Small Comb
Mo-3 :- Blood stained earth
MO-4 :- Controlled earth
MO-5 :- Black Colour belt without
buckle
MO-6 :- Black colour bag with
WISDOM
MO-7 :- Blood stained Full hand Shirt
with red stripes on white
shirt
MO-8 :- Black and Red colur cut
Banion with blood stains
MO-9 :- Blood Stained Eqoli Water
Marks Jeans Pant
 7

MO-10 :- Iron square type rod (Baddi)

MO-11 :- Wheat colour purse
MO-12 :- Sixteen thousands rupees in
one thousand rupees
denomination (sixteen
number)
MO-13 :- Nineteen thousands in five
hundred denomination
(thirty eight in number)
MO-14 :- Total cash of Rs.11,300/-
(Rs.100 X 113 denomination)
MO-15 :- Total cash of Rs.200/- (Rs.20
X 10 denomination)
MO-16 :- Total cash of Rs.800/- (Rs.10
X 80 denomination)

5. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the

accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of

explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of

the prosecution witnesses. They denied the circumstances and they did

not choose to examine witnesses.

6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused relevant

records.

7. The points for determination is:

1. Whether the death of deceased Vinod Kumar is

homicidal death or suicidal death?

2. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in

proving the guilt of the accused persons for the
offence charged beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT No.1

1. Whether the death of deceased

Vinod Kumar is homicidal death or suicidal
death?
 8

8. It is not in dispute that PW-1 and PW-2 are parents of

deceased Vinod Kumar. A-1 and deceased Vinod Kumar used to work in

the Coco-cola company of PW-4/Raja Suneel. They used to go to Iskapalli

of Allur Villages on Max Truck bearing No.AP 03 W 7052 and supply the

cool drinks to the customers and collect money.

9. The main contention of the prosecution is that the accused with

an intention to commit theft of cash from Vinod Kumar, they beat and

killed him and that the cash was recovered from the possession of

accused.

10. The contention of the accused is that on 31.7.2014 A-1 and

deceased Vinod Kumar delivered coco-cola bottles to the customers and

collected Rs.57,000/- and while they were returning, Vinod Kumar

stopped the vehicle near Alluru Rama Krishna College and handed over

cash of Rs.47,000/- to A-1 and Vinod Kumar retained Rs.10,000/- with him

and requested A-1 to handover Rs.47,000/- to PW-4 and since then Vinod

Kumar was missing and that A-1 boarded the Auto of his friend/PW-

10/Prasad at Allur College and met PW-4 and informed about the

conversation in between him and Vinod Kumar and offered to pay

Rs.47,000/- cash and then PW-4 asked him to keep the cash with him and

hand over the same onthe next day morning and PW-4 went to Rama

Krishna College in his Car along with A-1 and driver Krishna and picked up

Van with the help of his driver Krishna and parked the Van in his Go-down

at Padmanabha Satram and that A-1 and A-2 were falsely implicated in

this case.

11. The basic question requires consideration before assessing the

other evidence is whether the deceased died homicidal death or suicidal

 9

death. Apart from the direct witnesses to the occurrence, we have to

arrive at a finding on this aspect basing on the medical evidence and

inquest report.

12. PW-12 is Independent mediator present at the time of inquest

over the dead body of deceased. He deposed that an inquest was held

over the dead body of deceased Vinod Kumar under Ex.P-3. They found

grievous injury over the head, left hand finger was broken. PW-14, who

is Investigation Officer also deposed that an inquest was held over the

dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators under Ex.P-3.

Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of PW-14 to

disprove his evidence as to conducting inquest over the dead body of the

deceased.

In a decision reported in 2002 (2) crimes 137 (SC)

Suresh Raj and others Vs. State of Bihar, wherein in para 15
it is observed that “inquest report is prepared by the
investigation officer to find out prima-facie the nature of
injuries and possible weapon used in causing those injuries as
also possible cause of death”.

13. As argued by the learned Advocate for the accused, the opinion

given by the inquest mediators as to the apparent cause of the death of

the deceased is only relevant and other evidence, which is based upon

information furnished by some persons is not admissible under law. Even

otherwise, under sec-174 Cr.P.C., apparent cause of the death of the

deceased is only relevant. In column XV of Ex.P-3 it is mentioned that

deceased was murdered to rob his collection money.

14. In addition to the evidence of inquest panchayathdhars,

prosecution examined PW-9/Dr.P.Ramesh, who is Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Allur, deposed that on 3.8.2014 at 11.20 A.M., he received requisition to

 10

conduct postmortem over the dead body of deceased Nellore Vinod

Kumar, son of Venkateswarlu. He commenced postmortem on 3.8.2011

from 11.20 A.M., onwards. He found the following External Injuries:-

Scalp :- 1 X 1 C.M., Cut wound at forehead

1 X 1 C.M., Cut wound on left eyebrows
2 X 1 C.M., cut wound at parietal region of
scalp
Neck :- Bruise around the neck
Hand :- Left hand little finger bent back side

INTERNAL EXAMINATION

Intracrainel :- Brain-Pale
Hyoid Bone :- Both horns are fractured
Lung :- Congested
Heart :- Empty- Normal
Liver :- Injured blood collected at upper
right side of abdomen
Kidney, Spleen :- Congested
Stomach :- Partly digested food
Intestine :- Normal
Urinary Bladder :- Empty

He issued postmortem certificate in Ex.P-2. The postmortem was

completed at 3.40 P.M., on 3.8.2014. The cause of death was due to

asphyxia due to strangulation. The time of death was within 36 hours to

48 hours approximately. The injury over parietal region over scalp is

possible with iron rod (square type rod). The neck injury and

strangulation is possible with the help of belt or a shirt. The above

injuries are sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course of

nature.

