M APPALANAIDU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/accused preferred the present Criminal Appeal as against the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 342 and 307 IPC in Sessions case No.40 of 1998 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam.

(2.) Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant would contend that the learned judge totally erred in placing reliance on the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 8. Learned counsel also would contend that even as perthe medical evidence, the injuries sustained by P.W. 1 are of simple in nature. The counsel also had taken the Court through the evidence of the Investigating Officer and would contend that the recovery of M.O.1 had not been proved. Learned counsel also would comment that the story that kitchen knife was used for commission of the offence appears to be doubtful and hence, acquittal may be recorded.

(3.) Percontra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken the Court through the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned Judge and would contend that it is a fit case where the conviction and sentence may have to be confirmed.