STATE OF A P Vs. THUMMALA ANJANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh impugning the judgment of the High Court of that State whereby the Respondent herein, the sole accused, has been acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution story is as under:

(2.) The accused Thummala Anjaneyulu by name, developed intimacy with Suguna, daughter-in-law of PW-2. On the 6th of January 1997 PW-2 found the Respondent and his daughter-in-law in his cattle shed and that too in a compromising position. PW-2 raised an alarm on which the Respondent ran away leaving behind a lungi and underwear belonging to him. Suguna was thereupon made to leave PW-2's house the next day. At about 4 p.m. on the 7th January 1997, the deceased Bhoomaiah went to the house of PW-6 for the purpose of organizing a Panchayat between G. Kistaiah and G. Ramulu with respect to some agricultural land. PW-3, the wife of the deceased, and another lady, Manemma by name, and his sister-in-law also followed the deceased to oversee the outcome of the Panchayat. Several other persons too were present at that time including the accused and P Ws. 3, 4, 5, and 6. During the Panchayat proceedings the deceased suspected that the accused was casting an evil eye on PW-3 and Manemma aforesaid. He thereupon confronted the accused and asked him as to why he was looking at the ladies whereupon the accused took out a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest which resulted in a serious injury to him. Bhoomaiah was immediately removed (in a tractor belonging to PW-1, his younger brother) to Eldurti for medical aid but he succumbed to his injuries on the way on which the body was taken to the Eldurti Police Station instead. PW-1 also gave a report Ex.P1 which was registered as a FIR by PW-10 the Sub-Inspector of the Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The Police Officer also visited the place of occurrence and made the necessary enquiries and also dispatched the dead body for its post-mortem examination to the Government Hospital, Medak and further handed over investigation to PW-11. The accused surrendered to the police and during the course of his remand made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the alleged murder weapon. On the completion of the investigation by PW-11, a charge-sheet was filed and the accused was ultimately brought to trial.

(3.) The prosecution in support of its case relied on the evidence of PW-3 to PW-6, PW-3 being the wife of the deceased, and P Ws. 4, 5, and 6 being co-villagers of both the accused as also the deceased. The doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination, had, in the meanwhile passed away, and the post-mortem report was accordingly not proved by the prosecution. When the appeal came up before a Division Bench of the High Court, this flaw was noticed and by its order dated 17th September 2003, a direction was issued that the post-mortem report be proved by somebody who was familiar with the hand writing of the deceased doctor. The post-mortem report was, accordingly, proved by one Dr. P. Chandrasekhar.