15. Therefore, from the medical evidence in this case and inquest

report there need not be any doubt as to the fact that the deceased

Vinod Kumar died due to strangulation. For the foregoing discussion it

concludes that the death of deceased Vinod Kumar was unnatural death
 11

and nothing but homicidal in nature. Accordingly , this point is

answered.

POINT No.2

2. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in

proving the guilt of the accused person for the
offence charged beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

16. As per prosecution, the accused killed Nellore Vinod Kumar and

committed theft of Cash of Rs.47,700/-. The contention of accused is that

they did not commit any offence and the case is foisted against them.

17. PW-13 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded the

statement of PW-1 in Ex.P-1, registered a case and issued first

information report in Ex.P-11. He denied a suggestion that on suspicion

the case is registered at the instance of Inspector of Police and that

accused did not commit any offence.

18. PW-12 is Independent mediator present at the time of observing

the scene of offence. He categorically deposed that PW-14 observed the

scene of offence and prepared observation report of scene of offence in

Ex.P-4 and recovered material objects from scene of offence. He also

further deposed about 2nd scene of offence observation report

prepared in Ex.P-5 and seizure of MO-1 to MO-4 from the scene of

offence. He denied a suggestion that mediators reports were prepared in

the police station and obtained his signature and that he did not go to

the scene of offence. No summons were served on him before acting as

mediator. He denied a suggestion that MO-1 to MO-11 were planted by

the police and nothing has been seized in his presence. The evidence of

PW-12 is supported by PW-14/Investigation Officer. Nothing has been

 12

elicited from the cross-examination of PW-12 and PW-14 in disproving

the visit of scene of offence and preparing observation report of scene

of offence.

19. PW-1, is father of deceased. He categorically deposed that about

less than one month, two years back his son Vinod Kumar left his house

at 8-00 A.M., and returned to home at 3-00 P.M. After taking lunch again

he went to outside to attend his work. At 9.30 P.M., he contacted his son

over phone, who stated that he was at Iskapalli and returning to

Padmnabhasatram in a Van with cash of Rs.57,000/-. A-1 and his friend

also accompanied him. At 11.30 P.M., when he contacted his son over

phone, he did not respond to his call. Then he approached PW-4 and

searched for Vinod Kumar at Alluru and Iskapalli. On the next day at 10-

00 or 10-30 A.M., while he was searching near Malaputemma temple,

meanwhile, PW-5 and PW-6 informed that they saw the dead body of his

son in an Irrigation sluice and also found one big stone (boulder) over the

dead body of his son. He went there and identified the dead body as his

son Vinod Kumar. He found one stone kept over the dead body. He

called his wife who identified the dead body of his son. He went to the

police station and gave statement in Ex.P-1 narrating the incident. A-1

and his friend killed his son Vinod Kumar for the purpose of committing

theft of cash. A-1 and his friend took away cash from his son.

(I) During his cross-examination he expressed his ignorance as to

his mobile number and mobile number of his son. He denied a suggestion

that he did not state before the police that his son informed him over

phone that he was having cash of Rs.57,000/- and returning to

Padmanabhasatarm along with A-1 Penchalaian and his friend in the van
 13

and that he knew A-1 and that he can identify A-1 and that he contacted

his friend over phone at 11.30 A.M. They did not go to any houses in

Allur and enquire about his son.

(ii) PW-1 denied a suggestion that on 1.8.2014, his son did not go to

Iskapalli in a Van for delivery of Coco-Cola bottles and he did not get cash

of Rs.57,000/- on delivery of bottles and that his son went to Iskpalli on

31.7.2014 for delivery of coco-cola bottles and that his son did not turn

up on the night of 31.7.2014 and that they traced the dead body of his

son on 1.8.2014 at 10-00 A.M., and that Rs.57,000/- cash was collected on

31.7.2014 only and that A-1 and his friend never killed his son and

committed theft of cash of Rs.57,000/-. He admitted that the cash of

Rs.57,000/- is that of PW-4/Raja Suneel.

20. PW-2, who is mother of deceased and wife of PW-1 deposed

that she dialed mobile phone number of his son at 9.30 P.M., about two

years back (less than one month) and handed over the phone to her

husband. Her son replied over phone to her husband that he was at

Iskapalli and he collected Rs.57,000/- after delivering the bottles and

returning to home along with A-1 Penchalaiah and his friend. She heard

the conversation as the speaker of phone was on. Her son did not turn

up till 11.30 P.M. At about 11.30 P.M., they contacted their son over

phone. Her son did not respond to their call. They approached PW-4 and

enquired about their son. They also went to Allur and Iskapalli and

searched for her son. But he was not traced. On the next day at 10.30

A.M., she received telephone call from her husband and he informed that

dead body of their son was available at Malaputemma temple and that

her son was killed. She went there and identified the dead body of his
 14

son. A-1 and Penchalaiah killed his son for the purpose of committing of

theft of cash.

