Preceded by a media trial along with the inevitable sensationalism and political hullabaloo, drawing the attention of no less than the Home Minister of the State, conviction of the sole accused of a double murder- Narla Srinivasa Rao (D1) and his wife, Satyavathi (D2), were killed within the precincts of their own residence at 3rd Street, Lalithanagar, Rajahmundry, on 17.09.2009 at about 8.45 PM. Matta Rajesh, the sole accused, was apprehended at the scene of the offence. He was stated to have been harassing Anusha (P.W.2), the daughter of the deceased couple, and allegedly committed the attack, injuring her and resulting in the death of her parents, as she spurned his advances.= Significantly, in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied that during the compromise talks, the elders on his behalf assured P.W.2 and D1 that he would be sent out of the State. This claim is contradicted by P.W.15, the BJP leader who worked the compromise, who stated that the father and brother (D.W.6) of the accused told him that they would send the accused to Chennai. The accused further stated that they vacated the portion adjacent to P.W.2s house voluntarily and that they were not made to vacate the same by the police. He contradicted this statement in his chief-examination as D.W.4 by admitting that the family of P.W.2 got them vacated from the portion. Contradictions galore in his testimony therefore weigh heavily against the accused. On the other hand, this Court finds that the prosecution clinchingly established that the accused, consumed by unrequited passion for P.W.2, not only subjected her to harassment, time and again, but also unlawfully entered her house on the fateful night with the intention of doing her fatal bodily harm and upon the intervention of her parents, he mercilessly killed them. Given the admitted fact that the accused was caught at the scene of the offence itself and as P.W.2s evidence as to what actually happened remained unshaken on all essential aspects, the contrary version put forth by the accused is utterly implausible and failed to withstand incisive cross-examination.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.277 OF 2011

22-12-2017

Matta Rajesh .. Appellant

State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor..Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri T.S.N.MURTHY

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

<Gist:

>Head Note:

 

? CASES REFERRED:

1. (2012) 9 SCC 408
2. (2011) 6 SCC 288
3. (1995) 5 SCC 518
4. (2002) 6 SCC 470
5. AIR 1968 SC 1050
6. (2011) 5 SCC 786
7. (2010) 9 SCC 85
8. (1995) Suppl. 2 SCC 187
9. (2013) 5 SCC 722

tHE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.277 OF 2011

J U D G M E N T
(per Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

 

Preceded by a media trial along with the inevitable sensationalism
and political hullabaloo, drawing the attention of no less than the Home
Minister of the State, conviction of the sole accused of a double murder
and other offences in Sessions Case No.48 of 2010 by the learned Judge,
Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari
District at Rajahmundry, requires minute examination. Needless to state,
in such a situation, the police would be under tremendous pressure to go
through the motions with paramount speed so as to produce a culprit to
assuage societal conscience and quell public outrage. Therefore, utmost
care and circumspection are necessary while evaluating the prosecutions
case against the sole accused, built on such hurried and harried
investigative processes.
Narla Srinivasa Rao (D1) and his wife, Satyavathi (D2), were killed
within the precincts of their own residence at 3rd Street, Lalithanagar,
Rajahmundry, on 17.09.2009 at about 8.45 PM. Matta Rajesh, the sole
accused, was apprehended at the scene of the offence. He was stated to
have been harassing Anusha (P.W.2), the daughter of the deceased
couple, and allegedly committed the attack, injuring her and resulting in
the death of her parents, as she spurned his advances.
The Sessions Court framed the following charges against the sole
accused in Sessions Case No.48 of 2010:
You on 17-09-2009 at about 8-45 pm., committed house
trespass through its backyard into the premises bearing D.No.23-
17-13, 3rd street, Lalithanagar, Rajahmundry belonged to L.W.2
Anusha and her parents in order to commit the offence of murder
punishable with death and thereby you have committed the offence
punishable U/s.449 IPC., and within my cognizance.
You at the same time and place mentioned in Charge No.1
attacked L.W.2 Anusha with a knife and hacked on her throat with
such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances by
that act you had caused the death of Anusha, you would have been
guilty of murder and that you thereby committed an offence
punishable U/s.307 IPC., and within my cognizance.
In the same time and place as mentioned above you
committed murder of Narla Satyavathi, mother of Anusha when
she tried to rescue her daughter when you hacked her, thereby you
have committed the offence of murder punishable U/s.302 IPC and
within my cognizance.
You at the same time and place mentioned above committed
murder of Narla Srinivasarao, the father of Anusha when he came
to the rescue of his daughter Anusha when you tried to hacked her
and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.302 IPC., and
within my cognizance.

The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

During the trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and
marked in evidence 49 exhibits. The accused examined six witnesses,
including himself, and marked 37 exhibits in evidence. Case properties
were shown as M.Os.1 to 25.
By the judgment under appeal, the Sessions Court held the
accused guilty of the charges under Sections 449, 307 and 302 IPC. He
was acquitted of the charges under Sections 506 and 509 IPC. He was
sentenced to life imprisonment for his conviction under Section 302 IPC
in relation to the two murders and payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- for
each conviction, in default of which he was to suffer two months
imprisonment separately. As regards his conviction under Section 307
IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and
payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default of which he was to undergo
two months imprisonment. Lastly, for his conviction under Section 449
IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years along with
payment of fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which he was to suffer one
month imprisonment. Hence, this appeal by the accused under Section
374(2) CrPC.
History of the prosecutions case, in brief, is as under:

The Inspector of Police, Rajahmundry Town Circle (P.W.22),
received a telephonic message from the Out Post Head Constable (OPHC),
Rajahmundry, about the death of two people, Narla Srinivasa Rao (D1)
and his wife, Satyavathi (D2), and of an injured woman, Anusha (P.W.2),
and immediately sent a Rakshak Mobile along with staff to the scene of
the offence at 3rd Street, Lalithanagar, Rajahmundry. He reached the
Government Headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry, at 11.30 PM and
received confirmation of the death of the couple and information of the
injured (P.W.2). As P.W.2 was undergoing treatment, he recorded the
statement of P.W.1. In the meanwhile, he received a message from the
Head Constable of III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry, about the
accused being handed over by the public with bleeding injuries. He
instructed the Head Constable to take him into custody and send him for
treatment. He posted guards at the scene of the offence and also at the
hospital and reached III Town Police Station at 1.30 AM. He registered
Crime No.277 of 2009 under Sections 450, 302 and 307 IPC. Ex.P.48 is
the FIR. He secured a photographer (P.W.12) and, accompanied by
P.W.1., they went to the scene of the offence at 2.30 AM. He recorded the
statements of P.W.1, P.W.3 and Narla Nandini Devi (L.W.4), the younger
sister of P.W.2 and P.W.3, from 3.00 AM to 5.30 AM. The observation of
the scene of offence proceedings were conducted from 6.30 AM to 8.00
AM in the presence of mediators, P.W.13 and P.W.14. Blood-stained
cement floor flakes (M.O.18), controlled cement flakes (M.O.19), blood-
stained cement plaster pieces of the wall (M.O.22), controlled wall pieces
(M.O.21), blood-stained bark of the coconut tree (M.O.22), controlled
coconut bark pieces (M.O.23), blood-stained money plant leaves
(M.O.24), controlled money plant leaves (M.O.25), a blood-stained cement
colour pillow (M.O.26), a blood-stained purple colour chunni (M.O.27), a
blood-stained towel (M.O.28), a blood-stained jute rope (M.O.29), a blood-
stained yellow colour nylon rope (M.O.30), a steel glass (M.O.31), two
fifty paise coins (M.O.32), a one rupee coin (M.O.33), and a pair of black
colour rexine chappals (M.O.34) were seized in the presence of the
mediators. He drafted the rough sketch of the scene of the offence
(Ex.P39). P.W.12 photographed the scene of the offence. He then secured
the presence of P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W. 6 and recorded their statements.
Thereafter, he went to the Government Headquarters Hospital,
Rajahmundry, and in the presence of Narla Ramanamma (L.W.8), P.W.7
and P.W.8, he conducted an inquest over the body of D1. P.W.13, Bagu
Venkateswara Rao (L.W.25) and Madem Chinna Rao (L.W.27) were the
panch witnesses for these inquest proceedings, which were held from
8.30 AM to 10.30 AM. Ex.P22 is the inquest report. The body of D1 was
then sent for post-mortem examination, after seizure of his clothes and
possessions. Upon the instructions of superiors and P.W.22, the
Inspector of Police, CCS, Rajahmundry (P.W.21), conducted inquest over
the body of D2 from 8.30 AM to 10.30 AM on 18.09.2009 at the mortuary
of the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. This inquest was conducted
in the presence of P.W.14, Vasamsetti Gangadhara Rao (L.W.29), and
Samanthula Venkat (L.W.30). During the course of the inquest, P.W.21
examined Lanka Bullmmai (L.W.11) and Varla Raghava Rao (L.W.12) and
recorded their statements. He then sent the body of D2 for post-mortem
examination. Ex.P29 is the inquest report relating to D2. P.W.12 took
photographs of both the dead bodies. At 12.00 Noon, P.W.22 recorded
the statement of P.W.2 and seized her clothes (M.Os.16 and 17). He
returned to the Police Station and having secured the presence of
mediators, P.Ws.13 and 14, he recorded the voluntary confession of the
accused between 2.00 PM and 4.30 PM. During the course of the
confession, P.W.22 seized four letters written by the accused (Exs.P23 to
P26) from his possession. He also seized his clothes, i.e., M.O.35 full
hands shirt and M.O.36 pant. Thereupon, the accused led them to the
backyard of the house of P.W.2 to show the weapon. There, the accused
picked out the blood-stained kitchen knife (M.O.1) from the bushes
where he had thrown it. The same was seized under Ex.P.27 seizure
report, which was drafted between 5.00 and 5.30 PM. The accused
signed therein and also his confession statement, vide Ex.P28 mediators
report. After the accused was taken back to the Police Station, P.W.22
handed him over to the Sub-Inspector, Kadiyam Police Station, to take
him to the hospital along with an escort for treatment of his injuries. He
was then sent for remand on 19.09.2009. On that day, P.W.22 altered
the provision of law from Section 450 IPC to Section 449 IPC. He
recorded the statements of Thumma Sanjaya Reddy (L.W.13), Nalam
Sivaramakrishna (L.W.14), P.W.9, P.W.10, and Mirthipati Durga Rao
(L.W.17). He then filed a Memo before the learned III Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class for taking the handwriting of the accused. He
served a notice upon the accused to obtain his consent. On 24.10.2009,
he secured sample handwriting of the accused through the Jailer,
Central Jail, Rajahmundry. Exs.P40 and P41 are the specimen
handwritings of the accused. He sent the same to the Forensic Science
Laboratory for examination and Ex.P43 is the Forensic Science
Laboratory Report certifying that the handwriting in Exs.P23 to P26 and
the handwriting in Exs.P40 and 41 were of the same person. Other
material objects were also sent by him to the laboratory at Vijayawada
under Ex.P45 letter of advice. Ex.P47 is the report of the Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory, Vijayawada. On 23.09.2009, P.W.22
secured the presence of Adabala Rama Krishna Rao (L.W.18) and P.W.15
and recorded their statements.
On 24.09.2009, P.W.22 obtained a copy of the dying declaration of
P.W.2 from the Court of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Rajahmundry. On 28.09.2009, he recorded the statements of
D.W.6, Matta Babu Rao (L.W.21) and Matta Saraswathi (L.W.22), the
relations of the accused. He received the post-mortem certificates of the
deceased from the hospital. But as the certificate relating to D2 did not
disclose a clear opinion about the cause of death, he requested the
doctor (P.W.17) to give a clear opinion. On 09.10.2009, P.W.17 did so. On
10.10.2009, the Section 164 CrPC statements of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3,
Nandini Devi (L.W.4) and P.W.8 were recorded by the learned V
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class. The Section 164 CrPC
statements of Adabala Rama Krishna Rao (L.W.18) and P.W.15 were also
recorded by the said Magistrate on 13.11.2009. P.W.22 laid a charge
sheet on 30.11.2009, which was returned on 16.12.2009. He
re-submitted it after receipt of the Forensic Science Laboratory report.
Oral evidence adduced by the prosecution may now be examined.

