ODUGU VEERAAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused has preferred this appeal against the conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge at Khammam, in Sessions Case No.223 of 1997, dated 18-12-2000, sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years and also imposition of fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The brief facts arising from the case of prosecution are as follows: The offence is said to have taken place at Dibbagudem village, Yathalakunta of Sathupalli, which is an agency area of Khammam District. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused O.Veeraiah killed his wife Smt.O.Rajeswari with an axe in his house on 24-06-1996 at about 11.00 p.m. suspecting her fidelity. Thereafter, Ex.P-1, complaint was given by the Sarpanch of Yathalakunta, when P.W.1 informed him about the death of his daughter by the accused. The said complaint was registered as a case in Cr.No.61 of 1996 of P.S.Sathupalli under F.I.R., Ex.P-19. P.W.19-Circle Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.12 and some other persons and during inquest M.O.1-Axe was seized. He has also conducted the scene of offence panchnama under Ex.P-12 and seized the blood stained slab stone. He has also examined the witnesses and sent the dead body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Sathupally, for conducting Post M! ortem examination. P.W.17-Dr.V.Janardhan Reddy conducted Post Mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and noticed 9 injuries and he issued Ex.P-18 Post Mortem Certificate. After completing the autopsy, he opined that all the injuries 1 to 9 are ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp weapon like M.O.1 Axe. The dead body of the deceased was said to have been photographed. The motive for committing the offence by the accused is suspicion of fidelity of his wife as she is having illicit intimacy with one Srinivasa Rao. Thereafter, the Circle Inspector of Police, charge sheeted the accused.

(3.) The plea of the accused is one of denial before the Sessions Court for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The prosecution in all examined 19 witnesses. Ex.P-1 is the complaint, Ex.P-19 is the F.I.R., Ex.P-9 is the inquest panchnama, Ex.P-18 is the Post Mortem examination report and Ex.P-22 is the F.S.L. report. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Judge, Khammam, came to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for eight years and also imposed fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for three months. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred this appeal.