(I) During her cross-examination she did not furnish the phone

number of her son and her phone number. She denied a suggestion that

they do not know as to who killed her son and that after tracing the dead

body, two days later after due deliberations, they foisted the case

against the accused at the instance of PW-4 and police and that the

accused are not responsible for the death of his son and that on

suspicion they foisted this case against the accused and that accused

never killed her son and that she is deposing false at the instance of PW-

4.

21. PW-3 is son-in-law of PW-1 and PW-2. He deposed that on

1.8.2014 at 11.30 P.M., PW-1 contacted him over phone and informed

that Vinod Kumar did not turn up. He advised PW-1 to go and search for

Vinod Kumar. On the next day at 6-00 A.M., he called PW-1 over phone

and informed that they did not trace Vinod Kumar during night. Later he

went to Allur along with PW-5 and PW-6. Finally, they traced the dead

body of Vinod Kumar in a sluice near Malaputemma temple. He called

PW-1 over phone, who in turn, came there and identified the dead body.

Talapala Penchalaiah and his friend beat and killed Vinod Kumar and

committed theft of cash of Rs.57,000/-.

(I) During his cross-examination he denied a suggestion that Vinod

Kumar did not die and killed by anybody on 1.8.2014 and that accused are

nothing to do with the death of Vinod Kumar and that they never

committed theft of cash of Rs57,000/- from Vinod Kumar and that Vinod

Kumar was missing on 31.7.2014 and his dead body was traced in the
 15

morning hours of 1.18.2014. Vinod Kumar was not alive as on 1.8.2014.

He denied a suggestion that he is deposing false as tutored by the police.

22. PW-4 is owner of the Coco-Cola drink distributor at

Padmnabhasatram. He deposed that deceased Vinod Kumar worked as

Sales Man cum driver. A-1 was working in his agency since four months

prior to the incident. Vinod Kumar died on 1.8.2014. A-1 killed him. A-1

and Vinod Kumar used to go to nearby villages and deliver cool drink

bottles in a Van. On 1.8.2014 Vinod Kumar and A-1 went to Allur on his

vehicle bearing No.AP 03 W 7052 for delivery of coco-cola bottles. They

returned to their agency by 2-0 P.M. After lunch they went to Iskapalli for

delivery of cool drink bottles. Later he came to Nellore. On the same day

at 9-00 P.M., Vinod Kumar contacted his phone and stated that he

collected Rs.57,000/- from customers and returning from Iskaplli. He

returned to village at 11.30 P.M., Nellore. He contacted Vinod Kumar to

his mobile number 9553422805. He received reply as switched off. He

also contacted Penchalaiah to his phone number 7893676317. He

received reply as switched off. PW-1 came to his go down at 11-00 or

11.30 P.M. and informed that his son did not respond to his call. They

searched for Vinod Kumar. They went to Iskapalli, but they did not trace

Vinod Kumar.

(I) He further deposed that he returned to Godown at 2-00 P.M., by

that time the vehicle bearing No.AP 03 7052 was parked near his Go-

down. He inspected his vehicle and found chilli powder inside the vehicle.

On enquiry he came to know that A-1 Penchalaiah called the Auto of one

Prasad and go to Padmanabhasatram and from there A-1 and another

person boarded one Auto and left Padmnabhasatram. He came to know

 16

that Auto Prasad and another person reached Padmanabhasatram in the

Auto. On the next day early morning he and other villagers and parents

of Vinod Kumar searched for Vinod Kumar. At about 10-00 A.M., they

traced Vinod Kumat at sluice near Malaputemma temple. The collection

amount of RS.57,000/- was not available along with the dead body of

Vinod Kumar. A-1 killed Vinod Kumar and stolen away cash of Rs.57,000/-.

(ii) During his cross-examination he deposed that there is no trip

sheet for his three vehicles. He denied a suggestion that the vehicle with

load was not proceeded to Iskapalli on 1.8.2014. He did not contact Vinod

Kumar. He does not know whether Vinod Kumar having mobile number

bearing No.8985842243. He has no idea whether he has stated before

the police the said phone number. He denied a suggestion that on

31.7.2014 Vinod Kumar went to Juvvaladinne, Thtaticheltlapalem in the

morning hours and that he went to Iskapalli during evening and night

hours and that as per the bills Vinod Kumar collected Rs.57,000/- on

31.7.2014 and that accused are nothing to do with this case.

(iii) PW-4 denied a suggestion that Vinod Kumar collected

Rs.57,000/- and he returned to Allur and he stopped his vehicle at Allur

Village and that he retained Rs.10,000/- out of Rs.57,000/- and that he

handed over balance amount to A-1 with a request to hand over the same

to him and that A1 approached him in the Auto of one Prasad and

offered to pay the balance amount received from Vinod Kumar and that

he refused to receive the same and asked A-1 to keep the amount with

him and promised to receive the same on the next day. He has no idea

whether he stated before the police that by 2-00 A.M., on 1.8.2014 he

saw parking of his vehicle near go-down. He denied a suggestion that he

 17

brought his vehicle from Allur college and he parked vehicle near his go-

down on 31.8.2014 and that he concocted the story that he found chilli

powder in the vehicle.