P.W.1, a Court employee, stated that D1 and D2 along with their
three daughters used to reside in a portion of the house opposite his
house and in the portion adjacent thereto, the accused and his family
used to reside. He said that on 17.09.2009 at about 8.30 PM, while he
was watching television in his house, P.W.3 and Nandini Devi (L.W.4),
the second and third daughters of D1, came to his house and told him
that the accused had stabbed their father, mother and sister (P.W.2).
When he rushed out and was going to their house, the house-owner
(P.W.10) also joined him. By the time they went to the house, D1 and his
wife (D2) were lying on the ground. The accused was trying to run away
from the place. P.W.10 and another person, a neighbour of P.W.2, caught
hold of his hands. D1 also caught hold of the accused when he was
trying to jump the back wall of the house. D2 was lying on the ground
with bleeding injuries. P.W.2 was also bleeding from her neck, while D1
had blood on his body. P.W.10 and the neighbour of P.W.2 brought the
accused, who was on the wall, to the side. They tied his hands behind his
back and several persons, including the relatives of D1, rushed there.
Somebody telephoned for a 108 Ambulance which came within fifteen
minutes. D1, D2 and P.W.2 were boarded into the ambulance and taken
to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. P.W.1 said that he followed
the ambulance and the doctor at the Government Hospital declared that
D1 and D2 were dead. P.W.2, even though she had an injury on her
throat, was conscious. The Inspector of Police came to the hospital and
P.W.1 said that he gave a statement to him, which was reduced to
writing. He identified Ex.P1 as the said statement. On the same day at
2.30 AM, i.e., early hours of 18.09.2009, the police recorded his
statement. He said that at the time he moved into the rented house at 3rd
Street, Lalithanagar, the families of the accused and D1 were living
opposite him in separate portions. Relations between the two families
were cordial. About six months prior to the incident, D1 came to him
while he was at the Court and told him that the accused was teasing his
daughter (P.W.2) and asked him as to where he had to complain to the
police. P.W.1 said that he advised him to approach the III Town Police
Station. D1 gave a report to the police and the police arrested the
accused, but on the same or the next day, he was released on bail. The
police got the family of the accused vacated from the portion.
In his cross-examination, P.W.1 said that the house behind the
house of D1, belonging to one Varanasi Vamshi, was in a dilapidated
condition for the last ten years and that it had a compound wall on all
sides with a gate on the southern side. The only entrance to that house
was from the southern side and on all other sides, i.e., east, north and
west, there were houses. He stated that till the sisters of P.W.2 came and
informed him, he did not know that the accused had stabbed P.W.2 and
her parents. He said that the portion of D1 consists of three rooms and
in the kitchen, some articles were found in pell-mell condition and rice
was also scattered. He however did not observe any such thing in the
middle room. He did not observe any blood-stains in the kitchen. D2 was
lying on the ground between the kitchen wall and the coconut tree.
P.W.10 and he simultaneously entered into the backyard. While the
accused was about to jump the wall, P.W.10 caught hold of him and
thereafter, D1 also caught hold of him. He denied the suggestion that as
he was a Court employee and his house was opposite the house of the
deceased, the Inspector of Police cited him as a witness after due
deliberations and consultations. He stated that the backyard of the
house of Varanasi Vamshi was filled with wild bushes, trees and stones.
He stated that he did not know whether there was any love affair between
the accused and P.W.2. He denied knowledge of the version put forth by
the accused as to what had happened on the fateful night. He denied the
suggestion that he was deposing falsely despite knowing that the said
version was true.
P.W.2, being an injured eye-witness and the daughter of the
deceased couple, is crucial for the prosecution. She stated thus:
Previously, they were residing in the house bearing D.No.23-17-13 at 3rd
Street, Lalithanagar, Rajahmundry, as tenants of P.W.4, while the
accused and his parents resided in the adjacent portion. They resided in
the said house for about 2 years. The family of the accused was
residing in the adjacent portion even before they shifted there. She and
her sister used to treat the accused as a brother and also tied Rakhi. The
accused however used to express his love for her and insisted on
marrying her. She expressed her unwillingness and asked him not to
follow her, but he continued to harass her and started threatening her by
making phone calls. After her examinations in March, 2009, she
informed her parents of the accused teasing her. In turn, they informed
the parents of the accused. Though his parents admonished him, the
accused did not mend his behaviour and was threatening her father by
making telephone calls from a coin-box. They informed the house-owner,
P.W.4, and also P.W.1, of the behaviour of the accused. They chastised
him, but even thereafter, the accused continued on the same lines and
they advised her father to report the matter to the police. On 28.05.2009,
they gave a complaint in the Legal Services Authority, Rajahmundry, and
also to the III Town Police Station. Ex.P2 is the report given by her father
to the police. Ex.P3 is the complaint given by her father to the Legal
Services Authority. The police registered a crime and arrested the
accused. Later, he was enlarged on bail. One month thereafter, the
accused and his family vacated the adjacent portion. On 04.09.2009, she
gave a report to the police that even after vacating the adjacent portion,
the accused was threatening them by making phone calls and was
following them, wherever they went. He was also intimidating her and
her parents to kill. Ex.P4 is the report given by her on 04.09.2009 to the
III Town Police Station. Immediately, the police called the accused and
his parents. They brought elders, Adabala Rama Krishna Rao (L.W.18)
and P.W.15. Before the Sub-Inspector, the parents and the brother of
accused along with the elders assured her that there would not be any
problem from the accused and that they were sending him to Chennai. A
Poochikattu (undertaking) was executed to that effect by the accused.
Her parents and she also signed therein. Ex.P5 is the undertaking.
Thereafter, she used to attend spoken English classes at Ramakrishna
Mission as usual with her sister, P.W.3. On 17.09.2009 at about 7.40
PM, she returned along with her sister from Ramakrishna Mission. By
that time her father had telephoned her mother saying that he would
come home early and all of them could go to the house of her maternal
grandmother. At 8.30 PM, she went to the bathroom, while her sisters,
P.W.3 and Nandini Devi (L.W.4), were having dinner. When she was
returning from the bathroom and was about to go to kitchen, the
accused jumped the wall of the backyard and from behind, he closed her
mouth with one hand uttering foul words and stabbed her on the right
side of her throat with a kitchen knife. P.W.2 identified M.O.1 as the said
kitchen knife. She raised cries that the accused was killing her and her
mother rushed to the place. When her mother tried to catch hold of the
knife, the accused stabbed her on the left side of the chest. On hearing
their cries, her father came there followed by her sisters. The accused
stabbed her father in the right arm-pit. Thereupon, her father asked her
sisters to go away saying that the accused would stab them also. They
went away and brought P.W.1 from the opposite house. Her cousin
brother (P.W.8) also came there at that time along with P.W.1. On seeing
P.W.1 and P.W.8, the accused tried to escape by jumping the backyard
wall. P.W.1 and P.W.8 tried to catch hold of him, but the accused got
himself released from their hold and jumped the wall. On hearing their
cries, the persons who gathered there caught hold of the accused. P.W.1,
P.W.8 and the people who had gathered there took her and her parents
in an ambulance to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. The doctor
there told them that her parents were dead. After asking her as to what
had happened, he gave her a sedative injection. She categorically stated
that the accused attempted to kill her and killed her parents as she
refused his love and as they had given a report to the police against him.
Her dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate on the morning of
18.09.2009. She identified Ex.P6 as the said dying declaration. Her
blood-stained clothes and her parents clothes were seized by the police.
She identified M.O.2, M.O.3 and M.O.4 as the clothes of her father. She
identified case properties, M.Os.2 to 17. She said that she was an
inpatient in the hospital for about twelve days.
In her cross-examination, P.W.2 denied that the letters shown to
her were written by her expressing her love for the accused. She said that
M.O.1 kitchen knife did not belong to them and was the knife used by
the accused to stab them. She denied the suggestion that she and the
accused loved each other for two years and that they also had physical
contact. She denied the suggestion that her parents came to know of this
and gave a false complaint to the police, forcing her to give a false
statement to the police. She said that the accused never wrote letters to
her. She said that on 17.09.2009 at 3.30 PM, she, her mother and her
sister, Nandini Devi (L.W.4), went to the house of her maternal
grandmother and returned at about 5.45 PM. She admitted that in her
dying declaration, she had stated that three or four people came along
with the accused and that she did not know their names. She said that
she did not know whether the accused suffered any cut injury on his
hand during the incident. She stated that the entire incident took place
within five to ten minutes. She denied the version put-forth by the
accused as to what had happened on the fateful day. She denied the
suggestion that she along with her relatives gave a false version to the
police upon consultations and deliberations, suppressing the true facts.
In her further cross-examination, P.W.2 said that she along with her
father went to the Government Hospital in a 108 Ambulance and her
mother was brought in the same ambulance in the second trip. She
denied the suggestion that she and her father went to the hospital by an
Auto. She said that the ambulance came to their house within fifteen
minutes after she sustained the injury. The Sessions Court sustained the
objection of the prosecution when P.W.2 was sought to be questioned as
to her character. She however denied the suggestion that she had sexual
intercourse five times with the accused. She denied Ex.D8 portion of her
Section 161 CrPC statement to the effect that she and her sister returned
from Ramakrishna Mutt in the evening. She said that the accused
stabbed her father on the left side, below the arm-pit, and that he was
not stabbed below the right arm-pit.
P.W.3, the younger sister of P.W.2, stated that the accused was
previously residing in their adjacent portion with his parents, brother,
sister-in-law etc. The owner of the said house, P.W.4, resided upstairs.
As a neighbour, the accused used to come to their house and they
treated him as their brother. When the accused teased her sister (P.W.2),
she had informed their parents and they, in turn, informed the parents of
the accused. In spite of that, the accused continued to tease P.W.2 by
calling her on the phone. Her father gave a police complaint on
28.05.2009 and he was arrested and thereafter enlarged on bail. In spite
of the criminal case, he continued to tease her sister. Subsequently, the
accused and his family vacated the adjacent portion. Even after vacating,
the accused used to move in their area and used to telephone P.W.2,
observing the absence of her father in the house. Again, on 04.09.2009,
her father gave a police report. The accused used to threaten her father
that he would kidnap P.W.2 and pour acid on her. The elders on behalf of
the accused effected a compromise assuring that they would send the
accused out of the State. On 17.09.2009, she and her younger sister,
Nandini Devi (L.W.4), returned home at 4.45 PM. She, her parents and
her sisters went to the house of her maternal grandmother and returned
home at about 6.00 PM. Then, she and P.W.2 went to the spoken English
class and returned at about 7.30 PM or 8.00 PM. P.W.2 went to the
bathroom at about 8.15 PM or 8.30 PM. They heard the cries of P.W.2
that the accused was murdering her. Her mother rushed towards the
bathroom. On hearing the cries of her mother, her father also rushed
towards the bathroom. She and her sister, Nandini Devi (L.W.4), followed
him. By the time they went there, the accused was stabbing her father on
the left side of the chest with a knife. He had stabbed her mother on the
left side of the chest and she was lying on the ground bleeding. Her
father cautioned her and her sister to go away as the accused would kill
them also. She and her sister, Nandini Devi (L.W.4), went to P.W.1 who
resided opposite their house and informed him. He rushed to their
house. Her brother, P.W.8, also joined P.W.1 on the way. The accused, on
seeing them, tried to jump over the back wall of their house. Her parents
and her sister, P.W.2, were taken to the Government Hospital,
Rajahmundry, in a 108 Ambulance. They also went to the hospital.
There, they were informed that her mother and father had died. She and
her sister, Nandini Devi (L.W.4), returned home. At about 2.30 or 3.00
AM (early hours of 18.09.2009), the Circle Inspector of Police examined
her. She identified M.O.1 as the knife used by the accused to stab her
parents and P.W.2.
In her cross-examination, P.W.3 stated that she did not attend
spoken English classes in Ramakrishna Mission, but used to accompany
P.W.2. She said that they returned from the house of her grandmother by
6.15 PM. She further stated that because she wanted to go to her
maternal grandmothers house, her father came home to take her there.
Otherwise, he would have come late. She volunteered that as the
photographs of her sister, Nandini Devi (L.W.4), were to be taken for
Navodaya examinations, her father came early on that day. She admitted
that she did not state the reasons for her father coming early on that day
either before the Inspector of Police or before the Magistrate. She said
that she and her sister, Nandini Devi (L.W.4), were in the middle room
when they heard the cries of her mother. On hearing the cries, they
rushed to that place through the kitchen. Her father also went to the
backyard through the kitchen. They heard the cries at about 8.15 or 8.30
PM. Five minutes before they heard the cries, her father had returned
home. She denied the suggestion that she and her sister, Nandini Devi
(L.W.4), were at the gate and that they did not witness any occurrence.
She denied the suggestion that she and her sister, Nandini Devi (L.W.4),
did not call P.W.1 to their house. She said that she saw M.O.1 knife
when the accused was stabbing her parents and her sister and thereafter
she saw it in the Court on that day. She said that she had no personal
knowledge of the accused teasing P.W.2 and came to know of it through
her parents and P.W.2. She denied the suggestion that her parents asked
her and her sister, Nandini Devi (L.W.4), to be at the outer gate, so that
they could discuss the matter at 8.00 PM on that day. She denied the
version put-forth by the accused as to what had happened on that day.
P.W.4 stated that his mother was the owner of the house and that
he stayed in the upstairs portion while P.W.2 and her family resided in
the ground floor portion. In the portion adjacent thereto, the accused and
his family used to reside. He said that he knew of the accused teasing
P.W.2 and about the case filed against him. P.W.2 used to address the
