SURASANI VENKATA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is filed by the appellant-accused questioning the conviction and judgment dated 30.4.2007 rendered in Sessions Case No.197 of 2004 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, wherein the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and also sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 309 IPC.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused and LW1 Surasani Sujatha are the husband and wife and they were blessed with two daughters Hemalatha and Ashalatha (Deceased Nos.1 and 2) and one son. Due to his indebtedness, the accused decided to put an end to the life of himself and his two daughters by administering poison. In pursuance of the same, on 11.11.2001 at about 7.50 p.m. after sending his wife and son outside the house the accused got administered the endosulphan pesticide poison and he also consumed the same. After returning to the house, the wife of the accused shifted the accused and their two daughters to Nagarjuna City Hospital, Vijayawada, with the assistance of one Surasani Chinna Reddy. While undergoing treatment, on the same day both the deceased died at about 9.45 p.m. and 10.05 p.m. respectively.

(3.) IN order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.Pl to P19 apart from marking MOs.1 to 4. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC in which he denied the incriminating evidence put to him available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Session Judge rendered the impugned judgment as stated above.