302 circumstancial Evidence

prsmitra (Querist) 15 April 2011 This query is : Resolved
IN THE COURT OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAJAHMUNDRY

SESSIONS CASE NO. 217/2010
Between:-
State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Rajanagaram
Complainant
And

Dasari Bulikasulu
Accused
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED BY THE ACCUSED
May I pleased your honor,
On the report given by the Pw-1 Adimoolam Suri Babu on 13-09-2009 at 9 am., the Complainant registered a case against the accused for the alleged offence under section 302 IPC and filed charge sheet against the accused.

Brief Facts of the case
Pw-1 Adimmolam Suri Babu married one Chandra and they got two sons Rajesh and Teja. The wife of Pw-1 Chandra passed away about 7 years ago due to her sickness. The eldest son Rajesh residing and stayed at Pw-1 in law’s house and the deceased Teja is residing along with Pw-1 at Sreerampuram.
After husband’s death the accused came to Sreerampuram village to her sister house who has been residing at Sreerampuram. Pw-1 and accused got acquainted and both of them living as men and women along with their children.
It is submitted in the charge sheet and the complaint to alleged that there in consideration thereof Lw-1 to give Rs.50,000/- for maintenance to the daughter of accused by name Durga. The accused, pw-1 and the deceased Teja have been residing together at Sreeramapuram. It is further alleged that the accused has been complaining to pw-1 stating, that the deceased has not been paying need to her and that he was retorting her and Pw-1 has been lying with the side of the deceased and that he was not coming to her during night times and further comment that the deceased causing discomfort to her and she would kill him in one way of the other.
On 07-09-2009, the defacto complainant Pw-1 went to his fields at Somavaram. Before his arrival the accused stated that she would like to go to Grapadu to see her daughter Durga as she was not doing well. The pw-1 stated to wait till he returns from Somavaram as the deceased Teja would be alone at his house.
It is further submitted in the charge sheet the complainant further alleged on the midnight of 12/13-09-2009 at about 1 am., Lw5 and 6 heard the crises of the accused from her house. They went into the house of accused and found that the deceased alone lying on the floor. They noticed contusion on the neck of the deceased. When they raise crises A.Arjamma and also went there and she also saw the deceased was dead. They informed the matter to Lw-2, Lw-4 made a phone call to Pw-1. Pw-1 came to house at about 4 am, having informed of the death of the deceased. Pw-1 questioned the accused as to how the deceased Teja died. The accused deliberately said that she killed the deceased Teja by strangulating his neck with a nylon rope as the deceased has not bee been paying need to her has been retorting her and that he became hurdle between to her and Pw-1.
After examined material witness, the complainant filed charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offence U/s.302 IPC.