accused as a brother. The parents of P.W.2 informed him about the
accused teasing her. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town
Police Station, examined him in connection with the teasing case. After
the filing of the second case, the parents of P.W.2 informed him about
the subsequent teasing by the accused. After the second complaint, the
Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, came and got the family
of the accused vacated from the ground floor portion of the house. The
mother of P.W.2 told him that even after vacating the portion, the
accused was harassing P.W.2. He said that the incident took place on
17.09.2009 and at that time, he was on duty in the Paper Mill. At 9.30
PM on that day, his wife telephoned him and informed him of the
incident. By the time he returned home at 10.00 PM after completing his
duty, P.W.2 and her parents were taken to the Government Hospital in a
108 Ambulance. He found blood on the ground in the backyard. On
18.09.2009, the Inspector of Police recorded his statement.
In his cross-examination, P.W.4 said that he had no personal
knowledge of the teasing of P.W.2 by the accused. He said that he never
heard of any love affair between the accused and P.W.2 either before the
incident or subsequent thereto. He said that he knew of P.W.2 going to
the terrace for her studies, but denied knowledge of any dispute between
the mothers of P.W.2 and the accused on the ground that the accused
and P.W.2 spent one night there. He stated that the western compound
wall of his house was six feet in height. The distance between the kitchen
wall of P.W.2 and the cement ledge (pial) around the coconut tree would
be three feet. From that coconut tree with the cement ledge to the
western compound wall, the distance would be two feet. The distance
between the northern side bathroom and kitchen entrance of P.W.2
would be twelve feet. A person standing at the bathroom cannot see what
is happening at the kitchen. He did not observe the Inspector of Police
recovering a knife at the wall or in the backyard of Varanasi Vamshi.
P.W.5, the wife of P.W.4, stated that the family of the accused
stayed in their house for about five years, while the family of P.W.2
stayed for about two years. On 17.09.2009 at about 8.30 PM, while she
was in the kitchen, she heard cries of P.W.2 and her mother. She came
out of the kitchen on to the open place behind her kitchen and put on
the light and looked downwards towards the backyard. The parents of
P.W.2 were lying on the ground in a pool of blood. The accused was there
with a knife in his hand. P.W.2 was also there with an injury on her
throat. Thereupon, she went to her mother-in-law and informed her. Her
mother-in-law went to the ground floor and the people who had gathered
there beat the accused. Her husband was on duty at that time and she
informed him on the telephone at about 9.15 PM. The parents of P.W.2
were unconscious and all of them were shifted to the hospital. Some time
later, she came to know that the parents of P.W.2 had died.
In her cross-examination, she stated that their portion in the
upstairs consisted of three rooms TV room, bedroom and kitchen. She
denied Ex.D4 portion of her Section 161 CrPC statement to the effect
that at about 8.45 PM, while she was watching TV, she heard the cries of
P.W.2 and her mother from the ground floor. She admitted that if she
was in the first room watching TV, the cries from the backyard in the
ground floor would not be audible. She also denied Ex.D5 portion of her
Section 161 CrPC statement to the effect that she woke up her mother-
in-law and informed her. She stated that though the police examined
her, due to fear she did not state anything at that time.
P.W.6, a neighbour of P.W.2, stated that he moved into the portion
of the house at Lalithanagar in August, 2009. He said that he knew the
accused, as he used to sit at the STD booth near his house. On
17.09.2009, when P.W.6 was watching television at home at about 8.40
PM, he heard the cry baboi champestunnadu (An exclamation, followed
by he is killing). He said that he heard the sound from the backyard and
when he came towards the back and put on the light, he found P.W.2
with an injury on her neck and both her parents lying on the ground in a
pool of blood. P.W.1 and P.W.8 came there and tried to catch hold of the
accused, but he escaped by jumping over the backyard wall. The people
who gathered there however caught hold of him. A 108 Ambulance came
and took P.W.2 and her parents to the hospital. At about 9.30 AM on
18.09.2009, the police came and examined him.
In his cross-examination, P.W.6 admitted that his portion and the
portion of P.W.2 faced towards the west and an entrance gate was there
between the two portions. He said that any cries raised in the middle
room of the portion of P.W.2 would be audible to him while sitting in his
front room, but stated that he did not hear any cries from the middle
room of P.W.2s portion. He said that by the time he saw the accused, he
was on a ledge on the other side of the wall. P.W.1 and P.W.8 tried to
catch hold of him when he was on this side of the backyard wall. He said
that he did not notice whether the clothes of P.W.1 and P.W.8 were
stained with the blood of the accused when he got himself released by
pushing them. He said that the accused did not try to run away from the
ledge where he was standing by the time he saw him. He said that he did
not state to the police that the accused pushed P.W.1 and P.W.8 and
tried to run away to the back, as in Ex.D6 portion of his Section 161
CrPC statement. He said that he did not state to the police that the
accused jumped over the wall and that he heard the cries baboi
champestunnadu. He said that a 108 Ambulance came half an hour
after he put on the light and saw the incident.
P.W.7 is the younger brother of D1. He said that he used to visit
their house regularly. The accused used to tease P.W.2 saying that he
loved her. He said that D1 and D2, his brother and sister-in-law,
informed the parents of the accused about the teasing. As the accused
did not stop the harassment, he and his brother reported the matter to
the III Town Police Station. The police arrested the accused but he came
out on bail. Even after coming out on bail, he used to telephone,
threatening P.W.2 and her parents. The police got the accused and his
family vacated from the portion. But even after vacating, the accused
used to move in that centre and was also telephoning, threatening to
kidnap P.W.2. Due to such harassment, P.W.2 failed her Intermediate
Examination. P.W.2 and her sisters used to address the accused as their
brother and also tied rakhi to him previously. They again gave a
complaint to the police and the Sub-Inspector compromised the matter in
the presence of the elders brought by the accused. The second report was
given on 04.09.2009. On 17.09.2009, he received a phone call at 9.30
PM, while he was at his shop, informing him that the accused had
murdered his brother, sister-in-law and stabbed P.W.2 on her throat. He
went to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, but by the time he went
there, D1 and D2 were dead and P.W.2 was undergoing treatment.
In his cross-examination, P.W.7 stated that he did not talk to
P.W.2 on the night of 17/18.09.2009. He said that the police examined
him at the time of conducting inquest at the hospital and he talked to
P.W.2 about 9.30 AM, before the inquest. He said that he accompanied
his brother to the police, but did not sign in the complaint or in the
compromise after the second report. He denied the suggestion that he did
not know anything about the teasing of P.W.2 by the accused and that he
was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that P.W.2 and the
accused loved each other and wanted to marry, but his brother separated
them and foisted a false case on the accused.
P.W.8 stated that D1 and D2 were his uncle and aunt and that he
was a resident of Ramachandraraopeta in Rajahmundry. He said that he
used to frequently visit the house of P.W.2. He knew the accused as he
used to reside in the adjacent portion of his uncles house. The accused
used to tease P.W.2 demanding that she should love him. He used to
follow her to college and harass her by making telephone calls. His uncle
gave a complaint to the III Town Police Station and the accused was
arrested but was enlarged on bail. One month thereafter, the police got
the family of the accused vacated from that portion. Even after vacating
the house, the accused used to come to Lalithanagar and tease P.W.2 by
calling her on the phone. The accused telephoned to P.W.8 and informed
him that he would marry P.W.2 at any cost and nobody could stop him
and that whoever intervened would be killed by him. P.W.8 claimed that
he informed his uncle and aunt of the threats and they again reported
the matter to the police. The police arrested the accused and the elders
on behalf of the accused came and got the matter compromised on
04.09.2009. After such compromise, P.W.8 said that he used to go to the
house of P.W.2 to sleep at night everyday. On 17.09.2009 at about 8.45
p.m., P.W.8 said that he went to the house of P.W.2 but by the time he
reached there, P.W.3 and her sister, Nandini Devi (L.W.4), were bringing
P.W.1 from his house. P.W.8 said that by the time they went into the
house, he found his uncle (D1) and his aunt (D2) struggling for life, lying
on the ground in a pool of blood. P.W.8 said that he found P.W.2 bleeding
on the right side of the throat. He and P.W.1 tried to catch hold of the
accused who was trying to run away from the place. When the accused
escaped from their hands and tried to run away, the people who gathered
there caught hold of him. He said that they sent P.W.2 and her parents
in a 108 Ambulance to the Government Hospital. He followed them to the
hospital and by the time he went there, the doctor who was treating
P.W.2 declared that his uncle and aunt had died. The accused killed his
uncle and aunt and tried to kill P.W.2 as P.W.2 refused to love him and
as his uncle gave a complaint to the police against him.
In his cross-examination, P.W.8 stated that he personally
witnessed the accused following P.W.2 while she was going to the college,
though he did not remember how long it was prior to the giving of the
first report. He admitted that he did not state this before the police or
before the Magistrate who recorded his statement. He said that he
accompanied his uncle to the police when the report was given the
second time but admitted that he did not know the contents of the
second report. He further stated that he did not go inside the police
station when his uncle gave the second report. He said that he did not
remember which colour shirt he wore on 17.09.2009 when he went to the
house of P.W.2. He denied the suggestion that he went there at 8.00 p.m.
He also denied the suggestion that he took two persons with him. He
denied the suggestion that on 16.09.2009, he and P.W.2 went to the
accused and asked him to come to the house of P.W.2 on 17.09.2009 in
the night time to discuss the love affair. He denied the suggestion that
there was a love affair between P.W.2 and the accused for two years prior
to the incident; that there was exchange of love letters and they were also
moving together secretly from the college after completing the first hour.
He denied the suggestion that he and his uncle, in order to disturb the
love between P.W.2 and the accused and to get Rs.50,000/- from the
accused, called the accused to the house of P.W.2 with a plan. He denied
the suggestion that on 17.09.2009 at about 8.00 p.m., the accused came
to the house of P.W.2 and he, his uncle, his aunt and the two persons
brought by him and P.W.2 discussed with the accused in the middle
room, demanding cash. He said that he did not know whether after the
family of the accused vacated the house, the marriage of the accused was
fixed with a girl from West Godavari. He denied the suggestion that as
the accused was going to marry another girl after moving with P.W.2 for
some time, they tried to grab Rs.50,000/- from the accused and in that
connection, quarrelled with him on 17.09.2009. He said that he did not
know Satish, Seshu and Raju, who were the friends of the accused. He
denied the suggestion that those persons were his friends also. He denied
the suggestion that the above said three persons were also at the gate of
P.W.2 at 8.00 p.m. He said that he did not see any person present at the
house of P.W.2 at 8.00 p.m. He denied the suggestion that as the
accused did not agree to pay Rs.50,000/- as demanded by them, he and
the other two persons brought by him along with his uncle attacked him
and that he bit the accused on the right hand. He denied the suggestion
that he went inside the kitchen and brought the knife used for cutting
coconuts. He also denied the suggestion that by that time, his uncle and
one of the two persons brought by him had knives. He denied the
suggestion that when he tried to stab the accused in the stomach, the
accused, due to fear for his life, caught hold of the said knife and pulled
it from his hands. He denied the suggestion that while pulling the knife,
the accused sustained an injury on his right palm and also on the
stomach. He denied the suggestion that in the scuffle in the kitchen,
P.W.2 and her parents sustained injuries. He denied the suggestion that
one of the persons brought by him, while attacking the accused with his
knife, stabbed his aunt (D2) when she suddenly came across in the
darkness. He denied the suggestion that he and the two persons brought
by him ran away after the incident and half an hour thereafter, he
returned to the house of P.W.2 after changing his dress. He said that the
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and constables came to the scene of the
offence in a jeep after the ambulance left that place. He said that he
followed the ambulance and did not know whether the people gathered
there handed over the accused to the police. He denied the suggestion
that the entire incident took place at 8.15 p.m. on account of himself and
his uncle in the house of P.W.2. He denied the suggestion that with a
plan, he arranged for two persons to attack the accused and even though
the accused was running away, they all attacked him.
P.W.9, a kirana shop owner at Lalithanagar, Rajahmundry, stated
that he knew the accused as he used to come to his shop to purchase
provisions. The accused used to reside in the adjacent lane next to his
shop. D1 and his family were residing in the portion adjacent to that of
the accused. Besides the kirana shop, P.W.9 also ran a coin-box
telephone. The accused used to make telephone calls from the coin-box,
but P.W.9 said that he did not know to whom he made those calls. The
families of the accused and P.W.2, being residents of adjacent portions,
were on talking terms. In September, 2009, P.W.2s father gave a
complaint to the police against the accused with regard to the love affair.
P.W.9 said that he did not know what action had been taken on that
complaint. Sometime after giving the complaint, the family of the accused
vacated the portion. Even after vacating the portion, the accused used to
come to his shop but it was on rare occasions. On the fateful day at
about 8.00 PM, the accused came to his shop and purchased one Lays
chips packet and a cool drink and went away. P.W.9 said that he did not
observe the direction in which he went. P.W.9 said that the accused used
to tell him that he loved P.W.2. P.W.9 said that he advised the accused
not to trouble P.W.2. Fifteen minutes after the accused left his shop,
P.W.9 said that he heard the cries from the backside of his shop. Five
minutes thereafter, P.W.9 went towards the house of P.W.2 and was told
that murder took place in the house of P.W.2 and that some scuffle was
going on in the backyard. By that time, the people of the area also were
going inside the house. P.W.9 said that he did not go inside but returned
to his shop. He further stated that he found P.W.2 raising cries in front
of the house that the accused had killed.
