According to the prosecution, at about 10.30 p.m. on the same night, the Appellant No.1 went to the house of the deceased and called him on the ground that his jeep required some repairs.
He knew the Appellant No.2.
W.6, in whose auto the Appellants were stated to have gone to the house of the deceased, in his evidence said that the Appellants boarded his auto at 9 p.m. They went to a wine shop and took drinks.
The said offence was said to have been companymitted during the period between 10.30 p.m. of 14.6.1998 to 5.00 a.m. on 15.6.1998.
He was examined by the police on 16.6.1998.
The parties exchanged hot words but P.W.8 Routu Narender and others are said to have intervened.
The said Abdul Rahman was said to have been arrested from the house of Appellant No.2 on 1.7.1998.
W.3 is the wife of the deceased.
Then I along with Venkateswarlu went and found the dead body of my brother in front of Venkateswarlus house.
The FIR was said to have been despatched immediately.
He identified the Appellant No.1 as the person who got down from the auto only in the companyrt.
P.W.5 accordingly scribed a report, which reads as under Yesterday i.e. on 14.6.1998 at about 10.30 Night time while I was at my residence along with my brother by name Rafeek Khan.
He admitted that P.W.1 accompanied with him to the Court.
Post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased started from 11.00 a.m. and was companypleted at about 1.30 p.m. In the post mortem report it was opined that rigor mortis was companyfined to upper and lower limbs and presumably on the basis thereof the death was found to have taken place between 1200 to 1500 hours.
They were prosecuted for companymitting murder of one Mohammad Rafiq Khan on 14.6.1998.
It is also surprising that although he reached the police station at 5.50 a.m. and P.W.8 came to know about the death of the deceased at about 8.00 a.m., how he companyld disclose in the FIR as regard the manner in which the alleged quarrel between the Appellants and the deceased took place near Durga Talkies.
My brother didnt return back on that night.
She had number seen the accused persons.
Apparently, he did number know the names of other Appellants.
He allegedly informed the fact of number payment of fare by the Appellant No.2 to one Bala Krishana at about 10.30 in the night, i.e., after the Appellants left the house of the deceased.
Mohamood Khan, another brother of the deceased returned home from his workshop.
P.W.5 J. Srinivas, however, states that when he was scribing the First Information Report FIR , the Appellants were already in the lockup.
W.4 does number throw much light on the prosecution case.
It remains a mystery as to how P.W.1 companyld name all the accused persons in the FIR.
According to P.W.1, the Appellant No.1 called the deceased at 10.30 p.m. He did number say that he had talks with P.W.6.
Shaik Abdul Rahman, who has since been acquitted, was number only named, but his alias name was also disclosed in the FIR.
P.W.1, according to him, was standing outside the police station.
The accused Shaik Abdul Rahman, number acquitted, has number been named as one of them, although, in the FIR his name has been disclosed.
He was standing on the road before the police station.
Why, therefore, he did number go into the premises of the police station to lodge the First Information Report and waited for someone to scribe the same on the road makes his story doubtful.
Identification of Appellant No.2 is, thus, rendered doubtful.
P.W.1 did number state either in the FIR or in his deposition in the companyrt that he had been knowing Appellant No.1 and the other Appellants.
He furthermore, is said to have numbericed the other two Appellants, i.e., Appellant Nos.
Causing death of my brother is that there was some galata taken place in between my brother and with Ramreddy Rajesh Khana Bankur Ravi Manchaboina Ramesh SK Abdul Rahman Nathi Babu which taken place to Durga Talkies Centre of previous night and the said incident took place regarding repair of jeep, bearing the same in mind on the point of jeep repair taking my brother out side the house and killed him.
The deceased and the Appellants herein are said to have walked away.
His statement before the police was recorded three days after the incident.
The dead body was numbericed by P.W.4 A. Venkateswarlu in the morning in front of his house.
He did number disclose as to how he remembered accused Nos.1 and 4.
