YELETI VENKAT REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1-2 Yeleti Venkat Reddy appellant as accused is the brother of the deceased Yeleti Upender Reddy. The accused was charged with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'IPC') in Sessions Case No. 405 of 1995 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, and was convicted under Section 304-I IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default simple imprisonment for one week.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the brother of the deceased and they have got some agricultural land in Survey No. 168 of Bopparam village and the said land was in dispute. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased raised jowar crop during the year of occurrence. On 21-02-1995 at about 2.00 p.m. while Yeleti Vasantha along with her husband deceased- Upender Reddy were attending the agricultural operations, all of a sudden, accused came there with cartpeg and picked up quarrel with the deceased and beat the deceased on his head and other parts, causing severe injuries and the accused also beat P. W. 1 and the deceased succumbed to Injuries at Osmanla General Hospital, Hyderabad on 27-02-1995 i.e., six days after Incident. The Incidence was witnessed by P.Ws. 1, 2 and Sirikonda Saidulu and after completing investigation, the Circle Inspector of Police, Suryapet, filed charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and Exs.P-1 to P-21 and M.Os. 1 to 3 were also marked. Exs.D-1 to D-3 were marked on behalf of the defence and after recording findings, the learned Sessions arrived at a conclusion that the accused is guilty of offence under Section 304-IIPC. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal.

(3.) Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant-accused would contend that the learned Judge totally erred in convicting the appellant on a solitary testimony of P.W. 1, which is a highly interested testimony and also a discarded testimony. The learned counsel also would contend that P.W. 1 suppressed the genesis of attack and gave untrue version, which is clearly reflected from his evidence when compared with the medical evidence. The learned counsel also pointed out that in a light of the evidence of P.W. 2 and also the material available on record there cannot be any doubt or controversy that the accused had raised the crop and the incidents have taken place when P.W. 1 and deceased trespassed into the said land and started cutting the crop and in the light of the Exs.D-1 to D-3, the right of the private defence was exercised to defend his person and property by the accused in permissible limits and hence, the appellant accused is entitled for an acquittal.