In his cross-examination, P.W.9 said that the family of the accused
were residing in that area for about five or six years and to his
knowledge, the accused was not leading a wayward life. The accused told
him that he and P.W.2 were exchanging love letters. He stated that one
month after the love affair, it came to the knowledge of the parents of
P.W.2. He admitted that the accused came on a motorcycle driven by
another person on the fateful day and purchased a cool drink and chips
packet. After purchasing these items, the accused was talking with some
persons. P.W.9 admitted that he did not state before the police some of
the details that he had deposed to before the Court.
P.W.10, a resident of 3rd Street, Lalithanagar, Rajahmundry, stated
that the house of P.W.4 was opposite his house. In the ground floor
portion of P.W.4, previously D1 and his family and the family of the
accused used to reside. He said that he knew the accused and also
P.W.2. He said that P.W.1 was the tenant in his ground floor portion. He
said that on 17.09.2009, when he returned home at about 8.30 or 9.00
PM, he heard cries from outside and when he came out, P.W.1 was
outside the house and going towards the house of P.W.2. P.W.10 said
that he also followed him and they went into the backyard of the house of
P.W.2. By that time, the mother of P.W.2 was lying on the ground in a
pool of blood. P.W.2 was bleeding at the throat. He said that the father of
P.W.2 was also lying on ground.P.W.1 held the hand of the accused as he
tried to escape and P.W.10 said that he also caught hold of his hand.
When they caught hold of his hands, the accused was on the other side
of the house. The people who gathered there tied the hands of the
accused. An Auto came and D1 was taken to the hospital. Thereafter, an
ambulance came and P.W.2 and her mother were taken to the hospital.
In his cross-examination, P.W.10 said that when he heard the cries
and came out, P.W.2 was crying in front of the house on the road. About
10 to 15 persons were present. As P.W.2 and the people who gathered
there in front of the house were raising cries, he heard them. By the time
they went into the backyard of the house, they found that the person
from the adjacent portion of P.W.2 was holding the hand of the accused.
P.W.10 said that he and P.W.1 also caught hold of him. He explained
that the person from the adjacent portion was the one who joined in that
portion after the family of the accused vacated it. By the time they caught
hold of the accused, there was bleeding from the right palm of the
accused. He denied having stated to the police as in Ex.D7 portion of his
Section 161 CrPC Statement to the effect that by the time he went to the
backyard, P.W.1 and P.W.8 tried to catch hold of the accused but he
escaped by jumping over the wall and in the meanwhile, the persons
upstairs and from the adjacent portions of P.W.2 and the neighbours
caught hold of him. He said that by the time he saw the mother of P.W.2,
she was lying on the ground next to the kitchen door and D1 was lying
between the kitchen and coconut tree. He denied the suggestion that on
17.09.2009, by the time he returned home, the entire incident was over
and the injured were taken to the hospital and without knowing the
incident, he was deposing falsely on account of the pressure of the police.
P.W.11, a teacher of spoken English classes at Ramakrishna
Mission, Rajahmundry, stated that he taught the evening classes
between 6.15 – 7.30 PM and P.W.2 used to attend the said classes and
was a good student. He said that on 17.09.2009, she attended the
classes and the students left at 7.30 PM.
Nothing useful was elicited from him in his cross-examination.
P.W.12, a photographer, stated that he took three photos at the
scene of the offence on 17.09.2009. On 18.09.2009, he took a photo of
the building. He photographed the dead bodies at the mortuary of the
hospital at 10.00 AM and again at 4.00 PM. He also took four photos of
the accused. He identified Exs.P8 to P20 as the photographs with
negatives.
In his cross-examination, he said that the knife in Ex.P14
photograph held by the accused was M.O.1 knife but stated that M.O.1
knife was different from the knife in Ex.P7 photograph. He denied the
suggestion that the police got Ex.P14 photograph taken by him in the
morning of 18.09.2009, by brining M.O.1 knife from the police station,
along with the accused.
P.W.13, a Village Revenue Officer at Rajahmundry, stated that on
18.09.2009, the Tahsildar, Rajahmundry, received information from the
Inspector of Police and directed him to go as a panch witness for the
inquest proceedings in relation to D1 and also to be the mediator for
other reports. Another Village Revenue Officer (P.W.14) was also directed
to go along with him. He and P.W.14 went with the police to 3rd Street,
Lalithanagar. They reached there by 6.30 AM. In the backyard of that
house, there was a pool of blood on the ground. There was a coconut tree
with a cement pial surrounding it and also a well. One money plant was
trained on to the coconut tree. A pillow, a chunni, a steel glass, two fifty
paise coins, a one rupee coin and a pair of chappals were there near the
pool of blood. Another pair of chappals were on the pittagoda (short wall)
which was four and half of feet in height. One kasi towel was also there.
The pillow, towel, chunni etc., had blood on them. The money plant
leaves were also stained with blood. The bark of the coconut tree was
also stained with blood. The cement pieces on the pial were also stained
with blood. The pial was broken and some pieces had fallen off. The floor
pieces were stained with blood and were seized. His signatures and that
of P.W.14 were obtained on the panch slips attached to the seized items.
He identified M.Os.18 to 34. He confirmed that Ex.P21 was the
observation report bearing his signature along with that of P.W.14. He
said that from that place, they went to the hospital at 8.30 AM. At the
mortuary, there were two dead bodies. The relations of D1 identified him.
Isukapalli Srinivas (L.W.26) and Madem Chinna Rao (L.W.27) were the
panch witnesses for the inquest along with him for D1. He said that
beneath the left armpit of D1, there was a cut injury measuring four
centimetres in length and three centimetres in width. The inquest
panchas opined that the death occurred due to this stab injury. Ex.P22
is the inquest report signed by Isukapalli Srinivas (L.W.26), Madem
Chinna Rao (L.W.27) and himself. The inquest went on till 10.30 AM.
After the inquest, at about 10.30 AM, the Mandal Revenue Officer
directed him to go to III Town Police Station. By 2.00 PM, he and P.W.14
went there. The accused was at the police station. They asked him about
his particulars. In their presence, the accused confessed. Upon his
confession, the police seized a purse from the accuseds pant pocket. It
was a black purse containing four paper pieces. A one rupee coin was
also in that purse. Police seized those pieces of papers, the purse, the
coin etc. Exs.P23 to P26 are the paper pieces seized from the purse of the
accused. In his confession, the accused stated that he would show the
knife with which he had stabbed D1, D2 and P.W.2. The accused took
them to the house of Varanasi Vamshi situated behind the house of
P.W.2. At the police station itself, the bloodstained clothes of the accused
were seized and he was given another dress. M.O.35 was identified as the
blood-stained yellow colour full hands shirt of the accused with gold
colour embroidery and M.O.36 as his black colour pant. They reached
the house of Varanasi Vamshi at about 5.00 PM. The accused picked up
a knife from the bushes in the backyard of Varanasi Vamshi. At that
time, photographs were also taken. M.O.1 is the knife. Slips were
attached to the knife and he and P.W.14 signed thereon. A mahazar was
prepared for the seizure. He, P.W.14 and the Circle Inspector signed the
same. The accused also signed in that mahazar. Ex.P27 is the mahazar.
The measurements of M.O.1 were also mentioned in the mahazar. Ex.P28
is the mahazar with regard to the confession of the accused at the police
station, seizure of the pieces of paper, the clothes of the accused and also
his statement that he would show the knife. He said that he and P.W.14
along with CI signed therein. The accused also signed in that mahazar.
In his cross-examination, P.W.13 admitted that he did not sign in
the movement register maintained in the Tahsildars office before
proceeding to act as a mahazar witness on 18.09.2009, though it was
mentioned therein that he acted as a mahazar witness in the case. He
said that he did not remember as to whether the height of the wall was
mentioned as four and a half feet in Ex.P21. Upon perusing Ex.P28, he
deposed that the height of the wall was not mentioned and that the wall
was not a pittagoda. He denied the suggestion that his evidence about
the observation of the scene of the offence as per Ex.P21 was false. He
denied the suggestion that he and P.W.14 were not at all in the police
station between 2.00 and 4.00 PM on that day. He denied the suggestion
that no knife was seized at the house of Varanasi Vamshi under Ex.P27
and that no photographs were taken at that time. He denied the
suggestion that the CI brought M.O.1 in the morning itself from the
police station and got it photographed when it was in the hands of the
accused along with him. He denied the suggestion that all the mahazars
were prepared by himself and P.W.14 in the police station as directed by
the Inspector of Police and that he signed in some of the mediators
reports in the police station.
P.W.14, the Village Revenue Officer, Rajahmundry Urban, stated
that on 18.09.2009 at 6.30 AM, the police called him and P.W.13 and
took them to the scene of the offence at 3rd Street, Lalithanagar,
Rajahmundry. He spoke on the same lines deposed to by P.W.13 as to
what was observed at the scene of the offence under Ex.P21 report. From
the scene of the offence, he said that they went to the hospital by about
8.30 AM and the Inspector of Police asked him to participate in the
inquest over the female dead body. The Inspector of Police, C.C.S.Circle,
Rajahmundry (P.W.21), was present at the time of the inquest.
Vasamsetti Gangadhararao (L.W.29) and Samanthula Venkat (L.W.30)
and he were the panchayatdars in the inquest. The relatives of D2
identified her. The dead body had two injuries on the left side – below the
chest and on the side. There were also two injuries above the left
forearm. They opined that the death had occurred due to these injuries.
Ex.P29 is the inquest report drafted by him. The inquest was conducted
up to 10.30 AM. On the same day at 2.00 PM, the police called him and
P.W.13 to the III Town Police Station and the accused was present there.
P.W.14 affirmed what was stated by P.W.13 with regard to the accused
making a confession and as to the seizure by the police at the police
station and again at the house of Varanasi Vamshi. He further stated
that the accused picked out a knife from the bushes which was 20
centimetres in length including the handle. He further stated that he
himself scribed Ex.P27 mahazar whereunder the knife was seized.
In his cross-examination, P.W.14 admitted that there was no
signature of the accused on the slip attached to M.O.1 knife. He said that
they went into the site of Varanasi Vamshi from the eastern side at the
time of seizure of M.O.1. First, they went to the house bearing Door
No.23-17-13 and as there was a wall and it was not possible to enter into
the site of Varanasi Vamshi from there, they went into the site of
Varanasi Vamshi from the eastern side. He admitted that in Ex.P21, the
scene of the offence observation report, the height of the eastern
compound wall of the house bearing Door No.23-17-13 being four feet
was not mentioned. He denied the suggestion that the wall was six feet.
He admitted that in Ex.P27 it was not mentioned that the accused stated
that he had thrown M.O.1 knife in the site of Varanasi Vamshi.
P.W.15, a resident of Rajahmundry, stated that he knew the
accused. On 04.09.2009 at about 3.00 or 4.00 PM, the elder brother of
the accused, by name Matta Prasada Babu (D.W.6), came and requested
him to come to the police station stating that the police had taken the
accused there. Thereupon, he and Adabala Rama Krishna Rao (L.W.18)
went to the police station at about 7.00 or 8.00 PM. The accused, his
brother, his father, P.W.2, her parents, her aunt and some others were
present in the station. He said that when they enquired with the Sub-
Inspector as to why the accused was taken to the station, he told them
that P.W.2 gave a complaint against the accused that he was harassing
her. In their presence, the accused handed over the love letters written
by P.W.2 to the Sub-Inspector. The Sub-Inspector asked the accused,
P.W.2, their parents and the other persons who came there to discuss
the matter. In the discussion, the accused was asked to hand over all the
love letters written by P.W.2 to him and the accused gave those love
letters to the Sub-Inspector. Both parties agreed that the accused should
not cause any trouble – okarijoliki okaru pokudadu (one should not go
near the other) and similarly, P.W.2 also should not trouble the accused.
The father and brother of the accused stated that they would send the
accused to Chennai as P.W.2 and her parents were giving frequent
complaints against him. A Poochikattu (undertaking)(Ex.P5) was written
in the police station. He said that he, Adabala Rama Krishna Rao
(L.W.18), the accused, P.W.2 and others signed therein.
In his cross-examination, P.W.15 said that the brother of the
accused informed him that the accused had been taken to the police
station in the morning on 04.09.2009. He said that the brother of the
accused also informed him that the marriage of the accused was fixed
and that the parents of P.W.2 were frequently giving complaints against
the accused to the police. He also showed him the love letters written by
P.W.2. The letters given by the accused to the Sub-Inspector in the police
station would be six or seven in number. P.W.2 stated that those letters
were not written by her. The parents of P.W.2 stated that if the accused
returns all the letters and photos, they would withdraw the complaint.
The Assistant Sub-Inspector instructed the brother of the accused to
scribe Ex.P5 on his dictation and he wrote it.
In his re-examination, P.W.15 stated that the brother of the
accused worked for their party three or four days in the elections.
P.W.16, a Civil Assistant Surgeon at the District Hospital,
Rajahmundry, did the post-mortem examination of the body of D1. He
said that he found a stab injury – 3 x 2 x 2 depth on the left axilla. He
said that he found one internal injury cut of the left axillary vessels in
the left axillary region. He said that there was haemorrhage and shock
due to cut of major vessels in the left axillary region. He identified Ex.P30
as his post-mortem examination report.
In his cross-examination, he said that there was a possibility of
saving the patient had there been immediate medical care. He confirmed
that both the axillary artery and the axillary vein were cut.
In his re-examination, he said that since the main artery and vein
were cut, the death would occur within half-an-hour.
P.W.17, a Civil Assistant Surgeon at the District Hospital,
Rajahmundry, examined P.W.2 on 17.09.2009 at 9.00 PM. He said that
she informed him that at 8.00 PM on that day, when she went to wash
her face in the bathroom in her residence, a known person, the accused,
who was working in a courier service, suddenly attacked her with a knife
and wounded her. He said that her general condition was stable. He
detailed the injuries found on P.W.2 as under:
1. Incised injury 6 x 3 x muscle deep on the right side
of the neck extending from 1 from right angle of the
mouth to right supraclavicular region. Wound is
explored, cleaned and sutured.
2. Incised injury 2 x 2 in to joint Deep on right knee on
lateral aspect. Wound explored and sutured.
3. Incised injury 1 x 1.4 in to skin deep on right arm.
4. Incised injury 2 x 1.4 in to skin deep on right thigh.

