MACHARLA RAMESH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is Accused No.1, has filed the present Criminal Petition under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking enlargement on bail pending trial in S.C.No.131 of 2019 on the file of Special Judge for the Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 414, 498-A and 109 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 2015.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that, on 10.02.2019 at about 10.00 a.m., one Mandala Venkatesham, Revenue Inspector, Girdavar, lodged a written complaint in telugu informing that on information from the villagers of Kondapur, by the Village Revenue Assistant, he along with Village Revenue Assistants, visited the spot in Sy.No.86 of Kondapur Revenue Village and found two burnt dead bodies and that basing on the above complaint, the Inspector of Police, Ghatkesar Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, that the mother of deceased No.1 appeared and reported that A.1 murdered the deceased No.1 along with four months son by pouring petrol on both of them and burnt them beyond recognition at the instigation of the A.4, A.2 and A.3. During the course of investigation, the petitioner/A.1 surrendered before the Ghatkesar Police Station and confessed that on the night of 09.02.2019, he killed his wife and their son and accordingly narrated the story stating that he got acquaintance with deceased No.1 in the year 2009, thereafter they fell in love with each other and both of them got married in November, 2015 at Arya Samaj, Balkampet, that thereafter he along with deceased No.1-wife started leading conjugal life in a rented house at Erragadda, Hyderabad, without informing to the parents of both sides, that in the year 2016, when he went to his parents house, who brought marriage alliance, on coming to know about the same, deceased No.1 quarrelled with him and also informed to her mother about their marriage, who inturn, informed to his parents by showing the marriage photos, that on receiving a call from his parents, he again went to his village, where his parents questioned him as to why he performed the marriage with a SC community girl/deceased No.1 and warned him that they will not allow deceased No.1 in their house, that thereafter quarrels ensued between the petitioner and deceased No.1 and that deceased No.1 used to force him to take her to his village, that after delivery of a male child in November, 2018, both of them started staying separately, that deceased No.1 frequently used to call him on phone and forced him to take herself and her son to their house, which was not agreed to by his parents, that because of the continuous demands made by deceased No.1, the petitioner hatched a plan to eliminate his wife and marry another girl and accordingly telephoned to deceased No.1 on 09.02.2019 morning and asked her to come down to Hyderabad, who accordingly came down to Uppal along with deceased No.2 from where the petitioner took them on his motor cycle initially to Ghanapur, where deceased No.1 threatened him to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills if she is not allowed to stay with him and consumed two sleeping pills, that at about 9.00 p.m., when deceased No.1 went into unconscious state, the petitioner took her to the forest area existing on the back side of HPCL and killed her and her son by throttling their neck and after confirming that both of them died, he got relieved the ornaments from the person of his wife, brought petrol, poured on his wife and son and burnt them beyond recognition and went to his native place, that because of fear, on 10.02.2019 he along with the ornaments of his wife went to Palakurthy Police Station and surrendered himself, who inturn brought him and handed over him to Ghatkesar Police on 10.02.2019 and in pursuance of his confession, the gold ornaments of deceased No.1, so also the motor cycle were seized in the presence of witnesses.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. Perused the material on record.