GELLELA THIRUPALU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is directed against the judgment, dated 11.06.2007, in Sessions Case No.557 of 2005 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the appellant/sole accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.") and accordingly, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

(2.) THE brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: THE deceased, Gellela Durgaiah, was an Auto Driver by profession and he was residing in Sundaraiah Colony, Anantapur Rural Mandal. THE accused and PW4 were also Auto Drivers. On 14.11.2004 at about 5:30 PM, the accused and PW.4 went to witness a movie by name 'Apparao Driving School' in Triveni theatre at Anantapur. At 9:30 PM, after witnessing the movie, they both went to a Wine shop situated near Bellari by-pass road, Anantapur and consumed liquor. After consuming the liquor, they came to Gangamma Temple at 5th road in the auto of PW.4 and from there, they went to Bellari by-pass road at about 09:45 PM. THEy again went to the Power Wine shop and consumed liquor. THEreafter, when they were going in Auto of PW.4, the deceased came there and the accused asked PW.4 to go to his house, and thereafter, the deceased and accused went in the auto of PW.4, which was seen by PW.4. On the next day morning, PW.1, who is the junior paternal uncle of the deceased, came to know that a dead body was lying on National Highway No.7 near Ayyavaripalli cross road at Anantapur. He along with PW.2, who is his brother, went there and saw the dead body and identified the same as that of the deceased. Later, PW.1 lodged a complaint with PW.11 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Rapthadu, who registered a case in Crime No.85 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. He sent the original First Information Report to the Court and copies of the express First Information Report to all the concerned. He informed about the registration of case to PW.12 - Inspector of Police, who rushed to the Rapthadu Police Station and took up investigation. THEreafter, PW.12 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and found Police Constables guarding the scene of occurrence. He also found Auto bearing No. AP- 02 U 0063, which was parked towards Western side of the National Highway No.7. He found the dead body of the deceased in a sitting posture in between the driver's seat and back seat. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P6 and seized the incriminating material objects from the scene of occurrence. He sent the dead body of the deceased to post-mortem examination. PW.7 is the doctor who conducted Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 15.11.2004 from 03:15 PM to 4:45 PM and found ligature mark of 41 x 1 cm, encircling around the neck. On 24.11.2004, the accused went to the office of Mandal Revenue Office, Rapthadu, and gave extra judicial confession about the incident before PWs.9 and 10 - Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer respectively, of Rapthadu Mandal. To the narration of the accused, the Assistant of PW.10 scribed Ex.P7 - confessional statement of the accused. Along with Ex.P7, he prepared a covering letter, Ex.P8, and handed over them along with the accused to the Station House Officer, Rapthadu Police Station, which is located by the side of the office of PW-10. THEn the Inspector of Police, PW-12, arrested the accused and sent him to the Court for remand. THE material objects were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After receipt of relevant documents and completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet.

(3.) AFTER closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on his behalf.