The Prosecution examined Pw-1 to Pw-12. Exhibit P-1 to 12 marked MO”s 1 to 9 marked.
Exhibits Mo’s
1. Ex.P.1 is Report given by P.W.1, 1. Yoke (kavidi-badda)
2.Ex.P.2 is 161 statement of P.W.4 2. Kattipeeta
3.Ex.P.3 is 3. Another rope which is connected to M.O 1
4. Ex.P.4 is Seen of Observation 4. A small piece of rope is cut from M.o.3
5. Ex.P.5 is inquest report 5. Saree
6. Ex.P.6 is Mediators Report 6. Bag
7. Ex.P.7 is Mediators Report 7. Blue color Nickar
8. Ex.P.8 is P.M. Certificate 8. Black Color Tea Shirt with white stripes
9. Ex.P.9 is F.I.R. 9. waste Thread ( Black color)
10. Ex.P.10 is Rough Sketch
11. Ex.P.11 is requisition along with letter of advise
12. Ex.P.12 is R.F.S.L. Report.
P.w. 1 stated that is wife died due to ill health prior to the incident and he developed acquaintance and there is no understanding in between him and accused and that he would pay Rs.50,000/- to her and performed to accused daughter’s marriage if looks him and his son properly. The P.W.1, accused and her daughter Durga and his son Teja were living together in his house and there were little quarrels between the daughter of the accused and Teja. The same fact was informed by the accused to him, and he used to tell the accused that both of them were small children and petty quarrels are common and the accused has to adjust between them, I used to sleep with my son Teja and the accused picked up quarrels with him on that ground. The P.w.1 further stated that the accused send her daughter durga to her grand parents house , Garappadu, since Teja and Durga were quarreling frequently and he further stated while he was somavaram the accused phoned him and told that he has go to Garappadu to see her daughter and her health condition was different. And he asked to stay at home and she can go Garappadu, after his arrival.
When he reached his home after receiving phone, he found his son lying on the floor with injuries on around his neck by that he expired. The accused was also present there, I questioned her as to what happened and initial she stated that she did know hoe my son died and later when myself and my brother in law persistently asked her about causing death, she stated that some body came and caused injuries to my son. I went to Rajanagaram Police I gave instructions to one Satyanarayana got drafted a report and I signed said report and present to the police. The report was marked as Ext.P-1. It contains his signature and police examined him. The rope is marked as MO-3, a small piece was cut from MO3 and it was marked as MO4 at this state PP seeking permission to cross the witness
Cross Examination
The witness denies that the parent in laws objections for keeping the accused as my concubine. Witness added they never objection for the same. It is not true that his sister in law informed that my son serious but accused not responsible for the incident. But she informed that my son is seriously ill. It is true to that the accused was in the house till his arrival and police. The witness stated that Ext/P-1 was signed by him and did not know its contents. He and his brother in law Srinu went to the police and presented a report. My brother in law gave instruction to the Satyanarayana and he drafted the report.
Lw-3 was examined as Pw-2
He stated that the deceased and Pw-1 residing at Srirampuram village and along with accused at his house and Pw-1 informed him that the Teja not heed the voice of the accused in his 161 statement.
But in evidence that deceased, accused and her daughter and Pw-1 were living together. Teja informed to him he used to call the accused as a mother and she was not treated him properly.
He further stated when he question cause of death the neighbors told him that the accused herself informed them that she killed the deceased by putting nylon rope around his neck since became an obstacles between herself and pw-1 when all of them in a sorrowful mood, the accused escaped from that place. Pw-1 went to the police station and made a complainant He further stated since police did not ask me the name of the persons who furnished information me I did not state before the police. I did not know whether accused was with police till she was sent to the court.
Pw-2 in her cross examination stated that she do not have any personal knowledge what have happened in side the house of Pw-1 and she went to the house of Pw-1 after hearing of crises. I do not know about the quarrels between the children personally. I heard that there were quarrels between daughter of Pw1 and the deceased. My house is away from the house of Pw-1. I do not have personal about the disputes in between the Pw-1 and the accused. I came to know the above facts stated by me through Lw-6 Satyanarayana only.
Pw- 4 and 5turn hostile
They stated that the accused came to their house tapped the door and woke upon them calling and informed them that the thieves entered into their house and asked them to see what was happened to Teja and they afraid and did not want to enter into the house of the Pw-1. They did not know about the disputes in between the accused and Pw-1 It is true that accused and Pw-1 were living together as a man and wife in the house of pw-1 since 6 months prior to the incident.. They do not know what contents of statement recorded by the police are.
Pw-6
In her chief she stated that the accused was brought by pw-1 and the accused her daughter. Pw-1 and his son teja were living together in the house of pw-1. Since teja and the daughter of accused were quarreling with each other there were quarrels between accused and Pw-1 due to that reason. Subsequently her daughter was send to her parent’s house. She further stated after that they belong to kapu community and accused belongs to Gowda Community. The police examined on the date of incident itself. She admitted that Pw1 and Pw-2 went to police station and presented a report to the police.
Pw-7:Photographer.
Pw-8 VAO
Permission of MRO is not required by him to act as a mediator. No requisition was sent by the Police to MRO. There is no requisition in writing issued by the CI to me but he requested me on telephone and act as mediator when he was in Srirampuram village fields and the other mediator Jayaraj is resident of Sriramapuram and doing real estate business. By the time he was went Jayaraju CI, were at the scene of offence. He stated that inspector half hour to observe the dead body and tool tow hours for drafting inquests report.
The mediator reports do not reveal that they picked up the pw-1 from the III Town Police Station. He stated that he did not receive any prior intimation about the presence of the accused but the on request of inspector of police I went there. It is true Rajahmundry is not my jurisdiction and there is Village Revenue office in Rajahmundry Police did not secure the presence of VRO, Rajahmundry. Kotilingalu revue is one of auspicious places at Rajahmundry and people would be present to bath in river. Inspector of police did not ask any one to act as mediator in the vicinity of the Kotilingalupeta. Since he was present being a public servant CI did not ask the accused whether she can be taken to MRO or Magistrate.