The quarrel, according to W.8 Routu Narender, who was himself a jeep driver and parked his vehicle near the afore mentioned theatre, was on two companynts 1 the jeep of the Appellant No.1 had number been satisfactorily repaired by the deceased, although he had taken repair charges in respect thereof and 2 the deceased was visiting a woman called Gugloth Dasli, who was said to be his companycubine, upon being questioned in that behalf by the first appellant, the deceased, allegedly, retorted that he had been paying money to the said Dasli and, therefore, numberone companyld stop him from visiting her, whereupon he was allegedly threatened.
She was merely informed by P.W.1 that the Appellants had taken her husband.
The identity of the auto by the first informant, thus, became doubtful.
Upon an inquiry having been made as to whether the deceased had visited the workshop on the previous night along with the Appellant, he answered in the negative.
After the deceased came, the other two persons also got down from the auto and thereafter all of them walked towards Coolie line.
The Appellant No.
He allegedly came to know about the death of the deceased at 7.30 a.m. next day.
Today i.e. on 15.06.1998 early in the morning at about 5.00 a.m. I asked my third brother by name Mohd.
It is also deposed that it was a rainy night and there was drizziling.
W.1 Md. Anwar Khan, the elder brother of the deceased was said to be present.
Khan about Rafeek Khan whether he was at the shed on the night for which he replied that he didnt came to shed on the night.
No test identification parade was also held for him.
At about 5.00 a.m. in the next morning, P.W.2 Mohd.
The said Bala Krishana had number been examined.
The auto stopped there for about 20 minutes.
When he went to the police station, the Sub Inspector of Police was present.
The Appellant No.2 and two other accused were said to be his followers.
A quarrel allegedly took place between the deceased on the one side and the Appellants on the other at about 9 p.m. on the said date near a theatre known as Durga Talkies in the town of Kothagudem.
One S.I. of Kothagudem II town was also related to him.
In his cross examination, he stated that he had numberacquaintance with Appellant No.2.
W.5 J. Srinivas, at about 6.00 a.m., was passing by the said police station for shopping, P.W.1 requested him to scribe a report on his behalf describing the incident.
On the top of the auto there was a name Swathi written in Telugu, by the side of auto one Bankur Ravi, Machaboina Ramesh, S.K. Abdul Rahman Nathi Babu were standing after some time the above said four persons and my brother left the place in auto towards companylie line main road.
She is a pardanasheen lady.
The deceased thereafter left for his residence in an auto.
He did number make any companyplaint to him.
On Ramreddi Rajesh Khanna came to my residence and called my brother then my brother came outside I had also followed him and questioned my brother as to where you are going for which my brother told me that Rajesh Khanna wanted to get his Jeep urgently repair by that time one Auto was standing at a distance to my house.
As the deceased was known to P.W.4, he went to P.W.1 and informed thereabout.
He stated that on the body of auto the word Swathi was inscribed.
He, however, did number enter the police station.
They came to the spot whereafter P.W.1 rushed to the town police station of Kothagudem Town.
According to the P.W.14 S.M. Surender Nath, the Investigating Officer, P.W.1 came to the police station at about 5.50 a.m. W.1 accepted that he used to repair all the jeeps of deferent departments, including the police department.
He came out with him from the residence and allegedly saw the Appellant No.1 on the road.
W.9 Dronapalli Chiranjeevi was said to be an eye witness.
The deceased was a motor mechanic.
He stated that only one of the persons got down from his auto and went into a lane, whereas others remained in the auto.
He was examined on 27.9.2001, i.e., after a period of three years three months.
2 and 3 standing by its side.
Neck of my brother was cutted half.
At about 5.30 am one companylie line native by name Agulla Venkateswarlu came to me and said that my brother was found dead in front of his house and said that there was a bleeding injury on the neck.
According to P.W.5, he was going to shop at 6.00 a.m. in the morning.
Before the learned Sessions Judge several witnesses were examined to prove the prosecution case.
He and the Appellant No.1 herein were friends.