(iv) PW-4 further denied a suggestion that Vinod Kumar might have

died due to his bad habits and extra marital relationship and that accused

are nothing to do with the death of Vinod Kumar and that A-1 kept cash

of Rs.45,800/- with him as directed by him. He denied a suggestion that

as per Postmortem report, Vinod Kumar died prior to 1.8.2014.

23. PW-5 deposed that they traced the dead body of Vinod Kumar in

an irrigation sluice. They found stab injuries over the head of deceased.

Deceased was related to him. He denied a suggestion that he never

searched for Vinod Kumar. He further deposed that the water was not

flowing in sluice. He denied a suggestion that he is deposing false as

tutored by the police.

24. PW-6 also deposed that they found the dead body of Vinod Kumar

in a sluice near a temple. They found injuries over the head and over left

eye of dead body. He denied a suggestion that by the time he saw the

dead body, the dead body was in decomposed condition. The water in

the sluice was flowing up to half feet depth. He cannot say the height

and width of sluice. He denied a suggestion that he is deposing false as

deceased related to him.

25. PW-7 deposed that on 1.8.2014, at 7.30 or 8-00 A.M., A-1 Vinod

Kumar came to his cool drink and cool drinks and delivered cool drinks

and collected money. A-1 also came to his shop along with Vinod Kumar.

On enquiry A-1 stated to him that he brought another person who is A-2
 18

as he (A-1) was not doing well. He came to know that dead body of Vinod

Kumar was traced in a sluice near Malapatemma temple.

(I) During his cross-examination he deposed that the cool drink

bottles will be deliver on every Tuesday and Thursday. He denied a

suggestion that Cool-drinks bottles were not delivered at his shop on

1.8.2014. He received bill for Rs.21,000/- on 1.8.2014. The bill is

misplaced. He denied a suggestion that Vinod Kumar delivered coco-cola

bootles on 31.7.2014 and that there was no delivery of bottles at his

shop on 1.8.2014 and that A-2 never came to his shop.

26. PW-8 deposed that on 2.8.2014 he came to know the death of

Vinod Kumar. On 1.8.2014 at about 9-00 or 9.30 P.M. A-1 and Vinod

Kumar came to his cool drink shop and delivered cool drinks and

collected money. He identified A-2.

(I) During his cross-examination he deposed that the cool drinks

bottles will be deliver to him on every Thursday. He denied a suggestion

that Vinod Kumar delivered coco-cola bottles on 31.7.2014 and he did not

deliver bottles on 1.8.2014 and that A-2 never came to his shop along

with A-1.

27. PW-10 deposed that on 1.8.2014 during night at 12.30 midnight A-

1 contacted him over phone and asked him to come to

Padmanabhasatram to go to Iskapalli. He went to Padmanabhasatram

along with PW-11 Venkateswarlu, where A-1 and A-2 boarded his Auto. A-

1 asked him to stop the Auto before reaching Raypeta cross roads, where

A-1 and A-2 got down from his auto. He had no prior acquaintance with A-

2. A-1 stated to him that A-2 is his relative.

 19

(I) During his cross-examination he denied a suggestion that A-1

never contacted him over phone on 1.8.2014 and he did not go to

Padmanabhasatram along with PW-11 and that A-1 and A-2 never

boarded his Auto and got down before reaching Royapeta cross roads

and that on 31.7.2014 Vinod Kumar stopped cool drink van at Allur

college and retained Rs.10,000/- out of collected amount and the balance

amount was handed over to A-1 with a request to hand over the same to

PW-4 and left the place and that A-1 engaged his auto and approached

PW-4 and that PW-4 requested A-1 to keep the amount with him and

promised to receive the same on the next day and that he did not see A-1

and A-2 on 1.8.2014 and that they never boarded Auto and that he

identified A-2 at the instance of police.

28. PW-11 also deposed that on 1.8.2014 at 12.30 midnight PW-10

came to his shop and requested him to accompany him. He boarded the

Auto of PW-10 and reached Padmanabhasatram, where A-1 and A-2

boarded the Auto and they got down from Auto near Royapeta. He had

no prior acquaintance with A-1 and A-2.

(I) During his cross-examination he denied a suggestion that PW-10

never approached him and he never boarded the Auto and that A-1 and

A-2 never boarded the auto of PW-10 and they never got down at

Royapeta in his presence.

29. As per evidence of prosecution witnesses and as per suggestions

put to material witnesses on behalf of accused, it can safely be held that

PW-4 Suneel is distributor for supply of coco-cola .He is supplying Coco

cola cool drink bottles to the shops in Iskapalli and Allur villages through

his employees. Deceased Vinod Kumar worked as Sales Man cum driver.
 20

A-1/Penchalaiah also worked in the Distribution Agency of PW-4.

Deceased Vinod Kumar and A-1 used to go to Allur and Iskapalli in the

van of PW-4 and used to supply cool drink bottles to the customers and

deceased Vinod Kumar used to collect money from the customers.

