PALADUGULA KONDAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 13-9-2001, in S.C. No. 72/2000, on the file of the learne.d Sessions Judge, Warangal, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are briefly as follows. Accused and the deceased were friends. Deceased is brother of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 is the wife of P.W. 1. On 21-9-1999 the accused took the deceased to his house. In the night, the wife of the accused requested P.W. 8 to provide cooked rice which, she stated, the deceased would take food in their house. In the middle of the night, P.W. 4, daughter of the accused, heard the cries of her mother and woke up. She saw the deceased catching the hand of her mother. Accused and deceased had quarrelled with each other on that count. Deceased beat the accused. Then accused pushed the deceased due to which the latter fell on a cot. Accused then gave a blow with an axe on the face of the deceased as a result of which the deceased died. On the next day P.W. 1 lodged a report Ex. P1 with the police. P.W. 9 registered a case on the basis of that apart. P.W. 10 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and conducted investigation. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and seized certain articles. After the inquest was over, he sent the dead body for conducting postmortem examination. P.W. 11 conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He opined that the deceased died as a result of head injury. On completion of investigation, P.W. 10 filed charge-sheet. A charge under S. 302, I.P.C. was framed. Accused denied the guilt. Prosecution examined 1-1 witnesses and marked 9 documents besides M.Os. 1 to 4. The trial Court on assessment of the evidence on record accepted the extra-judicial confession of the accused and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, challenging the legality and correctness of which the accused preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the evidence of P.W. 4 shows that the deceased tried to outrage the modesty of the wife of the accused and, therefore, the accused used the right of private defence, and that the accused had otherwise no intention to kill the deceased, and so the conviction and sentence should be set aside. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor contended that the deceased only caught the hand of the wife of the accused, that there was no threat or danger to the life of the accused so as to use the right of private defence, and that the evidence on record shows that the accused exceeded the right of private defence and hence the appeal should be dismissed.