He said that P.W.2 was an in-patient from 17.09.2009 to
27.09.2009. He confirmed that the other injuries were simple but the
second injury was a grievous one. He identified Ex.P31 as the wound
certificate issued by him.
He did the post-mortem examination of D2 on 18.09.2009 between
1.00 PM and 3.00 PM and found the following injuries:
1. Stab injuries 2 in number on left chest, each measuring 1 x
half inch on exploration complete fracture of 5th rib and 5th
intercostals space extending in to the apex of the heart
involving left ventricle with large haematoma in the
pericardium.
2. Incised injury 1 x skin deep on right arm.

He opined that D2 expired due to the injury caused to the heart.
He identified Ex.P32 as her post-mortem examination certificate.
In his cross-examination, he stated that injury No.1 may be
possible if a person was pushed in a scuffle and fell on a sharp-edged
pointed object. He admitted that a sharp-edged blade could cause a skin-
deep incised injury. He said that if it is a blunt object, it would still
produce a laceration. He said that P.W.2 herself came to the hospital and
she brought her father in an Auto. In the transmission between the
portico and the casualty, P.W.2s father expired. Injury No.2 is an incised
injury and not a stab injury. He said that injury No.1 was a stab injury
and it was a penetrating injury. Injury Nos.2 to 4 on P.W.2 were not
possible by coming into contact with a sharp-edged object by falling on
the ground. After attending to P.W.2, he said that he gave intimation to
the O.P. Police. He stated that on 17.09.2009, he sent a requisition
(Ex.P33) to the Magistrate for recording a dying declaration.
P.W.18, a Civil Assistant Surgeon at the District Hospital,
Rajahmundry, examined the accused on 18.09.2009 at 7.00 PM and
found these injuries:
1. A lacerated injury on right palm in between thumb and index
finger 2 x x skin deep reddish brown in colour.
2. An abrasion on right palm at the root of index finger on
palmer aspect 1/4 x 1/4 x brown colour.
3. A contusion on right arm below the shoulder 2 x 1/2
brown in colour.
4. An abrasion on back of right shoulder x brown in
colour.
5. Two contusions on back on left side 1 x x 1 x brown
in colour.
6. Multiple contusions on back of left shoulder about 2 to 4
mm in diameter brownish in colour.
7. A linear abrasion on right side of upper abdomen 3 long
brownish in colour.

 

He opined that injury Nos.1 to 6 might have been caused by a
blunt object and injury No.7 by a sharp-pointed object. All the injuries
were simple in nature. He identified Ex.P34 as the wound certificate
issued by him. He said that the accused informed him that he sustained
all the injuries due to beating with hands and a bucket by about six
known persons and five unknown persons.
In his cross-examination, P.W.18 said that injury No.1 was
possible if the accused caught hold of a blunt-edged knife and pulled it
towards him. He said that a contusion may be caused if a person bites
but such a contusion would have a pattern depending on the shape of
the teeth. Injury No.6 was possible by a bite. The accused stated to him
that he sustained the injuries at about 8.00 PM on 17.09.2009. P.W.18
said that M.O.1 had a sharp-edged point and if a person keeps it in the
pant pocket and jumps over a wall of a height of five to six feet, there is a
possibility of sustaining injury on the thigh portion depending on how he
jumps over the wall. He denied the suggestion that the police officers
pressurised him to mention in the wound certificate that the accused
was beaten up by six known persons and five unknown persons with a
bucket even though the accused did not state so.
P.W.19, the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station,
Rajahmundry, stated that on 04.09.2009, he called the accused to the
police station in connection with the report given by P.W.2 that the
accused was teasing and harassing her. Ex.P4 is the report. The parents
of P.W.2 stated that previously a report was given that the accused was
following P.W.2 and demanding that she should marry him. In spite of
that report, the accused was still following her and demanding that she
love him. On the basis of the earlier report, Crime No.166 of 2009 was
registered and a charge-sheet was also filed. In that case, the Assistant
Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused and sent him for remand.
On the strength of Ex.P4, P.W.19 said that besides the accused, they
called his brother and father to the police station. The brother of the
accused brought B.J.P. leaders P.W.15 and Adabala Rama Krishna Rao
(L.W.18). The parents of P.W.2 also came to the police station. Both sides
discussed and the parents of P.W.2 stated that they were not particular
about registering a case and it would be sufficient if the accused stopped
teasing P.W.2. The accused agreed not to trouble P.W.2 and expressed
his readiness to execute an undertaking to that effect. The father and the
brother of the accused stated that they would not allow the accused to
stay in Rajahmundry and that they would send him to Chennai. Ex.P5 is
the Poochikattu (undertaking). In that document, P.W.2 and her parents
endorsed that they were withdrawing the complaint under Ex.P4.
In his cross-examination, P.W.19 stated that on 04.09.2009, P.W.2
and her parents came to the police station at about 5.00 PM and gave the
report. Within half-an-hour they called the accused to the police station.
He said that as they did not feel any seriousness in the report given on
04.09.2009 (Ex.P4), they allowed the parties to discuss. He further stated
that had they felt any seriousness, they would have registered Ex.P4 and
requested the Court to cancel the bail in Cr.No.166 of 2009 by filing a
petition. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P4 was not given at 5.00 PM
on 04.09.2009. He said that P.W.2 presented the written report and she
did not scribe Ex.P4 in his presence. He denied the suggestion that they
kept the accused in the police station from the morning on 04.09.2009
and the matter was discussed in the evening at about 7.00 or 8.00 PM.
He said that a Poochikattu would be given in the police station and that
he had gone through Ex.P5 after all the persons signed therein. He
denied the suggestion that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police got
scribed Ex.P5 at his dictation. He denied the suggestion that the accused
stated before him that he and P.W.2 loved each other and had exchanged
love letters. He denied the suggestion that the accused gave six love
letters written by P.W.2 and on reading them, he chastised P.W.2. He
denied the suggestion that after the incident on 17.09.2009, due to
political pressure and pressure from higher officials; he handed over
those letters to the Inspector of Police due to fear. He denied the
suggestion that as a murder had taken place, he was deposing that those
letters were given to him. He said Ex.P5 contained the details of the
discussion that took place between both sides before him and nothing
else. He said that he did not put his signature on Exs.P4 and P5.
P.W.20, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town Law and
Order Rajahmundry Police Station, stated that while he was in-charge of
the police station on 28.05.2009 at 3.30 PM, D1 came to the police
station along with D2 and P.W.2 and presented a written report. He
registered a case in Crime No.166 of 2009 under Section 509 IPC and
took up investigation. He recorded the statements of D1, D2 and P.W.2 at
the police station. D1 gave a copy of the report presented in the Lok
Adalat. Ex.P2 is the said report. Later, P.W.20 left the police station
along with the staff accompanied by D1 and visited the house of the
complainant bearing D.No.23-17-13, 3rd Cross Street, Lalithanagar. He
examined the house and prepared a rough sketch (Ex.P35). He examined
P.W.4, the owner of the house, and recorded his statement. Though he
tried to examine some other witnesses, they did not come forward to give
their statements. As per the material, he included Section 506 IPC also
in the FIR by incorporating it in the remand report and that on the same
day at 6.00 PM, he arrested the accused and sent him for remand and on
the next day, he laid a charge-sheet before the III Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class.
In his cross-examination, P.W.20 said that D1 did not present any
love letter written by the accused to P.W.2 along with Ex.P2 even though
a letter was referred to in Ex.P2. He denied the suggestion that D1
presented the love letter written by the accused to his daughter and the
contents thereof showed the love affair between them and that he
intentionally suppressed that letter. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P2
was not given at 3.30 PM on 28.05.2009 and that it was prepared on
29.05.2009 just before sending it to Court. He denied the suggestion that
a false case was foisted upon the accused in Crime No.166 of 2009.
P.W.21, the Inspector of Police, CCS, Rajahmundry, conducted the
inquest over the body of D2 from 8.30 AM to 10.30 AM on 18.09.2009
upon the instructions of his superior officers and P.W.22. He said that
P.W.14, Vasamsetti Gangadhara Rao (L.W.29) and Samanthula Venkat
(L.W.30) were the mediators for the inquest, during which, he recorded
the statements of Lanka Bullammai (L.W.11) and Varla Raghava
(L.W.12). After completion of the inquest, he sent the body for post-
mortem examination. Ex.P29 is the inquest report.
In his cross-examination, P.W.21 said that he went to the hospital
at about 8.00 AM. He denied the suggestion that he prepared the inquest
report in the police station.
P.W.22, the Inspector of Police, Rajahmundry Town Circle, spoke of
the various steps taken by him during the investigation.
In his cross-examination, he stated that his Circle Office was in
Rajahmundry III Town and the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurma
Reddy, of III Town Police Station worked under his control. He however
did not know whether the said Kurma Reddy went to the house of P.W.2
in a Rakshak Jeep even before P.W.2 and her parents were shifted to the
hospital. He said that he did not know whether Kurma Reddy shifted the
accused from the scene of the offence to III Town Police Station at about
9.00 or 9.30 PM on 17.09.2009. He said that his investigation revealed
that the public brought the accused to III Town Police Station and
handed him over to Kurma Reddy, A.S.I., who was the Station House
Officer at that time, at 11.00 PM. He said that he did not examine Kurma
Reddy or the driver or the van in-charge etc. of the 108 Ambulance. As
per the information of the OPHC at the hospital, both the deceased and
P.W.2 were brought to the hospital in a 108 Ambulance. He denied the
suggestion that it is the duty of the Out-Post Head Constable to
personally record the statement of the injured in a medico-legal case and
send the same to the concerned police station. He denied the suggestion
that the OPHC did record the statement of P.W.2 and that he
intentionally suppressed it as it was not suitable to the prosecution. He
denied the suggestion that he knew about the incident even by 9.00 PM
on 17.09.2009 and it was only after discussing with the Superintendent
of Police, he cooked up the record. He said that the Superintendent of
Police came to the hospital on the intervening night on 17/18.09.2009.
He said that he enquired with the doctor, P.W.17, about the condition of
P.W.2 and he stated that she was not in a position to give a statement.
He said that he was in the hospital till 1.00 AM on 18.09.2009. He came
to the police station from the hospital at about 1.00 AM and was there till
2.15 AM or 2.30 AM. He went to the house of P.W.2 after 2.30 AM. From
2.30 AM till 8.00 AM on 18.09.2009, he was at the scene of the offence.
He returned to the hospital at 8.20 AM and by 8.30 AM he commenced
the inquest over the body of D1. By the time he went to the hospital, the
panchayatdars were present. Ex.P39 was drawn up by him and it took
10 to 15 minutes for preparing a rough sketch. He said that he drew up
Ex.P39 prior to drafting the observation report of the scene of the offence
(Ex.P21). He denied the suggestion that Exs.P21 and 39 were prepared in
the police station. He said that there was no specific reason for not
examining P.W.2 till 12.00 Noon on 18.09.2009. He said that on
17.09.2009, the doctor sent a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate of
First Class for recording her dying declaration under Ex.P33. He said
that he did not enquire the reason as to why Ex.P33 was not taken to the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class till 6.45 AM on 18.09.2009. He denied
the suggestion that he and his superiors influenced the doctor not to
send the intimation till 6.45 AM on 18.09.2009. He said that he tried to
record the statements of the sisters of P.W.2 but due to shock, they did
not come forward. This fact was also mentioned in his Case Diary. P.W.8
was not available at the hospital on that night. This was also stated in
his Part I Case Diary. He denied the suggestion that no medical aid was
provided to the accused till the next day night apprehending that the
truth would come out. He volunteered that keeping in view the danger to
the accused from the public, he was not sent to the hospital or to any
private doctor. The Section Head informed him that he took the accused
to a nearby private Medical Practitioner. He denied the suggestion that
by 10.00 PM on 17.09.2009, he interrogated the accused in III Town
Police Station and learnt about the incident through him. P.Ws.2, 3 and
Nandini Devi (L.W.4) are the direct witnesses to the actual occurrence
i.e., the accused stabbing the deceased and P.W.2. He said that Ex.P1
report was received by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class
at 6.30 AM on 18.09.2009. He said that he recorded the statements of six
witnesses in front of the house of P.W.2 and it took about half-an-hour
for recording the statement of P.W.1; for the other witnesses, it took 15
minutes each. He admitted that from 17.09.2009, there were agitations
by the media, political leaders etc. about the incident. He denied the
suggestion that due to the media, his superiors pressurised him and got
filed a false case. He denied the suggestion that the incident occurred
when an attempt was made to stab the accused inside the house and
that the entire investigation was false. He denied the suggestion that
there was a love affair between the accused and P.W.2 and that his
investigation revealed the same. He denied the suggestion that along with
Ex.P4, he seized six love letters written by P.W.2 to the accused and that
he intentionally suppressed those letters. He said that he came to know
that immediately after the incident, the electronic media went to the
house but he did not examine anybody from the electronic or print
media. He denied the suggestion that recording of the voluntary
confession of the accused between 2.00 PM to 4.30 PM on 18.09.2009
and seizure of Exs.P23 to 26 from him was false. He admitted that the
purse from which Exs.P23 to P26 were seized was not sent to the Court.
He said that he secured a dress from the bazaar for seizing the clothes
from the person of the accused. He denied the suggestion that when he
visited the scene of the offence on the morning on 18.09.2009, he traced
out a knife at the scene which was shown in Ex.P7 photo and that he
suppressed it and planted M.O.1. He denied the suggestion that P.W.8
used another coconut cutting knife to stab the accused and that the
accused sustained injuries with that knife and that as it was misplaced
by P.W.8, he could not trace it out and therefore, he planted M.O.1. As
per the investigation, the accused kept M.O.1 in his pant pocket while
entering the backyard of P.W.2. He admitted that except P.W.2, the other
witnesses did not specifically state that the accused entered her
backyard by jumping over the wall from the compound of Varanasi
Vamshi. He said that they entered into the compound of Varanasi
Vamshi from the entrance of that house facing the southern side. He said
that he did not measure the height of the southern side compound wall
of Varanasi Vamshi and that it may be about four feet. He denied the
suggestion that he prepared the entire record in the police station. He
denied the suggestion that he obtained Exs.P23 to P26 at about 2.00 or
2.30 PM on 18.09.2009 in the III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry,
from the accused by threatening him and on his dictation. He denied the
suggestion that all the signatures of the mediators on the material
objects were obtained in the police station on 19.09.2009 in the morning.
He denied the suggestion that he obtained Exs.P23 to P26 only to show
that the accused had vengeance against P.W.2 and had also sent them
for comparison to a Hand Writing Expert. He denied the suggestion that
P.Ws.2 and 8 called the accused on 16.09.2009 and told him to come to
the house of P.W.2 on 17.09.2009 night and that on their invitation, the
accused went there at 8.00 PM and while he was discussing with the
parents of P.W.2 in the middle room of the house, about 15 minutes after
the commencement of the discussion, P.W.8, the father of P.W.2 and two
unknown persons brought by P.W.8 assaulted the accused and beat him
and in that scuffle, P.W.8 and father of P.W.2 and one of the unknown
persons picked up knives from the kitchen of P.W.2 and that P.W.8 tried
to stab the accused on his stomach and due to fear for his life, the
accused caught hold of the knife and pulled it from the hands of P.W.8
and sustained an injury on his right palm and also on his abdomen and
that another person tried to stab the accused and suddenly the mother
of P.W.2 came across and she received the stab injury and when the
accused tried to escape from the place due to fear for his life, the father
of P.W.2 caught hold of him. He denied the suggestion that even though
his investigation disclosed the above facts, he suppressed them due to
pressure from his higher ups. He confirmed that P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and
10 did not state before him the details that they had deposed to before
the Court. He said that as per his investigation, the incident took place at
about 8.45 PM. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely
due to the apprehension that public reaction would be against them if
the case ended in acquittal. He denied the suggestion that he arrested
the accused on 17.09.2009 and kept him in unlawful detention without
providing medical aid. He denied the suggestion that he examined the
108 Ambulance people and knowing that the mother of P.W.2 was alone
taken to the hospital in that ambulance, he intentionally suppressed it.
In his re-examination, P.W.22 stated that Ex.P45 is the FIR.
Now, a look at the defence witnesses testimonies:

D.W.1 stated that P.W.2 was his niece and that the distance
between his house and her house at Lalithanagar would be about seven
kilometres. He admitted that he was present in the video shown to him
and as shown therein, he shifted D1 into an Auto. After taking him for
some distance in the Auto, he was shifted to a 108 Ambulance. He also
identified the person wearing the yellow banian in the video as P.W.8.
In his cross-examination, he said that he did not know when the
video was taken and whether it was taken at the house or at the hospital.
D.W.2 stated that P.W.2 studied in their Intermediate College
during 2007-2009. She said that she brought the Physics and Chemistry
practical records of P.W.2. As P.W.2 studied in the English Medium, the
said practical records were also in English. She identified Ex.D9 as the
Chemistry practical record and Ex.D10 as the Physics practical record.
In her cross-examination by the prosecution, she said that there
was no possibility to have any record of P.W.2 in Telugu.
D.W.3, the District Manager of 108 EMRI Services, Kakinada,
spoke of the record pertaining to transport of D2 to the hospital in a 108
Ambulance on 17.09.2009. He said that the said record bears the details
as to when the phone call was received and when the ambulance went to
the place of the incident; when the patient was taken to the ambulance;
and the time at which the patient was transported to the hospital. He
said that on 17.09.2009 at 8.45 PM, a call was received from a mobile
number and by that time, an ambulance was located at Dowleswaram. It
reached the scene of the incident at 8.54 PM and departed from the place
of the incident at 8.58 PM and reached the hospital by 9.06 PM. He
brought the pre-hospital care record, as per which, D2 was transported
from the place of the incident to the hospital. He said that there would be
a record if the ambulance took patients in further trips. Ex.D11 is the
relevant sheet from the pre-hospital care record.
In his cross-examination by the prosecution, D.W.3 stated that D2
was alive when she was taken to the ambulance as per the record. She
was in a critical condition with loss of blood at that time.
D.W.4 is none other than the accused. He stated that he worked in
DTDC courier service previously. He said that they resided at Door
No.23-17-13, 3rd Street, Lalithanagar, from 2002 to June, 2009. The
family of P.W.2 stayed in the adjacent portion of the same house from the
year 2007. He and P.W.2 were in love for two years from 2007. Both of
them used to exchange love letters. Ex.D12 is the bunch of love letters
written by P.W.2, twelve in number. Ex.D13 is the letter written by him
on the backside of which P.W.2 wrote her letter. He and P.W.2 used to
meet secretly without the elders knowing of their love affair. During that
period, P.W.2 was studying in Intermediate in Sri K.R.Womens College,
Rajahmundry. Between February, 2009 and April, 2009, both of them
had sexual contact five times. In April 2009, while he and P.W.2 were in
a compromising position on the terrace of their building, the mother of
P.W.2 noticed it at midnight and made a galata with his mother.
Thereafter, the mother of P.W.2 did not allow P.W.2 to meet him. P.W.2
was lamenting that her parents were bent upon performing her marriage
with some other person. As both of them were making efforts to meet
each other, the parents of P.W.2 filed a false case against him on
28.05.2009 in III Town Police Station. The police detained him and sent
him for remand in that case. After he was enlarged on bail, as he was
attempting to meet P.W.2, the parents of P.W.2 got his family vacated
from their portion in June, 2009. They shifted their residence to
Annapurnammapeta which was at a distance of two kilometres from the
house of P.W.2. After shifting their residence to Annapurnammapeta, he
used to come to Lalithanagar and meet P.W.2 once a week. As he was
meeting P.W.2, the parents of P.W.2 gave a report against him to III Town
Police Station on 04.09.2009. At 9.00 AM on that day, the police took
him to III Town Police Station. At about 7.00 or 8.00 PM on that day, his
elder brother (D.W.6) along with two BJP Leaders P.W.15 and Adabala
Rama Krishna Rao (L.W.18), came to the police station. His brother
brought six love letters written by P.W.2 and handed them over to the
Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.19). On seeing those letters, P.W.19
chastised P.W.2 that she ought not to have written such letters when her
parents were against her love affair with him. P.W.19 also chastised him
for continuing his love affair with P.W.2. The parents of P.W.2 insisted in
the police station upon return of all the love letters written by P.W.2 and
the photographs that were with him. He returned the photos and the love
letters. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police drafted the Puchikattu
(undertaking) and obtained his signature along with those of his brother
and the elders, P.W.15 and Adabala Rama Krishna Rao (L.W.18). In May
2009, his parents arranged a girl for his marriage from their relatives
against his wish. After executing the Puchikattu on 04.09.2009, he did
not meet P.W.2 and never went to her house. On 16.09.2009 at about
1.00 or 2.00 PM, P.W.2 and her cousin brother (P.W.8) called him by
phone to come to Ashoka Theatre near Annapurnammapeta behind their
house. When he met them at Ashoka Theatre, P.Ws.2 and 8 asked him to
come to the house of P.W.2 on the night of 17.09.2009 stating that the
father of P.W.2 wanted to talk to him about their love affair. Hoping that
the father of P.W.2 would accept their love and perform their marriage,
he went to the house of P.W.2 along with his friend, Palasa Seshu, on his
motorcycle. They reached the shop of P.W.9 at about 7.45 PM and
purchased a cool drink bottle and Lays chips packet. He and Palasa
Seshu met D.W.5 and Srinu at the shop. From there, they moved to the
front of the house of P.W.2 and were talking there together. At that time,
Raju @ Ravi from the house adjacent to P.W.2 came there and also talked
to them. They asked him as to why he had come there and he informed
them that he came to the house of P.W.2 on the invitation of her father to
talk about their love affair. Those persons also knew of their love affair.
At that time, P.W.2 came out and took him into her house. On that day,
he wore new clothes i.e. a black pant and a yellow colour full hands
shirt. The portion of P.W.2 consisted of three rooms in a row. He was
taken to the middle room. In that room, the parents of P.W.2, her two
sisters, P.W.8 and two unknown persons were present. By 8.00 PM, he
entered into the house of P.W.2. The father of P.W.2 asked him to sit and
talk to him. The father of P.W.2 demanded that he pay compensation of
Rs.50,000/- as he was marrying another girl after moving closely with
P.W.2 for considerable time. The accused stated that he expressed his
inability to pay Rs.50,000/- and offered to pay Rs.10,000/-. The father of
P.W.2 stated that he would see that the case against him would end in
acquittal if he paid Rs.50,000/-. Even though the accused offered to
marry P.W.2, the father of P.W.2 insisted that he should pay the sum.
These talks took place for about ten minutes. P.W.8 abused and attacked
him. The two unknown persons who came along with P.W.8 also beat
him. The parents of P.W.2 sent the younger sisters of P.W.2 to be at the
compound gate while the talks were going on. The father of P.W.2 also
attacked him. P.W.2 came to his rescue. P.W.8 bit him on the left
shoulder and the right arm. During this scuffle, he was dragged to the
kitchen and the rice box fell down along with other articles. P.W.8 tried
to stab him in the stomach in the kitchen with a coconut cutting knife.
One of the friends of P.W.8 also tried to stab him with a knife. The father
of P.W.2 also tried to stab him with a knife. The accused said that he
held the knife in the hands of P.W.8 with his right hand and pulled it
away from his hands to save his own life as he was afraid that he would
kill him. He said that he sustained a cut injury in his right palm in that
process and there was bleeding from the said injury. In the process of
pulling out the knife from the hand of P.W.8, he also sustained an injury
on his stomach. While one of the friends of P.W.8 tried to stab him, the
mother of P.W.2 came to his rescue and that blow of knife fell on her. He
said that he did not observe how P.W.2 and her father sustained injuries
as it was dark. He said that he tried to run away from the backyard of
the house by swinging the knife from this side to that side. This was the
knife that he had pulled from the hands of P.W.8. M.O.1 knife was not
used by anybody during the incident. He said that he dropped the knife
which was pulled from the hands of P.W.8 in the backyard of P.W.2. The
father of P.W.2 caught hold of him while he was trying to climb the wall
of the backyard of P.W.2. He said that he could not get over that wall due
to its height. Till the father of P.W.2 caught hold of him, nobody came to
that place. Ten minutes thereafter, the residents in the upstairs portion
put on the lights. The public came to that place and tied his legs. After
the public came there, D.W.5 came to that place. For about half-an-hour
after P.W.2 caught hold of him, P.W.2, her father and mother were at
that place. By the time of the incident, P.W.8 was wearing a green colour
full hands shirt. P.W.8 and his two friends ran away from that place after
the mother of P.W.2 fell down with an injury. Twenty minutes thereafter,
P.W.8 came there along with his maternal uncle (D.W.1) wearing a yellow
colour T-shirt. The accused said that he told the public who had
gathered there that he had not attacked P.W.2 and her parents. At that
time, the media people came there and there was video coverage of the
place i.e. backyard of the house and the surrounding areas. P.W.8,
D.W.1 and D.W.5 took the father of P.W.2 and her mother from out of the
backyard. Without knowing the facts, the public who had gathered there
beat and kicked him and poured water. They also beat him with an
aluminium bucket on his head. The police came at about 9.00 PM and by
that time, a 108 Ambulance was in front of the house of P.W.2. Police
took him away from the public to III Town Police Station. The accused
stated that he informed the actual incident to the Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, who put handcuffs on his left
hand and secured him to the window. There was heavy bleeding from his
right palm. The police tied a cloth on the right palm. At 10.00 PM on that
day, the Circle Inspector of Police came to the police station and the
accused claimed that he informed the actual incident to him. From the
night of 17.09.2009 till the afternoon of 19.09.2009, the accused said
that he was in III Town Police Station till he was produced in Court. No
treatment was provided to his injuries on the night of 17.09.2009. At
about 7.00 PM on 18.09.2009, the police took him to the Government
Hospital and got his injuries treated between 7.00 PM and 9.00 PM. At
11.00 AM on 18.09.2009, he informed the actual incident to his elder
brother (D.W.6). He also informed the Doctor at the Government Hospital
on the evening of 18.09.2009 as to how he sustained injuries. At 7.00 PM
on 18.09.2009, he was produced before the media by the Superintendent
of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police. He
said that he could identify the knives that were used by P.W.8 and his
friends and the father of P.W.2 during the incident. He said that the knife
in Ex.P7 photo was used by the friend of P.W.8 and that the knife had
bloodstains. He said that he did not know to whom the chappals in
Ex.P16-photo belonged. The Inspector of Police took him to the house of
P.W.2 at 7.00 AM on 18.09.2009. He said that he saw M.O.1 at that time
for the first time at the police station. The Inspector of Police brought
that knife (M.O.1) from the police station wrapping it in paper and
keeping it in a bag. P.W.22 is the Inspector of Police. They took him to
the house situated on the back of the house of P.W.2, which is a
dilapidated house with wild bushes. They were at that house between
7.00 AM and 9.00 AM. From that house, he was taken again to III Town
Police Station. Between 2.00 PM and 3.00 PM, the Inspector of Police
(P.W.22) obtained his handwriting on papers and also his signatures in
blank papers. Again at 4.00 PM, P.W.22 asked him to write on pieces of
papers that he would kill P.W.2 and abusing her parents. He said that he
could identify those papers and said that Exs.P23 to P26 were those slips
on which his hand writing was obtained by P.W.22. Between 2.00 PM
and 6.00 PM on 18.09.2009, except P.W.22, no third party came to the
police station. Due to fear of the Inspector of Police and that he would
beat him, the accused said that he wrote Exs.P23 to P26. On the evening
of 18.09.2009, he said that he was not taken to the house of P.W.2. At
about 10.00 PM on 18.09.2009, the police brought another pair of
clothes and took away the black pant and yellow T-shirt that he was
wearing. The clothes that were given by the police were large in size and
he was sent for remand with that dress. He stated that Ex.P14
photographs showed that he was wearing black pant and yellow shirt
(M.Os.35 and 36). In the morning hours of 19.09.2009, the police
obtained certain writings from him in papers, obtained his signatures on
some written papers and also his thumb impressions. He said that P.W.2
and other witnesses did not speak the truth about the incident. He
denied the contents of the charge sheet and said that he did not find
P.W.1 and other persons from the vicinity, whom the prosecution had
examined, either at the time of the incident or when the public caught
him. He said that he only saw P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.8 and D.W.1.
In his cross-examination, the accused stated that he studied up to
tenth standard and failed in SSC. He studied in Telugu Medium. P.W.2
studied up to Intermediate in English Medium. He belonged to Yadava
Community and did not know whether P.W.2 belonged to Kapu
Community. He admitted that P.W.2 knew how to read and write English
and could also speak in English. He could only read and write in Telugu.
He denied the suggestion that he could not read and write in Telugu
properly. He admitted that the father of P.W.2 was running his own auto
rickshaw and was leading a dignified life. He denied the suggestion that
while he was on bail, he misbehaved with a woman at Pushkaralarevu
and that the police filed a case against him in Crime No.20 of 2010 on
the file of III Town Police Station. He denied the suggestion that except
for his own attempts to love P.W.2 and his intention to marry her, P.W.2
never intended to love him or marry him. He denied the suggestion that
as he was harassing P.W.2, expressing his love without reciprocation
from her, the police filed a case against him in Crime No.166 of 2009. He
denied the suggestion that in the love letters filed by him, there was no
mention of the name of P.W.2. He admitted that those love letters did not
bear dates. He volunteered that the name Honey in those letters was
that of P.W.2. He admitted that in his chief-examination, he did not
mention that P.W.2 was also called Honey. He admitted that P.W.2 was
the eldest of the three sisters and that she had no brother. He also
admitted that in Ex.D13 letter, it was mentioned that P.W.2 was treated
better than her three elder sisters and one elder brother. He volunteered
that reference to an elder brother and elder sisters was with regard to her
cousins. He said that he did not know whether P.W.2 had only a senior
paternal aunt and that the paternal aunt had only one son and no
daughters. He said that he did not know whether P.W.2 had only one
junior paternal uncle who had only one son. He denied the suggestion
that between February, 2009 and April, 2009, P.W.2 was aged below 16
years. He said that she was aged 18 years and that he had some more
love letters, even after returning six love letters after execution of the
Puchikattu (Ex.P5). He denied the suggestion that the letters in Exs.P12
and D13 were recently prepared. He denied the suggestion that P.W.2
never addressed any love letters to him. He said that the parents of P.W.2
never talked to his parents proposing her marriage with him. He said
that he did not know the cell number through which P.Ws.8 and 2 called
him to come to Ashoka Theatre on 16.09.2009 but a Tata Indicom Mobile
belonged to P.W.8. He said that he did not know the dimensions of the
rooms of the portion of P.W.2 but the middle room was bigger than the
other two rooms. In the middle room, cots, TV, almirah etc., were there.
He denied the suggestion that after the room was occupied with the
above furniture, there remained only a passage. He denied the suggestion
that only three or four people could be accommodated in the middle
room. He said that as a delivery boy in DTDC Courier, he was getting a
salary of Rs.2,200/- per month. He said that by the time P.W.8 bit him,
he did not have a knife in his hands. At the place where P.W.2 and her
father sustained injuries, there was no electric light. He denied the
suggestion that he had thrown M.O.1 into the site of Varanasi Vamshi.
He denied the suggestion that before throwing M.O.1 into the site of
Varanasi Vamshi, he caused stab injuries on P.W.2 and her parents. He
denied the suggestion that as P.W.1 and others came there, to avoid
them seeing the knife in his hands, he threw it in the yard of Varanasi
Vamshi. He said that there is a possibility of persons in the upstairs
portions and the adjacent portion of P.W.2s house hearing, if four or five
persons talk in a loud voice in the middle room of P.W.2s portion. He
denied the suggestion that as there is such a possibility of hearing the
cries of P.W.2 and her parents when he stabbed them, people rushed to
that place. He admitted that in the backyard of P.W.2s portion, there
was a bund over the well and also around the coconut tree. He denied
the suggestion that one could jump over the backyard of P.W.2s portion
easily by putting his leg on either of the bunds. He denied the suggestion
that the back wall of the portion of P.W.2 was five feet in height from the
side of P.W.2s portion and four feet from the side of Varanasi Vamshis
house. He said that it was above six feet on either side. The light in the
upstairs portion situated towards the backside of the kitchen illuminates
the backyard of P.W.2. He denied the suggestion that he had no capacity
to have Rs.10,000/- at a time in lump sum. He volunteered that he used
to have office money. He said that the father of P.W.2 did not demand
Rs.50,000/- from his parents and demanded from him only. He said that
neither he nor his parents had the capacity to pay Rs.50,000/-. He
