KORSA SEETHARAMULU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. is directed by the appellants- A1 and A2 against the judgment, dated 27-02-2007 in Sessions Case No.319 of 2006, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court-I),Khammam, where under and whereby the 1st appellant-A1 was convicted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month, further 2nd appellant-A2 was convicted of the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and further both the appellants-A1 and A2 were convicted of the charge under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal, may be stated as follows: A1 to A5 and all the prosecution witnesses are residents of Marappagudem. P.Ws.1 and 3 are the sisters and P.W.2 is the wife of Modiyam Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The deceased and all his family members used to live together in the same house at Marappagudem. On the date of incident at about 7.00 P.M., when the deceased was about to take his meals, A2 came to the house of the deceased and took away him. One hour thereafter, P.W.I came to road and found P.W.5 on the road near the house of A2 and asked P.W.5 about her deceased brother. P.W.5 informed P.W.I that the deceased was at the house of A5. P.W.1 found A1 to A5 at the house of A5. When P.W.I questioned about her deceased brother, A2 informed that the deceased already left that place. Then P.W.I returned home and enquired P.W.2 about the deceased. The family members informed that the deceased did not return home. Again P.W.I went to the house of A5 and found A1 to A5 eating mutton while consuming liquor in the third room of the house. P.W.I enquired A1 to A5 about the deceased. A2 replied that the deceased was not there. Then P.W.I tried to return back and found the deceased lying on the ground in the middle room oozing bleeding from mouth and nose. Then P.W.I returned home and brought P.Ws.2, 3 and other family members to the house of A5. P.W.I along with family members brought the dead body of the deceased to their house. P.W.I suspected that the accused are responsible for the death of her brother in view of the quarrel between deceased and A1 at the cock fighting place, presented Ex.P1 report to police, basing on which, P.W.9 registered a case. P.W.10 took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. P.W.10 secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and subjected the dead body to post-mortem examination. P.W.8 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of the death was due to severe haemorrhage of brain due to head injury and he issued Ex.P9- postmortem report. On 14-02-2005, P.W.10 arrested A1 to A5 and interrogated them in the presence of mediators. A5 gave a confession stating that a stone was used in the common of offence and produced the same from his house. P.W.ll-Inspector of Police took up further investigation and sent requisition to Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madhira to record Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1,5 and 7. Accordingly, Exs.P11 to P13 statements were recorded by the Magistrate. After completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed charge sheet.

(3.) AFTER closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no evidence.