SANGA SAILU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 21.9.2001, in S.C. No. 139/2001, convicting and sentencing the accused to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 201 I PC.

(2.) The facts of the case are stated briefly as follows. Accused is the husband of P.W.I. As P.W.I could not beget any child, they adopted a female child. Ten days prior to 23.10.2000, the accused drove his wife out of the house. She went to her parents' house. She wanted to take the child with her. The accused did not allow her to do so. On the date of incident, as the child was continuously crying, accused got fed up and killed her and buried the dead body in a corner of his house. As the child was not seen, neighbours grew suspicious and questioned the accused about her whereabouts. He informed them that he buried the dead body in a corner of his house. Thereafter, P.W.10 lodged a report- Ex.P4 with the police. P.W. 11-Inspector of Police took up investigation. He sent a letter each to the Mandal Revenue Officer, and Medical Officer, Bellampally. As the Medical Officer stated that the case should be handled by a forensic expert, he sent a letter to a forensic expert, Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal. On 1.11.2000 at 1.30 p.m., PW9 got exhumed the dead body and conducted inquest. P.W.2 conducted autopsy and opined that the baby died due to smothering. P.W. 11 examined witnesses. He arrested the accused and remanded the accused for judicial custody. Charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused. He denied the guilt. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses and 18 documents, besides M.Os. 1 to 3 case properties. The lower Court after considering the evidence on record believed the evidence of P.Ws.3, 5 and 10 and came to the conclusion that the Prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Questioning the correctness and legality thereof, the accused preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for appellant contended that the opinion of P.W.2 cannot be taken as a basis for arriving at the conclusion that the death of the child was homicidal, that there is no evidence to show that the accused committed the murder of the deceased, that there is no reason for the accused to commit the murder of his own adoptive child, and that the child died as a result of continuous weeping for its mother, and therefore the impugned order should be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the accused gave extra-judicial confession before P.Ws.3 to 5 who have no enmity with the accused, that at his instance the dead body was exhumed from a corner of his own house, that the Doctor found antemortem injuries on the dead body and his evidence is clear that it is a case of homicidal death, and that the Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused, and so there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.