denied the suggestion that the father of P.W.2 was maintaining the
family by plying his own auto and had no necessity to demand
Rs.50,000/-. He volunteered that now and then he used to lend money to
the parents of P.W.2 and that he never obtained any document for such
lending. He said that by the time the father of P.W.2 caught hold of him,
he did not receive any injury on his person. He denied the suggestion
that P.W.2 caught hold of him for some time and in the meanwhile,
people rushed there and caught hold of him. He denied the suggestion
that he did not enter the house of P.W.2 from the main door and that he
entered the backyard by scaling the wall. He denied the suggestion that
upon knowing of the offence committed, the people who gathered there
beat him. He admitted that when people were beating him with the water
bucket, to ward off the blows, he raised his hands. He admitted that the
people gathered there tied his legs with a rope and dragged him for some
distance. He admitted that had the police not come to that place, the
people gathered there would have killed him. He denied the suggestion
that his evidence that P.W.8 and his two friends were armed with knives
was false and that he deposed so for the first time in his chief
examination. He denied the suggestion that he did not state before the
Magistrate that when P.W.8, the father of P.W.2 and the friends of P.W.8
attacked him, P.W.2 and her parents sustained injuries. He denied the
suggestion that he did not state so before the media and the public. He
denied the suggestion that as P.W.2 was superior to him in caste and
education, she never thought of loving him or intended to marry him. He
denied the suggestion that he had only studied up to third or fourth
class. He denied the suggestion that because P.W.2 did not reciprocate
his love and as his parents were making efforts to perform his marriage
with another girl, he was frustrated and killed the parents of P.W.2 and
attempted to kill P.W.2. He denied the suggestion that he wrote some
letters expressing his frustration and moved for some days keeping those
letters in his pocket. He denied the suggestion that for the first time in
his chief-examination, he stated the names of some persons who came
along with him on the night of 17.09.2009 up to the house of P.W.2. He
denied the suggestion that some unknown person dropped him at the
shop of P.W.9 and after he went away, he entered into the house of P.W.2
from the backyard. He denied the suggestion that he concocted a false
version regarding the love affair and the occurrence of the incident to
save himself from punishment in this case.
D.W.5, a resident of the 2nd Street at Lalithanagar, Rajahmundry,
stated that his house bears Door No.23-19-42. He said that he knew the
accused and P.W.2, who resided in the 3rd Street of Lalithanagar as
tenants of P.W.4, who worked in a Paper Mill. The family of the accused
resided in one portion of the house for about six years and vacated that
portion in June, 2009. P.W.2 and her family resided in the other portion
of that house for about two years. P.W.2 and the accused were in love.
Knowing of their love affair, the father of P.W.2 gave a police complaint
against the accused and got the family of the accused vacated from the
said portion through the police. After vacating that portion, D.W.5 said
that he saw the accused at 7.45 PM on 17.09.2009 at the Kirana Shop of
P.W.9. The accused came to that place along with his best friend Seshu
on a motor bike and they were eating chips and having a cool drink at
the Kirana Shop. D.W.5 said that he and one Srinu, a resident of the 4th
Street at Lalithanagar, came to the Kirana Shop at that time. When he
enquired with the accused as to why he had come to that place, the
accused informed him that the father of P.W.2 called him to talk about
the love affair. The house of P.W.2 is the second house from the Kirana
Shop of P.W.9. D.W.5 said that the accused, himself, Seshu and Srinu
went up to the house of P.W.2. One Raj Kumar @ Ravi came there from
the adjacent house of P.W.2. Raj Kumar @ Ravi also enquired with the
accused as to why he came to Lalithanagar and the accused stated that
he came on the invitation of the father of P.W.2. While they were talking
in front of the house of P.W.2, P.W.2 came and took the accused inside.
It was at about 8.00 PM. The younger sisters of P.W.2 came and stood at
the compound gate. Ten minutes thereafter, they heard cries from the
house of P.W.2 and then they rushed into the house and found the father
of P.W.2, P.W.8 and two other persons attacking the accused in the
middle room. P.W.2 was requesting those persons not to beat the
accused. P.W.8 bit the right upper arm of the accused and the accused
fell down. P.W.8 again bit him on the left shoulder. After P.W.8 bit him,
the accused was offering to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the love affair and
was expressing inability to pay the amount as demanded by the father of
P.W.2 and others. P.W.8, the father of P.W.2 and one of the two friends of
P.W.8 took out knives from the kitchen of the house of P.W.2, uttering
the words Veedini Bathimaledhi yemitira (there is no question of
pleading with this fellow). When P.W.8 tried to stab the accused in his
stomach, the accused caught hold of the knife with his right hand. D.W.5
said that he and the other three persons on seeing that incident came
out of the house due to fear, raising cries. Immediately, Seshu and Ravi
left that place on the motorcycle. D.W.5, Srinu and five others who
gathered there on hearing the cries again entered into the house of
P.W.2. At that time, P.W.8 and his two friends came out of the house of
P.W.2 and left that place on a motorcycle. P.W.8, at the time when he
attacked the accused, was wearing green colour full hands shirt. When
they again entered into the house of P.W.2, they heard groaning from the
backside of the kitchen which was dark. They raised cries asking the
upstairs people to put on the backyard light. The father of P.W.2 was
holding the shirt of the accused at the neck. He also caught hold of his
left hand. The mother of P.W.2 was sitting adjacent to the kitchen wall.
P.W.2 was by the side of the accused covering a portion of her throat
with a chunni. There was bleeding from the right palm of the accused.
D.W.5 said that he informed the people who gathered there as to what
had happened. The people gathered there tied the legs of the accused
with a rope. In the kitchen, there were bloodstains. The rice fell down
pell-mell. The rice tin also fell down. Other articles were also lying in a
pell-mell condition. 20 to 25 minutes thereafter, P.W.8 came there after
changing his clothes, along with D.W.1 and other relations. When he
came to the house of P.W.2 for the second time, he was wearing a yellow
colour neck banian. P.W.8 and D.W.1 and other relatives started to beat
the accused with hands and legs and also beat him by pouring water.
They beat him with an aluminium waser (sic, vessel). D.W.5 said that he,
P.W.8, D.W.1 and one other person shifted the father of P.W.2 outside
and from there, he was shifted to the Government Hospital along with
P.W.2 in an auto. At about 9.00 PM, an ambulance came there. It came
about ten minutes after the auto left the place. The police came to the
place at about 8.45 PM. The police were present there when the
ambulance came. D.W.5 said that the video shown to him revealed that
he, P.W.8, D.W.1 and another person were shifting the father of P.W.2
out of the house from the back portion of the house. After P.W.8, D.W.1
and other relations came there, they removed the rice that had fallen in
the kitchen and also wiped out the bloodstains with a gunny cloth. The
police took the accused from that place in a Rakshak van.
In his cross-examination, D.W.5 denied the suggestion that he, the
accused, D.W.6, Palasa Nagu, Golla Veera Venkata Suresh and Raj
Kumar were close friends. He denied the suggestion that he also used to
accompany the accused when he was teasing P.W.2. He denied the
suggestion that the father of P.W.2 also chastised him for his association
with the accused in teasing P.W.2. He denied the suggestion that he used
to speak to the father of P.W.2 on telephone as if the accused was
speaking. He said that the brother of the accused (D.W.6) requested him
to attend the Court on that day. He denied the suggestion that while he
was smoking cigarettes and having cool drinks etc., while chitchatting
with the accused and his other friends up to 11.30 PM in the night at the
shop of P.W.9, the police chastised them and sent them away. He said
that he did not know whether the marriage of the accused was fixed with
another girl against his wish. He denied the suggestion that he was
standing outside the gate and did not enter into the house of P.W.2 when
P.W.8 and others beat the accused. He denied the suggestion that the
father of P.W.2 never invited the accused to his house on 17.09.2009 and
that the accused himself, with the intention of killing P.W.2 and her
parents, entered the house by jumping over the backyard compound
wall. He said that he did not know whether the accused executed a
Puchikattu (undertaking) before the police that he would not tease P.W.2.
He denied the suggestion that the accused had stabbed P.W.2 and she
sustained an injury and that he stabbed her parents whereby they died.
He admitted that, on the allegation that the accused was teasing P.W.2,
the police arrested the accused. He denied the suggestion that knowing
the character of the accused, he used to move with him closely prior to
the incident. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as
the accused was his close friend. He said that except for acquaintance,
he has no friendship with Raj Kumar @ Ravi, Palasa Nagu, D.W.6 and
Golla Veera Venkata Suresh. He said that he had acquaintance with
these persons for the past two years. He said that he knew the accused
for about five or six years and he was not his best friend. He denied the
suggestion that he and the above mentioned persons, who were his
friends, having had mutual discussions, were deposing in this case to
help the accused. He denied the suggestion that the public also beat the
accused besides the relatives of P.W.2. He denied the suggestion that the
accused jumped over the backyard wall and stabbed P.W.2 and her
parents. He denied the suggestion that all the injuries sustained by the
accused were due to the beatings by the public. He however admitted
that the public dragged the accused on the ground towards the road from
the backyard.
The claim of D.W.5, as is clear from his deposition, is that he was
present inside the house of P.W.2 during the course of the attack.
Significantly, the accused himself did not talk about the presence of
D.W.5. This clearly demonstrates that D.W.5 was planted as a witness
and spoke utter falsehoods so as to buttress the defences case by
claiming to be an eye-witness to the alleged attack upon the accused by
P.W.2s family. His version is completely unworthy of acceptance.
D.W.6, the elder brother of the accused, stated that he knew P.W.2
and that her family resided in their adjacent portion at 3rd Street,
Lalithanagar, in the house of P.W.4. P.W.2 and her parents never
complained that the accused was teasing P.W.2. He said that he came to
know of their love affair for the first time towards the end of April, 2009,
through the mother of P.W.2, who raised a dispute on the ground that
she found P.W.2 and the accused on the terrace of the building on the
previous night in a compromising position. The marriage of the accused
was fixed with their near relation on 10.05.2009. On 28.05.2009, the
parents of P.W.2 got a case filed through P.W.2 against the accused. In
the month of June, the parents of P.W.2 got them vacated from that
place through the police. They shifted their residence to
Annapurnammapeta. Again on 04.09.2009, a police complaint was given
by the parents of P.W.2 in III Town Police Station through P.W.2. The
police took the accused at 9.00 AM on that day to III Town Police Station.
He came to know of it in the afternoon when he came for lunch and
approached the elders, P.W.15 and Adabala Rama Krishna Rao (L.W.18),
at 4.00 PM. He went to the police station along with the elders at 7.30 or
8.00 PM. While going to the police station, he took along with him six
love letters written by P.W.2 to the accused and two photos of P.W.2 and
handed over the same to the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.19). The Sub-
Inspector of Police chastised P.W.2 for writing such letters and advised
both sides not to continue the love affair as it was not to the liking of the
parents of P.W.2. P.W.19 advised the accused and P.W. 2 not to write
any further letters and not to continue their love affair. P.W.19
instructed the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to obtain Puchikattu
from both sides. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police accordingly got
drafted a Puchikattu (Ex.P5) and obtained the signatures of both sides
including himself. After execution of Ex.P5, the accused never met P.W.2.
At 10.00 PM on 17.09.2009, his friends telephoned him saying that an
incident pertaining to the accused was being telecast on TV. He then
came to know about the incident on watching the television. Due to fear
for their lives, they stayed inside the house on the night of 17.09.2009.
At 11.00 AM on 18.09.2009, he went to III Town Police Station and met
the accused in the presence of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The
accused told him as to what had happened on 17.09.2009. He stated to
him as mentioned in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. He said that
when he saw the accused at 11.00 AM on 18.09.2009 in III Town Police
station, he was wearing a black pant and yellow colour full hands shirt
which were stained with blood and were also wet. At that time, a cloth
was tied around his right palm and his left hand was handcuffed and
secured to the window rod. At about 12.00 PM on 19.09.2009, the
accused was produced before the Court for judicial remand. 15 days
thereafter, he met the accused in Central Jail, Rajahmundry. After the
accused was enlarged on bail, he stayed in their house for one day and
thereafter, he was retained in the III Town Police Station for a week. A
friend of the accused, by name Palasa Seshu, gave him three CDs stating
that his friend was working in the media and that he got the three CDs
through that friend. Exs.D14 to D17 are the CDs. The said Palasa Seshu
died in a road accident on 03.10.2009. Ex.D18 is the post-mortem
certificate of Palasa Seshu. Ex.D19 is the MVI report and Ex.D20 is the
FIR. Ex.D21 is the inquest report. Ex.D22 is the charge sheet in that
accident case. Ex.D23 is the newspaper report dated 19.09.2009 of the
press meet conducted by the Superintendent of Police regarding the
arrest of the accused in this case. Ex.D24 is the newspaper report dated
20.09.2009 showing the accused being taken to the Magistrate Court for
remand. Ex.D25 is the news item dated 19.09.2009 and Ex.D26 is the
news item dated 20.09.2009. Ex.D27 is the news item dated 14.04.2010.
Ex.D28 is the news item dated 18.09.2009 showing P.W.2 talking to the
Superintendent of Police. D.W.6 said that he spoke to D.W.5, Srinu of
Lalithanagar, Palasa Seshu and Bheemavarapu Raj Kumar @ Ravi and
learnt from them the details of the incident. He said that the police
implicated the accused in this case due to political and public pressure.
In his cross-examination, D.W.6 stated that the parents and
grandparents of P.W.2 were never MLAs or MPs. There were no political
leaders in the relations of the accused. The father of P.W.2 was also not a
wealthy person and used to eke out his livelihood by running an auto. He
denied the suggestion that the accused, Palasa Seshu, Raj Kumar @ Ravi
and Srinu were moving as rowdy elements and the police had also
warned them. He denied the suggestion that for about five days after the
incident, he and his parents absconded from the house by locking it. He
denied the suggestion that as he was not available to the police in spite
of their efforts to trace him, they could record his evidence only on
28.09.2009. He denied the suggestion that as the accused had
committed a grave offence they left the house for about five days out of
fear. He said that the accused was not in the habit of handing over love
letters and photographs he received to him. He admitted that P.W.15 and
Adabala Rama Krishna (L.W.18) were BJP Leaders but denied the
suggestion that as he was also a BJP worker, he took them to the police
station. He denied the suggestion that the police and P.W.2 requested
him and his parents to control the accused as he was teasing P.W.2. He
denied the suggestion that as the parents of P.W.2 had no possibility to
testify to that fact, he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that
taking advantage of the death of Palasa Seshu, he was deposing falsely
that Exs.D14 to D17-CDs were handed over by him. He denied the
suggestion that Exs.D14 to D17 were created after editing. He said that
he did not read the contents of Ex.P5 but signed it, as instructed by the
Assistant Sub-Inspector. He denied the suggestion that due to fear that
the accused would be sent to jail, he and his parents, with the assistance
of elders, executed Ex.P5 and got the accused released from police
custody. He denied the suggestion that in the six letters that he handed
over to the Assistant Sub-Inspector, there were no signatures of P.W.2.
He denied the suggestion that the Sub-Inspector of Police, on the day of
Ex.P5, only chastised the accused and not P.W.2. He admitted that the
police filed a case against the accused on 04.09.2009. He denied the
suggestion that considering the possibility of further disputes between
them and P.W.2s family and as they were unable to control the accused,
they themselves vacated the adjacent portion of P.W.2. He denied the
suggestion that even after executing Ex.P5, the accused continued to
tease P.W.2. He said that the accused was reluctant about the marriage
they arranged for him with their relatives girl. He denied the suggestion
that as they had arranged a marriage against his liking and as P.W.2 did
not accept his love, the accused became frustrated. He admitted that he
did not give any complaint with regard to the unlawful detention of the
accused by the police for a week. He admitted that he did not inform the
police, press and media as to what the friends of the accused had told
him about the incident. He denied the suggestion that he was inventing
the version to save the accused. He denied the suggestion that the
accused murdered the parents of P.W.2 and also attempted to kill P.W.2.
Now, a look at relevant documentary evidence:

