STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. THURAKA DASSAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal by the State under Section 378(3)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.PC"), is directed against the judgment, dated 24.11.2004, in Sessions Case No.58 of 2001 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, whereunder and whereby, the first respondent/accused No.1 was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") and was acquitted under Section 235 Cr.PC.

(2.) THE brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: THE deceased, K. Subba Rao, is the husband of PW7. On 12.8.1999, in the evening at about 6:30 p.m., the deceased took bath and went towards Inamadugu Centre and thereafter, the deceased did not return back on that night. On the next day morning, some of the villagers came and informed PW7 that they found her husband in the water canal near Leguntapadu Madigawada. She went there and saw the dead body of her husband, and found a cut injury on the neck. PW8, who is the Village Assistant of Leguntapadu Madigawada, also went to the scene and found the dead body of the deceased. THEreafter, he along with G. Gopalaiah, who is the Village Assistant of another village, who was also present at the scene of occurrence, went and informed about the identity of the dead body, to PW1, Village Administrative Officer. PW1 went to the police station and lodged a report to PW10 Sub -Inspector of Police, Tekemitta, who was present in the police station, on 13.8.1999 at about 11:00 a.m. Basing on the report, PW10 registered a case in Crime No.133 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and informed about registering of the case to PW11, the Inspector of Police, who took up the investigation. PW11 rushed to the scene of occurrence situated at Utukaluva, near Arundhatiyawada, Inamadugu Village along with his staff, and observed the scene of occurrence and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and thereafter, the dead body was sent to post -mortem examination. PW9 -Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found a cut injury on the neck and opined that due to the neck injury the deceased died. THEreafter, PW10 examined the witnesses i.e., PWs.3 to 6, and later arrested the accused. In pursuance of the confessional statement given by A1, M08, which is the weapon used in the commission of offence, was seized in the presence of PW1 and others. After completion of investigation, PW11 Inspector of Police filed the charge - sheet.

(3.) AFTER closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and did not adduce any defence evidence, except marking Ex.D1 in the statement of PW5.