KOKI PRABHAKAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are filed against the common judgment and order dated 22-6-2004 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Guntur (under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989). In all, three persons namely, Anchipogula Samsonu-A1; Koki Prabhakara Reddy-A2; and Thurumella Jagadeesh-A3 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 376(g) IPC or alternative of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") and for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Additionally A1 and A2 were charged or the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.

(2.) Accused Nos.1 to 3 were found guilty for the offence under Section 376(g), 302 read with 34 and 201 IPC. A2 was further found guilty for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act; further Al and A2 were found guilty for the offence under Section 379 IPC. Accordingly, Al to A3 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 376(g) IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years; for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each. All the accused were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 201 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. A1 and A2 were also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 379 IPC. As A2 was already punished for the offence under Section 376(g) IPC, no separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. All the sentences imposed on them were directed to run concurrently. Out of fine amount of Rs.66,000/- it was directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation to P.W.1. Against the judgment A2 filed Crl.A. No.1723 of 2004; A3 filed Crl.A. No.1892 of 2004 and Al filed Crl.A. No.2598 of 2004. Since all the appeals arise out of common judgment and in the same Sessions Case, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) The prosecution story as narrated during the course of trial is as follows: The deceased-Daggumalli Marthamma @ Ankamma was the second wife of Daggumalli Venkatesh-P.W.3 and daughter of Jogi Srinivasarao-P.W.1, P.Ws.2 and 4 are relatives of the deceased. The deceased, the accused and the material witnesses are residents of Bapatla. Six months prior to the incident, the deceased married P.W.3 without the consent of her father-P.W.1 and set up their family in Vetapalem. Later they shifted the family to the house of P.W.6 at Vandullapalli and finally shifted to the house of P.W.2 at Chenagalayuduthota, Bapatla Town. As P.W.3 was involved in criminal case, on 26-3-2003 police searched the house of P.W.2, but P.W.3 escaped from the house. The next day morning deceased and P.W.2 met P.W. 18-Sarpanch and requested him to talk with the police. On 27-3-2003 the deceased while going to the house of P.W.6, asked P.W.2 to bring her clothes to the house of P.W.6. At 11 a.m. P.W.2 along with the clothes of the deceased went to the house of P.W. 18 for seeking his help; as he was not available they returned to the house of P.W.6; P.W.2 accompanied the deceased till 5 p.m. and came back to her house. On the said date after having dinner deceased, P.W.6 and her children went to sleep. A2 who bore grudge against the deceased, as she spoiled the family life of her relative, he hatched up a plan to eliminate the deceased. As per the plan Al visited the house of P.W.6 and called the deceased by name; when P.W.6 enquired, he told that he is Samsonu-A1; then the deceased accompanied him in Auto rickshaw towards Bapatla and her whereabouts are not known thereafter. On 31-3-2003 during the course of search of deceased, P.W.1 heard the talk in the village that a female dead body was near the B. Pharmacy College. Then P.W.1, his wife and son went there, as it was dark they visited the place next day morning, observed and identified the dead body as that of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave a written report-Ex.P1 to P.W.20- Sub-Inspector of Police who registered a case in Cr. No.33 of 2003 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and issued FIR-Ex.P46. Thereafter, P.W.21-the Circle Inspector of Police took up investigation and sent a requisition to P.W.1-Deputy M.R.O., Bapatla to exhume the body and hold inquest, who in turn made a requisition to the Medical Officer to conduct post-mortem at the spot. P.W.21 visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report-Ex.P.15, draw rough sketch-Ex.P47, seized M.Os.3 and 4 in the presence of P.W.4 and another; thereafter he recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 18.