Though, the date of death is disputed by the accused, it is not disputed

that on the date of death, A-1 and Vinod Kumar went to Iskapalli and

delivered coco-cola cool drink bottles to PW-8. As per suggestions put to

PW-4, the accused are also not disputing the collection of Rs.57,000/- by

deceased Vinod Kumar and A-1/Penchalaiah after distributing the coco-

cola bottles to the customers. The accused is also not disputing the

recovery of Rs.45,800/- from the possession of A-1.

30. The first contention of the learned advocate for the accused is that

as per postmortem report issued by PW-9, Vinod Kumar died on

31.7.2014 and that Vinod Kumr and A-1 went to Iskapalli for delivery of

cool drink bottles on 31.7.2014 only and that the contention of the

prosecution that Vinod Kumar and A-1 went to Iskpalli on 1.8.2014 is not

correct.

31. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that Vinod Kumar and

A-1 went to Iskapalli and delivered bottles and collected money on

1.8.2014, but not on 31.7.2014.

32. Admittedly, as per evidence on record, the dead body of Vinod

Kumar was lying in an irrigation sluice near Malaputemma temple. As per

Ex.P-4 observation report of scene of offence the dead body of Vinod

Kumar was lying in a sluice and one boulder (bontharayi) was kept over

the chest of deceased. The depth of channel near the culvert is 6 feet,
 21

with a width of 10 feet. The depth of the water is about four inches only.

The dead body was traced on 2.8.2014 at about 10-00 or 10-30 A.M.

33. As per evidence of PW-9/Medical Officer, he conducted

postmortem on 3.8.2014 at 11.20 A.M. As per evidence of PW-9, the time

of death was within 36 hours to 48 hours approximately.

(I) During his cross-examination he deposed that the death was

occurred before 36 hours and in between 36 to 48 hours prior to his

examination. The dead body was soaked in the water. He cannot say how

long the dead body was soaked in the water. There may not be

rigormortis available over the dead body in the water after the death.

There was swelling over neck. He did not find any alcohol contents in the

dead body. He denied a suggestion that he simply issued postmortem

certificate without clinical examination and he only made naked eye

observation.

34. Admittedly, as per evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 Vinod Kumar and A-1

went to Iskapalli on the evening of 1.8.2014. According to them, Vinod

Kumar did not turn up to home on the night of 1.8.2014. If the defence

theory that Vinod Kumar died on the night of 31.7.2014 is accepted, the

time of death may be beyond 48 hours as PW-9 conducted postmortem

on 3.8.2014. If the evidence of P.W-9 is taken into consideration,

deceased Vinod Kumar might have died during midnight of 1.8.2014 only,

but not on 31.7.2014.

35. In addition to the medical evidence of PW-9, prosecution is relying

upon the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4, Pw-8, PW-10 and PW-11. As per

evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, they contacted Vinod Kumar over phone on

the night of 1.8.2014. PW-4, who is owner of the Distribution Agency,

 22

categorically deposed that on 1.8.2014, A-1 and deceased Vinod Kumar

went to Iskapalli and delivered cool drink bottles.

36. Learned advocate for the accused argued that the prosecution

failed to produce the call data of mobile phone of deceased and call data

of PW-1 and PW-2 to prove that deceased Vinod Kumar went to Iskapalli

on 1.8.2014. Admittedly PW-1 expressed his ignorance as to mobile

number of his son. Non-production of call data of the mobile number of

the deceased and PW-1 is not fatal to the prosecution case as

prosecution produced other oral evidence in support of their contention.

37. PW-4 categorically deposed that on 1.8.2014 only A1 and Vinod

Kumar went to Iskapalli. The learned advocate for the accused further

argued that the trip sheet of the vehicle is not produced by the

prosecution and further the bill book showing the delivery of bottles on

1.8.2014 is also not produced and it is fatal to the case of prosecution. As

per evidence of PW-4, there is no trip sheet for the vehicles maintained

by him. He further deposed that he is not maintaining any ledger books

showing the collection amount. As per evidence of PW-8, he received

delivery receipt and he can produce the same. But he did not produce the

same. PW-8 categorically deposed that on 1.8.2014 only at 9-00 or 9.30

P.M., Vinod Kumar and A-1 along with another person came to his shop

and delivered cool drinks and collected money.

38. PW-10 is Auto driver. He categorically deposed that on 1.8.2014 at

12.30 midnight, A-1 contacted him over phone and asked him to come to

Padmanabha Satram. He along with PW-11 went to Padmanabhasatram

in his Auto, where A-1 and A-2 boarded the Auto and they got down from

the Auto before reaching Roypeta cross roads. As per evidence of PW-10,
 23

A-1 is known to him. He has no prior acquaintance with A-2.PW-10 denied

a suggestion that A-1 engaged his Auto on the night of 31.7.2014 and

went to the house of PW-4 to handover the collected amount. PW-11

also denied the same. As per suggestion put to PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11,

it is clear that A-1 and Vinod Kumar went to the shop of PW-8 and that A-

1 and another person boarded the Auto of PW-10. Nothing has been

elicited from the cross-examination of PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 to

