ILAPURAM NARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.6.2002 passed in SC No.327 of 2002 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at N.T.R. Nagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found A-1- Iilapuram Narayana and A-2-Iilapuram Kistaiah guilty for the offence under Section 304-11 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced each of them to suffer RI for a period of five years.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is : Iilapuram Laxmaiah and PW1- lilapuram Bakkaiah are brothers. A1- Iilapuram Narayana and A2-lilapuram Kistaiah are nephews of Laxmaiah and PW1-Bakkaiah. THEy own fields nearby Edigone Bavi, which is a joint well. Power connection to the electric motor to pump water from the joint well for wetting their fields was obtained in the name of father of A1. Expenses for installation of motor was shared by A1, A2, Laxmaiah and PW1. THE motor went out of order. THE accused got the motor repaired and sold it away. Laxmaiah and PW1 purchased a new motor and got it installed at the well. THEy have been asking the accused to pay their share of cost of the motor. THE accused refused to pay their share. THErefore, Laxmaiah and PW1 stopped supply of water to the fields of the accused. Disputes arose between them and the same came to be placed before the elders about a year prior to the incident. THE elders advised the accused to purchase separate motor to bail out water from the well. But the accused refused to install separate motor and instead, demanded Laxmaiah to allow them to use the motor already fixed to the well to wet their fields. Laxmaiah refused to oblige them. About a year prior to the date of incident, there was an altercation between the accused and Laxmaiah in relation to disputes over wetting the fields. On the date of the incident, the accused questioned Laxmaiah as to who switched on the motor, for which Laxmaiah replied that he himself switched on the motor. THE accused went to the field. THEreafter, Laxmaiah also went to the field. PW6, who is mother of Laxmaiah, witnessed the accused and Laxmaiah proceeding to the field. PW4, who is the father-in-law of Laxmaiah came to know that the accused and Laxmaiah quarrelled with each other and Laxmaiah fell on ground. He rushed to the field and found Laxmaiah lying near the well. He shifted Laxmaiah from the scene to the village by a jeep and by that time Laxmaiah breathed lost. PW3-Golla Ananthaiah, Village Administrative Officer, Kollapadakala Village came to know the death of Laxmaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). PW1 told him the circumstances under which the deceased died. PW3 prepared Ex.P1 report and sent the same to the S.H.O., Bayyaram P.S. PW10-Ch. Satish Reddy, S.I of Police received Ex.P1 report and registered a case in Crime No.39 of 2000 under Section 302 IPC and issued Ex.P7 F.I.R. PW11-S. Seetha Ramaiah, Inspector of Police, Vikarabad, took up investigation, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW8- Inalli Venkataiah and examined PWs.1 to 4 during the inquest. THE opinion arrived at by the panchas, on hearing the statements of the witnesses examined during inquest, came to be incorporated in column No.15 of the inquest report, which has been exhibited as Ex.P3. He got the dead body of the deceased photographed through LW14-Ponna Ramesh. Exs.P8 to P11 are the positive photographs and Exs.P12 to P15 are the corresponding negatives. After the inquest, the dead body was sent to Community Hospital, Marpally, for Post- Mortem Examination. He affected arrest of A1 and A2 on 6.2.2001 and sent them for remand. PW9-Dr. S. Mohan Singh conducted Post-Mortem Examination on the dead body of the deceased on 31.10.2000 at about 3.30 p.m. He found the following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased:

(3.) TO bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence with which they stood charged, prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and exhibited 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. The plea of the accused is one of total denial of the case. Their further plea is that the deceased died by a fall on ground in an inebriated mood, and the case has been foisted against them by PW1 and others after due deliberations. On behalf of the accused, they marked a portion of 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1 as Ex.D1.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-11 I.P.C., and convicted them accordingly, and sentenced each of them to suffer RI for a period of five years, by judgment dated 5.6.2002. Hence, this criminal appeal.