MASIKUKKALA RAMA KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant-sole accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.PC") against the judgment, dated 29.3.2007, in SC No.61 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry whereunder and 'whereby the sole accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, that are necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case are as under: THE accused and Puppala Siva Ramakrishna @ Sivaji (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') are residents of Bolleddupalem, Korukonda Mandal of East Godavari District. THE deceased is maternal uncle of PWs.l and 2. THE deceased was having some agricultural land and he mediated certain disputes in which the accused was involved and some of the disputes went against the accused. THErefore, the accused bore grudge against the deceased. On 23.4.2005 at about 6.00 a.m., both PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of the deceased and came to know that the deceased was not available. THE wife of the deceased informed them that the deceased went to the cattle shed for milching the milk. THEy went to the cattle shed of the deceased and found the deceased was extracting the milk from the she-buffalo. When PWs.1 and 2 asked him to come to the agricultural field, the deceased asked them to wait for sometime and therefore PWs.1 and 2 were waiting near the school building. In the meantime, the accused went there and hacked the deceased with a knife (Mo.1). On hearing the cries, both PWs.1 and 2 rushed to the scene of offence and saw the accused stabbing the deceased. After stabbing the deceased, the accused jumped over the compound wall and ran towards western side. After jumping the compound watl, PWs.3 and 4 saw the accused running with a knife stating that he had already killed the deceased. THEn PWs.1 and 2 went to Korukonda Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 report with PW8, who is the S.I of Police, basing on which PW8 registered a case in Cr.No.43 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC. He informed about the registration of a case to the Inspector of Police. As the Inspector of Police was on V.I.P. bando bast duty, he asked PW8 to go to the scene of occurrence and conduct investigation. THErefore, he proceeded to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased in his cattle shed. He observed scene of occurrence in the presence of PWs.6 and 7 and seized the bloodstained earth and control earth. THEreafter, he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of same mediators and after inquest, the dead body was sent to the post-mortem examination. THE Doctor (PW7) who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on the same day found as many as 15 injuries. He opined that the deceased died as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to major neck thoracic, abdominal and visceral injury due to stab injuries. On 26.4.2005 PW8 along with staff proceeded to Kotikesavaram Village. At that time, the accused was found at Sivalayam. On seeing the police, the accused tried to ran away from the place. THEn PW8 apprehended him. THE accused was said to have given a statement as in Ex.Pl6 with regard to the place where he had concealed the knife (MO.l) used in the commission of offence. In pursuance of the confessional statement, the accused led the police and mediators to the tank near Kotikesavaram and took out the Knife and a Shirt i.e., Mos.1 and 4 concealed in the bushes and handed over the same to the police. THE police seized the same. THEreafter, the material objects have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory by the Inspector of Police. After receipt of the report from Forensic Laboratory, PW9 filed the charge-sheet.

(3.) AFTER completition of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in but the contradictions elicited from the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 were marked as Exs.D1 to D4.