Ex.P1 report reflects that P.W.1 spoke of his personal knowledge of
the harassment of P.W.2 by the accused. He however did not state
therein as to the presence of P.W.10 at the time he entered into the
backyard of the house of D1. He only mentioned the presence of a
relation of D1, presumably P.W.8. This statement was recorded on
17.09.2009 from 11.45 PM to 1.00 AM on 18.09.2009 and basing
thereon, Crime No.277 of 2009 was registered at 1.30 AM on 18.09.2009.
Ex.P2 is the complaint given by D1 to the III Town Police Station in May,
2009, as to the harassment by the accused of P.W.2 and himself. Basing
thereon, Crime No.166 of 2009 on the file of the III Town Law & Order
Police Station, Rajahmundry, was registered on 28.05.2009 at 3.30 PM.
Ex.P3 is the report given on the same lines by D1 to the District Legal
Services Authority, Rajahmundry. Ex.P4 is the complaint given by P.W.2
on 04.09.2009 to the Inspector of Police, Rajahmundry Town Law &
Order Police Station, stating that there was a life threat to her and her
family members from the accused and requesting that necessary action
be taken against him. On the strength of this complaint, it appears that a
compromise was effected between the parties due to intervention of
political leaders, P.W.15 and Adabala Rama Krishna (L.W.18). This
resulted in Ex.P5 Puchikattu (undertaking) dated 04.09.2009 given by
the accused stating that he had no photographs or letters said to have
been written by P.W.2 with him and that he would, in no circumstance,
go to her area or subject her or her family members to harassment. He
also stated that he would mend his ways and would not commit the past
mistakes committed by him in future and that he would not resort to any
unlawful act against P.W.2 or her family members. Basing on this
undertaking, P.W.2 endorsed in Ex.P5 along with her parents that they
withdrew the complaint given against the accused. In Ex.P6, dying
declaration, P.W.2, while speaking broadly on the same lines as her
deposition, made one crucial statement to the contrary. She said that
three or four persons came along with the accused but she did not know
their names. Ex.P27 mediators report demonstrates that pursuant to the
confession made by the accused, a knife measuring 20 cms. in length
with a blade of 10 cms., handle of 9 cms. and with a width of 1.2
cms. was recovered from the bushes in the backyard of the house of
Varanasi Vamshi. Ex.P33, intimation of accidents and injuries to the
Magistrate issued by the Medical Officer of the District Hospital at
Rajahmundry, indicates the name of the patient as Anusha Narla (P.W.2)
and that she was brought in by herself and her father and that the
alleged cause of the injury was assault with a knife by a known person,
Matta Rajesh, the accused. Ex.P35, rough sketch of the scene of the
offence, does not indicate the dilapidated house of Varanasi Vamshi
behind the house of D1. Ex.P37, intimation of accidents and injuries to
the police issued by the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Rajahmundry,
does not indicate either the fact that Anusha Narla, the patient, was
brought by her father or the name of the accused. It states to the effect
that she was brought in by a 108 and that the injury or accident
occurred at her residence and the alleged cause was assault with a knife
at 8.00 PM on 17.09.2009. Ex.P38, intimation of accidents and injuries
to the police in relation to D1 and D2, states that they were brought in
by Anusha, P.W.2, and 108 and that they were brought dead at 8.45 PM
and 8.50 PM. Ex.P39, rough sketch of the scene of the offence, discloses
the dilapidated house and vacant site of Varanasi Vamshi behind the
house of D1 and demonstrates that the gate to these premises was on
the southern side but the same was closed. Ex.P43 report dated
05.12.1009 of the FSL, Hyderabad, demonstrates that the writings in the
four small slips, Ex.P23 to P26, tallied with the writings in the two
sample handwritings of the accused in Exs.P40 and P41. Ex.P47 report
dated 16.01.2010 of the RFSL, Vijayawada, confirmed that blood was
detected on the clothes of the accused and though it was of human
origin, the blood group could not be determined. Similar was the finding
with regard to M.O.1 knife. Ex.P48 FIR was received by the III Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, at 6.30 AM on
18.09.2009. Ex.D37 is the report dated 30.05.2010 of the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, confirming that there were similarities in
the writings in the letters allegedly written by P.W.2 to the accused
(Ex.D12) and her admitted handwriting in Ex.P5 (Puchikattu).
At this stage, it may be noted that the statement of the
photographer (P.W.12) that the knives in Ex.P14 and Ex.P7 are different
is not creditworthy as a bare perusal of these two photographs
demonstrates that the knives therein are clearly one and the same.
A critical overview of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
indicates clearly that there are discrepancies on various aspects. There is
no clarity as to who first arrived at the scene of the offence. P.W.1 said
that he, P.W.10 and a neighbour of P.W.2 (P.W.6?) were the first to arrive
at the scene. P.W.2, the injured eye-witness, however did not mention
the presence of P.W.10 but stated that P.W.1 and her cousin, P.W.8,
came there at the same time. P.W.1 did not mention the presence of
P.W.8. P.W.3 said that when she informed P.W.1 and he rushed to their
house, he was joined by P.W.8. P.W.6, the neighbour of P.W.2, stated
that P.W.1 and P.W.8 were present when he came upon the scene of the
offence. Though P.W.1 mentioned the presence of the neighbour, neither
P.W.2 nor P.W.3 said anything about him. P.W.8 said that when he was
going to the house of P.W.2, P.W.3 and Nandini Devi (L.W.4) were
bringing P.W.1 from his house and he entered the house along with
them. P.W.8 did not mention the presence of P.W.6. P.W.9 stated that
P.W.2 was raising cries in front of the house that the accused had killed.
It is not clear as to when P.W.2 went out of the house and did so. Equally
unclear is when she saw the others who came with the accused, if at all.
P.W.10 said that he accompanied P.W.1 when he was going into the
house. He did not mention either the presence of P.W.6 or P.W.8.
Similarly, there is no clarity as to how the accused was
apprehended and by whom. P.W.1 said that P.W.10 and the neighbour of
P.W.2 brought the accused, who was on the wall, to the side and they
tied his hands behind his back. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 said
that the accused was about to jump the wall when P.W.10 caught hold of
him and thereafter D1 also caught hold of him. P.W.2 said that on seeing
P.W.1 and P.W.8 the accused tried to escape by jumping the backyard
wall and they tried to catch hold of him, but he got himself released and
jumped the wall. It was the persons who gathered there on hearing their
cries that caught hold of him according to her. P.W.3 stated that upon
seeing P.W.1 and P.W.8 the accused tried to jump over the back wall.
P.W.6 said that when P.W.1 and P.W.8 came there and tried to catch
hold of the accused, he escaped by jumping over the backyard wall but
the people who gathered there however caught hold of him. He further
stated that the accused was on the ledge on the other side of the wall.
P.W.1 and P.W.8 tried to catch hold of him when he was on this side of
the wall, but he got himself released by pushing them. P.W.8 said that he
and P.W.1 were tried to catch hold of the accused who was trying to run
away and when he escaped from their hands and trying to run away, the
people gathered there caught hold of him. P.W.10 said that P.W.1 was
holding the hand of the accused as he tried to escape and he also caught
hold of his hand and when they caught hold of his hands, the accused
was on the other side of the house. The people who gathered there tied
the hands of the accused. P.W.10 also said that when he heard the cries
and came out, P.W.2 was crying in front of the house on the road. He
further stated that by the time he went into the backyard, the person
from the adjacent portion of P.W.2 was holding the hand of the accused.
He further stated that he and P.W.1 also caught hold of him. According
to him, P.W.1 and P.W.8 tried to catch hold of the accused, but he
escaped by jumping over the wall but in the meanwhile the persons from
the adjacent portions and the neighbours caught hold of him.
Equally inconsistent are the versions put forth as to whether the
family of P.W.2 had already visited her maternal grandmother or were yet
to go there when the attack occurred. Just as mysterious remains the
issue of how D1, D2 and P.W.2 reached the hospital. According to P.W.1,
they were all boarded into the ambulance and taken to the hospital and
he himself followed the said ambulance and heard the Doctor at the
hospital declaring that D1 and D2 were dead. P.W.2 said that she and D1
went to the hospital in the ambulance in the first instance and her
mother was brought in the same ambulance in the second trip. She
denied the suggestion that she and her father went to the hospital by an
auto. P.W.6 and P.W.8 both claimed that P.W.2 and her parents were
taken to the hospital in an ambulance. P.W.10 said that D1 was taken to
the hospital in an auto while P.W.2 and her mother were taken in an
ambulance thereafter. P.W.17, the doctor at the hospital who treated
P.W.2 and also did the autopsy over the body of D2, said that P.W.2
herself came to the hospital and she brought her father also in an auto
while being transported from the portico of the hospital into the casualty
ward P.W.2s father died. P.W.22, the Investigating Officer, said that as
per the information given by the OPHC at the hospital both the deceased
and P.W.2 were brought to the hospital in an ambulance. In this regard,
D.W.3, the District Manager of 108 EMRI Services, stated that as per the
record, D2 was transported to the hospital by the ambulance and that
there was no record of any second trip to take patients to the hospital.
However, the real issue is whether these discrepancies and
inconsistencies are of any actual significance in evaluating the
prosecutions case. It has to be kept in mind that these witnesses would
have invariably been pushed by the prosecution into exaggerations while
giving evidence, owing to the sensational nature of the case. That by
itself, would therefore not warrant discarding of their testimonies.
Be it noted that in MOHD. HUSSAIN V/s. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT
OF DELHI) , the Supreme Court observed that the gravity of the offence
and the criminality with which the accused is charged are important
factors that need to be kept in mind and it is desirable that punishment
should follow the offence as closely as possible. The Supreme Court
observed that in an extremely serious criminal case of exceptional
nature, it would occasion failure of justice if the prosecution is not taken
to the logical conclusion as justice is supreme.
Earlier, in BRAHM SWAROOP V/s. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH , the Supreme Court observed that minor discrepancies on
trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecutions case,
should not prompt the Court to reject the evidence of a witness in its
entirety. It was further observed that after exercising care and caution,
sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration
and improvements, the Court must come to a conclusion as to whether
the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Undue
importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and
discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the
basic version of the witness.
In KARNEL SINGH V/s. STATE OF M.P. , while dealing with a
case of defective investigation, the Supreme Court expressed
unhappiness over the same but observed that though the Court has to be
circumspect in evaluating evidence it would not be right in acquitting an
accused solely on account of a defect, as to do so would tantamount to
playing into the hands of investigating officers, if the investigation is
designedly defective. It was further observed that to acquit solely on the
ground of defective investigation would be adding insult to injury.
In HARIJANA THIRUPALA V/s. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD , the Supreme Court observed that the
case of the prosecution must be judged as a whole, having regard to
totality of the evidence, and in appreciating the evidence, the approach of
the Court must be integrated and not truncated or isolated. In other
words, the impact of the evidence in totality on the prosecutions case
has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or
otherwise of the accused. The Supreme Court cautioned that in reaching
a conclusion about the guilt of the accused, the Court must appreciate,
analyze and assess the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of
probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses.
Further, the case on hand stands on an essentially different footing
when compared to a run-of-the-mill case of this nature as the accused
himself entered into the box and gave evidence as a defence witness
under Section 315 CrPC.
As long back as in the year 1968, in TUKARAM G. GAOKAR V/s.
R.N. SHUKLA , the Supreme Court observed that in a criminal trial, a
person accused of an offence is a competent witness for the defence
under Section 342-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Section
315(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and may give evidence
on oath in disproof of the charges against him. It was further observed
that when the accused does so out of his own volition, there is no
violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution which affirms that no person
accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
In STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH V/s. RAMESH , the Supreme
Court observed that the statement of the accused made under Section
313 CrPC can be taken into consideration to appreciate the truthfulness
or otherwise of the prosecutions case, but it cannot be treated as
evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, as it is not recorded after administration of oath and the accused
cannot be cross-examined. However, Section 315 CrPC enables the
accused to give evidence on his own behalf to disprove the charges
against him and once he enters into the witness box to take oath and to
be cross-examined by the prosecution, he is a competent witness and his
evidence can be considered and relied upon while deciding the case.
In DEHAL SINGH V/s. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH , the
Supreme Court affirmed that if an accused appears as a defence witness
to disprove the charges, his version can be tested by cross-examination
and his deposition under Section 315 CrPC can be treated as evidence.
Earlier, in P.N.KRISHNA LAL V/s. GOVT. OF KERALA , it was
observed that Section 315 CrPC makes an accused person a competent
witness who may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made
against him. The accused can therefore waive his right under Article
20(3) of the Constitution and tender himself as a witness, if he chooses.
In RAJ KUMAR SINGH ALIAS RAJU ALIAS BATYA V/s. STATE
OF RAJASTHAN , the Supreme Court observed that an adverse inference
can be drawn against the accused only, and only if the incriminating
material stood fully established and the accused is unable to furnish an
explanation when examined as a witness under Section 315 CrPC.
The case would therefore turn upon appreciation of the evidence of
the accused also. It is clear from his evidence that he does not deny his
presence at the scene of the offence. He however had a different version
to offer as to why and how he got there and as to what had happened.
Once the accused himself admitted his presence at the scene of the
offence and that he was caught by those present there and subjected to a
physical attack, lapses and inconsistencies, if any, in the versions put
forth by the prosecution witnesses as to who caught him and where, i.e.,
whether he was caught before he jumped over the backyard wall or after,
and by whom, pale into insignificance. Further, when the accused
himself admitted that D1 and D2 suffered knife attacks and that P.W.2
was also inflicted with injuries, though he had a different version to
account for the same, discrepancies as to how D1, D2 and P.W.2 reached
the hospital thereafter are equally insignificant.
These trivial differences in the testimonies of the witnesses are not
sufficient in themselves to discard or doubt their veracity.
The issue essentially boils down to the rival testimonies of the
injured eye-witness, P.W.2, and the accused, speaking as D.W.4.
P.W.2 categorically spoke of the complaints given by her father in
the first instance and thereafter, herself, in relation to harassment by the
accused. She identified her fathers signature in Ex.P2 report, given by
him on 28.05.2009 to the III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry, and
spoke of the action taken thereon by the police. She confirmed that on
04.09.2009, she herself gave a report to the police that even after
vacating the adjacent portion, the accused was threatening them by
making phone calls and also following them wherever they went apart
from intimidating them. Ex.P4 was identified by her as the report dated
04.09.2009 given by her to the III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry.
She then spoke of settlement of the issue due to the intervention of
elders, Adabala Rama Krishna Rao (L.W.18) and P.W.15, in the police
station, which resulted in Ex.P5 undertaking.
On the other hand, the accused (D.W.4) claimed that P.W.2 was in
love with him and as both of them were making efforts to meet each
other despite the opposition of P.W.2s parents, they filed a false case
against him on 28.05.2009 in III Town Police Station. After being
enlarged on bail, he claimed that he was attempting to meet P.W.2 and
used to do so once a week. He further claimed that on 04.09.2009, when
he was meeting P.W.2, her parents gave a report to the III Town Police.
This claim is patently fallacious as not only did P.W.2 state
otherwise but Ex.P4 report unequivocally recorded that it was given by
P.W.2 herself, and not by her parents.
The accused admitted that his elder brother, D.W.6, brought BJP
leaders, Adabala Rama Krishna Rao (L.W.18) and P.W.15, to the police
station and Ex.P5 undertaking was drafted, wherein he, his brother and
the elders affixed their signatures. His version thereafter was to the effect
that he did not meet P.W.2 and never went to her house after executing
Ex.P5 undertaking.
This change in his conduct is inexplicable, if P.W.2 and he were in
love and it was the elders who were forcefully keeping them apart.
He then claimed that P.W.2 herself contacted him along with P.W.8
by phone and asked him to come to Ashoka theatre behind his house
and when he went there, P.W.2 and P.W.8 came there and asked him to
come to the house of P.W.2 on the fateful night stating that P.W.2s
father wanted to talk to him about their love affair.
The involvement of P.W.8 in this exercise is not explained by the
accused. He claimed all through that P.W.2 was in love with him and if
that was so, she would not have needed a chaperone to meet him.
He further claimed that he went to the house of P.W.2 hoping that
her father would accept their love and would perform their marriage.
If that were so, it is rather peculiar that he did not go to P.W.2s
house accompanied by his elder brother, D.W.6, who had effected the
compromise earlier, but went with his friend, Palasa Seshu. Thereafter,
as per his own admission, he loitered in the vicinity of P.W.2s house by
purchasing a cool drink and a chips packet. He also claimed that he
chatted with friends and that a neighbour of P.W.2, Raju @ Ravi, came
there and talked to him and he informed all those present that he had
come there at the invitation of P.W.2s father to talk about their love
affair. This neighbour, Raju @ Ravi, was not examined. The version of the
accused was that P.W.2 then came out and took him into the middle
room of the house where the parents of P.W.2, her two sisters, P.W.8 and
two unknown persons were present.
This claim is also suspect. If P.W.2 did not even come to meet the
accused alone earlier and brought P.W.8, as claimed by the accused, she
would have hardly come out alone to call the accused into her house
when he was with a group of men. All the more so, as P.W.8 was
available, if the version of the accused is to be accepted.
The accused then claimed that the father of P.W.2 demanded
compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the ground that he was marrying
another girl after closely moving with P.W.2.
This claim, on the face of it, appears rather far-fetched. P.W.2s
father was very much present in the police station when Ex.P5
undertaking was executed after the compromise was settled between the
parties upon the intervention of BJP leaders. If he had any intention of
seeking such compensation, P.W.2s father would have definitely raised
the issue in the presence of the said leaders while the compromise was
being settled. Further, the accused himself admitted that P.W.2s father
led a dignified life. If that was so, it is hardly believable that he would
have demanded money from the accused for having relations with his
daughter. More so, when he specifically secured Ex.P5 undertaking from
the accused that he would not bother her. Further, the claim of the
accused that he offered Rs.10,000/-, instead of the demanded sum of
Rs.50,000/-, contradicts his claim that he went to the house with the
hope that P.W.2s father would accept their love and perform their
marriage. If that was the mindset with which he went to P.W.2s house,
the accused would hardly have offered to pay any compensation.
As regards the claim of the accused that he entered P.W.2s house
through the front door, normal human conduct, if he had done so and
was attacked thereafter, would have been for him to try to escape by the
same route that he had come. All the more so, as he claimed that his
friends were outside the gate. But, surprisingly, he admitted that he tried
to escape from the backyard, which seems rather improbable. His further
claim that he was attacked by the father of P.W.2, P.W.8 and a friend of
P.W.8 with knives is hardly believable. If he was subjected to attacks
with knives by three persons simultaneously, it is not possible that he
would have escaped with only simple injuries.
His further claim that he held the knife of P.W.8 with his right
hand and pulled it away from him, thereby sustaining a cut injury on his
right palm is contrary to the medical evidence which indicates that the
cut injury on his right palm was in between the thumb and index fingers.
If the knife was thrust towards the accused and he held the knife, the
portion between the thumb and index fingers would ordinarily be on the
top edge of the knife and it would be the rest of the fingers that would
clutch its sharp lower edge. The claim of the appellant that he suffered
this injury in the manner that he put forth is therefore unbelievable.
It is also admitted by the accused that he was attacked by the mob
which collected there and he spoke of being hit with a metal bucket. It is
therefore possible that he suffered this injury on the right palm during
the attack by the mob. Be it noted that he himself admitted that the mob
would have killed him, if not for the intervention of the police. This
indicates the extent of the mob fury.
The accused also had no explanation as to why P.W.2, who
allegedly came to his rescue during the attack upon him by her parents
and P.W.8 along with his friends, would suddenly change her version
and fail to support him.
His claim that he used to lend money to D1 and D2 but never
obtained any document for such lending is equally unbelievable.
Admittedly, he worked in a courier service and earned a meagre sum of
Rs.2,200/- per month while D1 plied an auto to eke out his living. It is
highly improbable that the accused would have had enough savings to
advance loans and at that, without any documentation.
The version of the accused as to how D1 and D2 sustained fatal
injuries and how P.W.2 met with injuries defies comprehension.
According to him, while one of the friends of P.W.8 tried to stab him, D2
came to his rescue and that blow of the knife fell on her. However, the
post-mortem examination does not record any injury that would
corroborate this version. He further stated that he did not observe how
P.W.2 and her father sustained injuries as it was dark. The plea of
darkness remains unsubstantiated. Even if the light in the kitchen was
not put on, the light in the middle room would spill into the kitchen if the
door was open. It is not the case of the accused that the kitchen door
was closed during the alleged attack upon him.
Further, the medical evidence as to the injuries suffered by D1 and
D2 clearly show that both of them were stabbed, more or less identically,
in the left arm-pit and the stab injuries, which were inflicted with such
precision, could not have been randomly inflicted in a scuffle in the dark,
as claimed by the accused. The identical nature of the fatal injuries that
they suffered renders the claim of the accused that they were inflicted in
a scuffle in the dark completely improbable. There is no explanation as to
why there would be any scuffle in the dark when the accused was alone
on one side and was being subjected to a multiple attack by D1, P.W.8
and his friend with knives. There is no possibility of any such scuffle
between the alleged attackers themselves, whereby they could have
inflicted injuries on each other inadvertently.
Further, the accused admitted that P.W.2 was more educated than
he was. She was also taking spoken English classes. Whether a girl who
was inclined to such self-improvement would have decided to settle for
someone far less placed than her is also debatable. His claim that he did
not even know whether P.W.2 belonged to a particular community clearly
dilutes his version that they were in love and had a close relationship.
His version that P.W.2 used to write him love letters and that the
letters produced by him were written by her is equally unworthy of
credence. Merely because the writing in these letters was found to be
similar to the writing of P.W.2 in Ex.P4 report given to the police, it does
not establish that she was the author of those letters. Significantly, the
said letters were written by someone named Honey and though the
accused claimed that this was the nickname of P.W.2, no evidence was
adduced in proof thereof. Not even a suggestion was put to any of the
witnesses in this regard. Further, the contents of these letters
demonstrate that they could not have been written by P.W.2, as mention
was made therein of older sisters and a brother contrary to the admitted
fact that P.W.2 had only younger sisters and no brother. Though the
accused tried to explain this away by stating that the reference was to
her cousins, his claim stood demolished as P.W.2 had no such cousins.
These letters therefore cannot be attributed to P.W.2.
The version of the accused that till D1 caught hold of him nobody
came to that place and that, ten minutes thereafter, the residents in the
upstairs portion put on the lights is equally improbable. He did not
explain as to why he would have remained there for ten minutes, if only
D1, who had already been stabbed by then, was alone present and would
have been incapable of restraining the accused when he tried to escape.
He thereafter contradicted himself by stating that it was P.W.2 who
caught hold of him and not D1. It is therefore clear that there is neither
clarity nor consistency in the story put forth by him.
The accused then said that by the time D1 caught hold of him
there were no injuries on his person. This statement completely
demolishes his earlier version that D1, D2 and P.W.2 suffered injuries in
a scuffle which took place in the darkness while they were in the kitchen.
Admittedly, it was only after he went from the kitchen to the backyard
and was in the process of making good his escape by jumping over the
wall that D1 caught him. If he was without any injury at that time, there
is no possibility of D1 suffering a fatal knife injury thereafter. Though he
denied the suggestion that P.W.2 caught hold of him for some time, this
is exactly what he said in his chief-examination.
Significantly, in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the
accused denied that during the compromise talks, the elders on his
behalf assured P.W.2 and D1 that he would be sent out of the State. This
claim is contradicted by P.W.15, the BJP leader who worked the
compromise, who stated that the father and brother (D.W.6) of the
accused told him that they would send the accused to Chennai. The
accused further stated that they vacated the portion adjacent to P.W.2s
house voluntarily and that they were not made to vacate the same by the
police. He contradicted this statement in his chief-examination as D.W.4
by admitting that the family of P.W.2 got them vacated from the portion.
Contradictions galore in his testimony therefore weigh heavily
against the accused.
On the other hand, this Court finds that the prosecution
clinchingly established that the accused, consumed by unrequited
passion for P.W.2, not only subjected her to harassment, time and again,
but also unlawfully entered her house on the fateful night with the
intention of doing her fatal bodily harm and upon the intervention of her
parents, he mercilessly killed them. Given the admitted fact that the
accused was caught at the scene of the offence itself and as P.W.2s
evidence as to what actually happened remained unshaken on all
essential aspects, the contrary version put forth by the accused is utterly
implausible and failed to withstand incisive cross-examination.
On the aforestated analysis, the judgment of the Sessions Court
holding him guilty of the offences under Sections 449, 307 and 302 IPC
does not brook any interference, be it on facts or in law. The appeal is
therefore found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed,
confirming the judgment dated 31.01.2011 of the learned Judge, Family
Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari
District at Rajahmundry, in Sessions Case No.48 of 2010.

________________________
SANJAY KUMAR,J
________________________
T.AMARNATH GOUD,J
22nd DECEMBER, 2017