K SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in Sessions Case No. 99/2000 on the file of Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupathi, filed this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 6-9-2001, whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fineof Rs. 3,000.00 in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 307 IPC, and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, with a direction to run the substantive sentences concurrently.

(2.) The Prosecution case in brief is as follows. Accused is the husband of P.W. 2. The deceased in this case is the mother of P.W. 2. P.W. 1 is maternal aunt of P.W. 2. The marriage of the accused and P.W. 2 took place 11 years prior to the incident. They begot three children during their wedlock. One day prior to the incident in question, the deceased took paddy from the field in a gunny bag, brought the gunny bag to her house and unloaded the paddy at her house. After the paddy was unloaded, the accused wanted to take the gunny bag with him, for which P.W. 2 raised an objection. Thereupon the accused abused her in filthy language and beat her. The deceased intervened and asked the accused not to beat P.W. 2. Later, the accused asked his wife to accompany him to Thandlam. P.W. 2 refused to do so. Then the accused asked his three children to accompany him. Two children accepted to accompany him, but his daughter Kavitha refused to accompany him. Saying that Kavitha was not born to him, he went away on his bicycle with his two children. He came back at 6 p.m. and again asked his wife to accompany him to Thandlam. His wife again refused to do. Then he took away Rs. 600.00 from his wife and left the house threatening that he would see her end. On 17-8-1999 the deceased and P.W. 2 slept at 11 p.m. in the verandah of their house. At about 1 a.m. on 18-8-1999, the accused came to the house of the deceased and pressed the neck of P.W. 2. Due to that, she woke up and opened her eyes and saw the accused. He closed her mouth and took her to a distance of about one "Bara". He again pressed her neck. P.W. 2 tilted her head. The accused thought that she had died. He left her there. He picked up a stick and beat the deceased on her head, nose, mouth, back of her head and ribs. P.W. 2 then raised cries. On hearing her cries, the neighbours, P.Ws. 3 to 5 and P.W. 7 came there. On seeing them the accused ran away. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 1 is the brother of the deceased. On being informed by P.W. 4 about the incident, P.W. 1 came to the house of the deceased at 4 a.m. P.W. 2 informed him about the incident. He lodged a report with the police which is marked as Ex.P-1. P.W. 14 took up investigation. He conducted inquest. After the inquest was over, he sent the dead body for conducting post-mortem examination. P.W. 12 conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by her. He issued Ex.P-5-post-mortem certificate. During the course of investigation, P.W. 14 arrested the accused on 20-8-1999 and in pursuance of his confessional statement, he recovered the stick-M.O.1. On completion of investigation, he filed a chargesheet. Two charges - one under Section 307 IPC for attempting to commit the murder of P.W. 2, and the other under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of the deceased - were framed against the accused. He denied to have committed the crime. On its behalf, Prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the Prosecution proved both the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly it convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid by the impugned judgment. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, the accused filed the present appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.