disprove their evidence regarding the incident that took place on the

night of 1.8.2014. Nothing has been elicited from their cross-examination

to prove the contentions of the accused that the deceased died on the

night of 31.7.2014 as contended by the accused. Taking into

consideration of evidence of PW-1 to PW-4, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11, it

can safely be held that on the night of 1.8.2014, A-1 and deceased Vinod

Kumar went to the shop of PW-8 and delivered bottles and collected

money. On th same day night A-1 and another person boarded the Auto

of PW-10 and got down from the Auto before reaching Royapeta cross

roads. PW-11 also boarded the auto of PW-10. It is not disputed that A-1

engaged the Auto of PW-10 on the midnight of 1.8.2014. The contention

of the leaned advocate for accused that A-1 engaged auto of PW-10 on

the night of 31.7.2014, cannot be accepted in view of the evidence of

prosecution witnesses as referred to above.

39. Admittedly , PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 had no prior acquaintance

with A-2. They saw A-2 on the alleged date of incident only. Admittedly,

the investigation officer did not conduct Test identification parade of A-2

immediately after his arrest through PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11. As per

evidence of PW-8 and PW-10 they have prior acquaintance with A-1. As
 24

per evidence of PW-1 and Pw-2 and PW-4 coupled with the suggestions

put to prosecution witnesses on behalf of accused, it can safely be held

that A-1 and deceased Vinod Kumar were last seen together by PW-8.

Nothing has been elicited from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to

disprove the last seen theory. However, the case of prosecution is

doubtful against A-2. Therefore, a benefit of doubt will be given to A-2.

40. It is for the accused No.1 to-explain the circumstances under which

the death of Vinod Kumar occurred. The failure on the part of accused to

furnish any explanation in this regard would give rise to a very strong

presumption against A-1. As per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act 1872,

burden of proving fact especially within the knowledge of A1 and he

failed to discharge his burden. As per suggestions put to PW-4 and PW-

10, A-1 Penchalaiah approached him in the Auto of PW-10 at 10-00 P.M

and when he offered to pay the collected amount of Rs.47,000/-, he

refused to receive the same from A-1. PW-4 denied the same. If really, A-

1 approached PW-4 in the Auto of PW-10 and offered to pay the

collected amount, PW-4 would have received the same. There is no need

for P.W-4 to ask A-1 to keep the money with him with a promise to

receive the same on the next day. PW-10 denied the same. He

categorically deposed that A-1 and another person boarded his Auto and

got down from the Auto before reaching Roypeta cross roads. He

categorically deposed that A1 engaged his auto and boarded his auto at

Padmanabhasatram. The explanation offered by A-1 is not satisfactory

and the same is not proved through the cross-examination of prosecution

witnesses.
 25

41. The learned advocate for accused would bring to the notice of

discrepancies in evidence of Pw-1, PW-4 and other prosecution

witnesses. Those discrepancies are not material, which affects the case of

prosecution. In the circumstances of the case and for the above reasons

the accused No.1 and deceased Vinod Kumar together went to Iskapalli

and reached the shop of PW-8 and delivered cool drink bottles. Later,

Vinod Kumar was missing and he did not return to home. A-1 did not give

proper explanation as to what happened to Vinod Kumar after they left

Iskapalli village. Admittedly, as per evidence of PW-4., deceased Vinod

Kumar used to collect money from customers and hand over the same to

him. If really, Vinod Kumar retained Rs.10,000/- and handed over the

balance amount out of Rs.57,000/- to A-1, he would have contacted PW-4

and informed the same. In the absence of any such evidence, it can safely

be held that A-1 is author of the murder of Vinod Kumar. The motive for

committing the murder is to commit theft of cash collected by Vinod

Kumar. As per evidence of Investigation Officer an amount of Rs.45,800/-

was recovered from the possession of A-1. It is not disputed by A-1. The

chain of circumstances in sequence proved by the prosecution and

consequently proved that A-1 caused the death of deceased Vinod Kumar

in order to commit theft of cash from him. In the circumstances of the

case and for the above reasons' prosecution able to prove the case

against A-1 only for the offence under Section 302 and 379 of Indian

Penal Code. As stated above since no test identification parade of A-2 is

conducted by Investigation officer, the identification of A2 by PW-8, PW-

10 and Pw-11 for the first time before the Court cannot be accepted. In

the circumstances of the case a benefit of doubt will be given to A-2.

 26

42. There is no evidence that an amount of Rs.1500/- that recovered

from A-2 is out of collected amount by the deceased Vinod Kumar. As per

suggestion put to Investigation Officer on behalf of A-2, no cash was

recovered from the possession of A-2. A-2 did not claim the cash as his

own. Since A-2 is acquitted, the amount of Rs.1,500/- recovered from him

shall be confiscated to State since A-2 did not claim the amount. As per

prosecution and as per suggestions put to prosecution witnesses, on

behalf of A-1 it is clear that the amount recovered form A-1 was collected

by deceased Vinod Kumar and PW-4/Suneel is entitled to the said

amount. Therefore, the said amount recovered from the possession of A-

1, shall be return to PW-4/Suneel Kumar after appeal time is over.

