HARIJANA SUNKUNHA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have been convicted by both the courts for the commission of an offence punishable under S. 302/34, IPC. The deceased who was a resident of Pottipadu village was married to Public Witness 1 and had a soft corner for Sunkamma wife of original accused 1 since it appeers, the said accused, his father, original accused 2, and his brother, original accused 3, were ill-treating her for which she has filed a complaint Ex. P-13 to the police as she apprehended danger to her life at their hands. Public Witness 9, a Sub-Inspector had enquired into the allegation and had administered a warning to accused 1. The deceased had shifted sunkamma to another village and hence the three appellants bore a grudge against him. On 20/07/1977, at about 3.30 p. m. , when the deceased was returning to his house, the three appellants inflicted injuries with hunting sickles on different parts of his body which resulted in his death. The occurrence was witnessed by PWs 2 and 3 besides PW 1. Public Witness 1 then went to Public Witness 4, the Village Munsiff, and informed him about the occurrence. Public Witness 4 prepared two reports and sent them to the police station and the concerned Magistrate. The investigation was then taken up and all the three appellants plus the acquitted original accused 4 were put up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The learned Sessions Judge on an appreciation of the evidence of the three eye-witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3 convicted the three appellants under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life. The convicted accused filed an appeal which was heard by a Division bench of the High court. The division bench also did not find any infirmity in the evidence of the three eye-witnesses and consequently confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge. This court while granting special leave limited it to the nature of the offence and sentence.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the appellants on this limited question and we are afraid we cannot interfere with the order passed by the two courts below. The evidence clearly reveals that the deceased an unarmed man was attacked by the three appellants with hunting sickles and was virtually killed on the spot. All the three had joined in the assault and since they had a motive it is obvious that they had killed him by concert. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere in the order of conviction recorded under S. 302/34 and the sentence awarded by both the courts below.

(3.) In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.