Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. On receipt of the complaint, a case in Crime No.12 of 2010 under Section 365 IPC was registered. During investigation, P.W.10 - the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peruru Police Station, examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3, visited the scene of offence (Baddikottu), incorporated the scene and sketch in crime details Form-1 before P.W.7 and L.W.13. On the same day, i.e., on 23.09.2010, at 2.00 P.M., the appellant surrendered himself before P.W.10 and confessed to have committed the offences. P.W.10 secured the mediators Vasam Narasimha Rao, Village Secretary, Dharmaram (P.W.8) and Made Laxmi Devi, Village Secretary, Peruru (L.W.15) and interrogated the appellant in their presence. The appellant confessed to have love affair with the deceased Nagalakshmi and had sexual relations with her and that on 21.09.2010, at about 5.00 P.M., he took Nagalakshmi from nearby shop of Thota Narasimhulu (P.W.3) to forest near Dharmaram Village and had sexual intercourse and pushed her into the rocky valley and later strangulated her with her chunni and killed her and that on coming to SKK,J & MSRM,J know that the offence had come to the notice of all, he came and surrendered before the Police.

4. Based upon the said confession of the appellant, P.W.10 added Sections 376 & 302 IPC to Section 365 IPC and sent alteration memo to the concerned. Thereafter, the Circle Inspector of the Police, Venkatapuram (P.W.13) took up the investigation. He examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.4 & 5 and L.Ws.4 & 6 & 8. In pursuance of said confession, the appellant lead the panchas - P.W.8 & L.W.15 and Police to Bogotta Waterfalls, the scene of offence, where P.W.13 incorporated the scene and sketch in crime details Form-2 before the same mediators and seized blood stained apparels of the deceased. He also conducted inquest panchanama Ex.P-4 over the dead body before said mediators and Bangaru Sampath Kumar (L.W.16). The Medical Officers (P.W.11 & L.W.17) conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and preserved specimen for chemical analysis and report. Viscera was transmitted to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, and Siddhardha Medical College, Vijayawada, for analysis and report and thereafter reports were received.

6. After the investigation, the charge sheet was finalised and took the charge sheet on the file of P.R.C.No.49 of 2011 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam, for offences under Sections 365, 376 & 302 IPC. On committal, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, has taken P.R.C.No.49 of 2011, on the file as Sessions Case No.60 of 2012 and made over the case to the file of the lower Court for disposal according to law.

7. Thereafter, the learned Judge framed the charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 376 & 302 IPC, which were read over and explained to the appellant in his known language Telugu, for which he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. The learned trial Court, after considering the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, convicted the appellant under Sections 365 & 302 IPC, however, acquitted the appellant under Section 376 IPC.

10. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the incident of kidnapping was taken place on 21.09.2010 and said kidnapping was informed by P.W.2, who is the second daughter of P.W.1. However, P.W.1 made a complaint on 23.09.2010 and accordingly, F.I.R.No.12 of 2010 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC. Thus, there is a delay in making the complaint and lodging the F.I.R., which has not been properly explained by the prosecution.