43. In the circumstances of the case and for the above reasons A-

1/Talapala Penchalaiah is found guilty under Section 302 and 379 IPC and

he is convicted of the same under Section 235 (2) Criminal Procedure

Code.

44. In the result, A-2/Buduru Audi Seshaiah, son of Venkaiah is found

not guilty for the offence under Section 302 and 379 IPC and he is

acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. However, A-1/Talapala

Penchalaiah, son of late Penchalaiah is found guilty for the offence

punishable under Section 302 and 379 of Indian Penal Code and he is

convicted of the same under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed on my direct dictation by the Steno corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of April 2017.
Sd/-Ch.Ramachandra Murthy
IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NELLORE.
 27

45. I heard the A-1 on quantum of sentence. He stated that his wife is not

doing well. He has to cook food in his home. He requests to take lenient view in

awarding the sentence.

46. Before arriving at an appropriate conclusion regarding the punishment

to be inflicted on the accused, it is necessary to refer to certain principles laid

down by the Apex Court in the matter of awarding capital punishment. The

certain principles laid-down by the Apex Court in the following decisions

reported in:

(i) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab : (1980) 2 SCC 684 :

1980 Cri LJ 636

(ii) Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 1983 SC 957 :

1983 Cri LJ 1457

(iii) State of U. P. v. Satish : AIR 2005 SC 1000 : 2005 Cri

LJ 1428

(iv) Bantu alias Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. : 2001 (2)

ALD (Cri) 904 : 2002 Cri LJ 211 (SC)

(v) Ramji Rai v. State of Bihar : (1999) 8 SCC 389 : 2000 Cr. L.J
19

(vi) Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka : (2007) 12 SCC

288 : AIR 2007 SC 2531,

47. What emerges from the foregoing discussion is that specific guidelines

cannot be provided pointing out as to when the death penalty can be imposed

and when the life sentence is sufficient. It depends on the facts and

circumstances of each case either based on direct or circumstantial evidence.

But, the crucial aspect which has to be borne in mind is that apart from other

factors, the Court has to take into consideration, the quality of the evidence

basing on which the finding of guilt is arrived at.

48. The principle emerges from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab : (1980) 2

SCC 684 : 1980 Cri LJ 636 is that life imprisonment is a rule and death is an

exception. The death penalty shall not be inflicted except in gravest cases of
 28

extreme culpability. The Court has to strike the balance between the

aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before exercising the option. The

circumstances of the offenders have also to be taken into consideration along

with the circumstances of the witnesses. The death sentence must be imposed

only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate

punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime and

provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment

for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and

circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.

49. In the present case, A-1 is responsible for the death of deceased Vinod

Kumar and and A-1 committed theft of cash from his possession. Therefore, I

do not find any ground to take lenient view in awarding the sentence. But

there is no material to establish that the character of the accused is of extreme

depravity so as to make him liable for the punishment of death. Taking into

consideration of principles laid-down in the above decisions and taking

consideration of the facts of the present case, it is not a fit case for award

death sentence as it is not a rarest rare case. He should be punished for life

imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.

50. In the circumstances of the case and for the above reasons, A-1 is

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. In default, he shall undergo three months

simple imprisonment.

51. A-1 is further sentenced to undergo three years rigorous

imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal

Code. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred

only) for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. In
 29

default, he shall undergo three months simple imprisonment. Both

sentences shall run concurrently.

61. Out of the property marked in vide C.P.R.No.11/2016, MO-1 to

MO-11 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Out of cash covered

in MO-12 to MO-16, an amount of Rs.45,800/- (Rupees forty five

thousands eight hundred only) (Recovered from possession A-

1/TalapalaPenchalaiah) shall be return to PW-4/Raja Suneel, son of

Venkateswarlu, Coco Cola Agency Distributor, Padmanabhasatram,

Kodavalur Mandal, after appeal time is over.

62. The remaining cash of Rs.1,500/- shall be confiscated to the state

after appeal time is over, since A-2 did not claim the amount.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6sth day of April

2017.
Sd/-Ch.Ramachandra Murthy
IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NELLORE.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

PW-1 Nellore Venkateswarlu Who is defacto complainant

and father of deceased.
PW-2 Nellore Seenamma Who is mother of deceased
PW-3 Tandra Venkata Who searched for deceased
Seshaiah Vinod Kumar and traced his
PW-5 Appikuti Gunnaiah dead body

Pw-6 Appikuti Seenaiah

PW-4 Raja Suneel who is Coco Cola Cool Drinks
Agency Distributor
PW-7 Konduru Tirupati Who witnessed the deceased
PW-8 Jaladanki and accused collecting the cash
Venkateswarlu from the customers

PW-9 Dr.P.Ramesh Who conducted postmortem

over the dead body of the
deceased
PW-10 Kathi Prasad Who speaks about the boarding
of his Auto by A-1 and A-2
 30