Pw-9
The Doctor: stated when the neck of the individual is pressed with a rope by putting around there is possibility of the protrusion of eyes and tough. I did not mentioned in Ext.P-8 that there is protrusion of eyes and tongue I have also not mentioned by there was straggling by the deceased at the time of his death. Pw-8 would not show that there is application of any intoxicants to the deceased. There is no bone injury to the deceased. It is not possible that scratches would appear on the neck if any person is strangulated with a kerchief. It there is struggle at the time of strangulation there will be bone injury in Ext.P-8 I did not mentioned that there is a bone injury since I did not find any such injury.

PW-10. SHO REGISTERING FIR
The distance between Rajanagaram and Rajahmundry is 18 kilometers and it would take 20 minutes on vehicle to cover the distance on a vehicle. Immediately after registration of the FIR, submitted copies to my superior and also sent the Original FIR to the Court. The Original FIR endorsement of the Magistrate is that he was received at 2-45 pm. It is not true suggest that he created the FIR in order to help to the defacto complainant after completion of the investigation.
Pw-11
In the FIR the names of the witness are not mentioned. Pw-10 HC who was in charge of the Police Station Registered FIR. The statement of witnesses recorded by him does not disclose that there were quarrels between the deceased and daughter of the accused. Pw-1 furnished information to them that the teja was not hiding words of the accused and the said have also stated that they got personal of that fact. He further stated that he served the notice to the VRO to act as inquest-dar at the time of inquest. Pw1 and other stated that the accused was present at the place of offence till the Pw-1 arrival and after she confessed about the offence to him and he escaped from the scene of offence. The investigation conduct by him would disclose that the Pw-1 and accused lived as men and wife together. He denied that the accused was in their custody till she remanded to judicial custody. The accused and other persons were interrogated by him at the time of arrival in the place of incident.
He denied suggest that the FIR was registered subsequent to the completion of investigation in order to suit the case of prosecution. He further denied at the instant of Pw-2 he foisted a false against the accused in order to drive her from the house of Pw-1. He admitted that Pw-4 stated to him after hearing crises of the accused that she went to the house of Pw-1. FIR Rough sketch and Observation report stimulation one and same time to suit the prosecution case.
Pw-12.
This witness stated that Pw-6 would not disclose to him that there were quarrels between the deceased and the daughter of the accused by name Durga. He further stated that the Sreeramapuram VRO is residing at Rajahmundry and He did not request the inmates of the houses in kotilingalu peta or the shop owners since he already secured the presence of mediators. He stated that he did not try to produce the accused before the magistrate to record her confession. It is true that the record of the investigation reveals that the accused was present at the house of Pw-1 till his arrival from Somavaram.
I relied upon 2006(1) ALT Crl 493-AP
P.Gangadhar VS State of AP
When the witnesses have no personal knowledge of the crime but only stated on hearsay statement of other witness such evidence is not admissible in evidence.
2006(1) ALT Crl 493.
The facts deposed by witnesses during the trail not mentioned in FIR or statement recorded U/s.161 CrPC it is an improvement and it can not be considered.
In this case prosecution fails to establish the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. She may be acquitted accordingly.

Advocate for accused

Follow Query

Report Abuse