PW-11 Mannem Who saw A-1 and A-2 got down

Venakateswarlu from the Auto of PW-10
PW-12 Padeti Anandham Who is mediator present at the
time of observing the scene of
offence, inquest over the dead
body of the deceased and also
at the time of arrest of
accused.
PW-13 Ch.Vasu The then Sub Inspector of
Police, who registered a case
PW-14 T.Ashok Vardhan The then Inspector of Police,
who investigated t he case.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1 Statement of PW-1 recorded by the police
Ex.P-2 Postmortem certificate
Ex.P-3 Inquest report
Ex.P-4 Observation report of scene of offence, where the dead
body was lying
Ex.P-5 Observation report of scene of offence
Ex.P-6 and Relevant admissible portions in the statement of A-1
Ex.P-7 and A-2 respectively
Ex.P-8 Relevant admissible portion in the mediators report for
seizure of blood stained clothes of A-1
Ex.P-9 Relevant admissible portion for seizure of black bag
Ex.P-10 Relevant admissible portion for seizure of iron rod.
Ex.P-11 First Information Report
Ex.P-12 Rough sketch of scene of offence
Ex.P-13 Rough sketch of scene of offence (second)
Ex.P-14 Forensic Science Laboratory Report dated 23.12.2014
Ex.P-15 and Wound certificates of A-1 and A-2 respectively
Ex.P-16

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1 :- Rose Colour Ball point pen

MO-2 :- Small Comb
Mo-3 :- Blood stained earth
MO-4 :- Controlled earth
MO-5 :- Black Colour belt without
buckle
MO-6 :- Black colour bag with WISDOM
MO-7 :- Blood stained Full hand Shirt
with red stripes on white shirt
MO-8 :- Black and Red colur cut Banion
 31

with blood stains

MO-9 :- Blood Stained Eqoli Water
Marks Jeans Pant
MO-10 :- Iron square type rod (Baddi)
MO-11 :- Wheat colour purse
MO-12 :- Sixteen thousands rupees in
one thousand rupees
denomination (sixteen number)
MO-13 :- Nineteen thousands in five
hundred denomination (thirty
eight in number)
MO-14 :- Total cash of Rs.11,300/-
(Rs.100 X 113 denomination)
MO-15 :- Total cash of Rs.200/- (Rs.20 X
10 denomination)
MO-16 :- Total cash of Rs.800/- (Rs.10 X
80 denomination)

Sd/-Ch.Ramachandra Murthy
IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NELLORE.

// True Copy //

IV Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Nellore.
Copy submitted to:-
1. The Honourable Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

2. Honourable The Principal District Judge, Nellore

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Nellore
4. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore.
5. The Honourable Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur
 32

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

NELLORE
(COURT OF SESSION: NELLORE DIVISION: NELLORE):

SESSIONS CASE No.78/2016

(P.R.C.No. 8/2016 of Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Kovur connected to
Crime No.123/2014 of Alluru Police Station)

CALENDAR
Name of the Complainant: State Inspector of Police, Kovur
Circle.

Name of the Accused: 1. :- Talapala Penchalaiah

son of late Penchalaiah,
aged 26 years, ST-Yanadi
by caste,
Tummalavarithopu,
Talamanchi Panchayat of
Kodavalur Mandal
2. :- Buduru Audi Seshaiah,
son of Venkaiah, aged 25
years, ST-B Yanadi by
caste, R.D.R., Colony, Allur
village and Mandal

Date of:-
Offence :- Prior to 2.8.2014
Complaint :- 2.8.2014
Apprehension :- A-1 and A-2 arrested on 4.8.2014
Release on Bail :- A-1 released on bail on 7.11.2014
and A-2 released bail on 3.6.2015
Committal :- 3.3.2016
Commencement of trial :- 4.7.2016
Closure of trial :- 17.10.2016
Sentence of Order :- 6.4.2017

This case was committed by Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Kovur vide P.R.C.No.8/2016 dated 3.3.2016 to the Court of
Sessions. The Honourable Principal District Judge, Nellore taken the file
and numbered as S.C.No.78/2016 and made over to this Court on
28.3.2016. On 8.6.2016 charges were framed under Section 302 read
with 34 IPC and 379 read with 34 IPC against the accused. On 4.7.2016,
PWs-1 and PW-2 were examined and Ex.P-1 was marked. On 5.7.2016
 33

PWs-3 to PW-6 were examined. On 8.7.2016 PWs-7 to PW-8 were

examined in chief. PW-9 examined and Ex.P-2 was marked. On 11.7.2016
PW-7 and PW-8 recalled and examined. PW-10 and PW-11 were
examined. On 30.8.2016 PW-12 examined in cross in part. PW-13
examined and Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-11 were marked. On 7.9.2016 PW-12 recaled
and examined. PW-1 and PW-2 recalled and cross-examined. On
5.10.2016 PW-14 examined and Exs.P-12 top Ex.P-16 were marked. ON
17.10.2016 prosecution evidence closed. On 15.11.2016 accused
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on 23.11.2016 accused reported
no defence. On 14.12.2016 due to demonetization, the cash, which was
marked as shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in nationalized bank for a
period of one year. On 28.3.2017 arguments heard since learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and defence counsel took adjournments to
advance arguments. On 6.4.2017 judgment pronounced by convicting A-
1 under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C., and acquitting A-2 under Section 235 (1)
Cr.P.C. This case was delayed due to non production prosecution
witnesses in time by the prosecution.

IV Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Nellore.