GORENTLA SREENU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/sole accused in S.C. No. 20/96 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, aggrieved by the Judgment dt. 21-12-1998 had preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

(2.) The appellant/accused was charged with Section 307 IPC and also under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The same was numbered as P. R.C. No. 26/94 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole and the same was committed to the Court of Session. The case of the prosecution is that one Kokila Venkayamma of Chimakurthy who was a Harijan, lost her husband and was living with her parents and accused developed illicit intimacy with her and was visiting the house. Her mother Mannem Ankamma objected to it and asked the accused not to visit their house and Venkayamma to severe her connections with him since there was unmarried daughter. In spite of that the accused insisted Kokila Venkayamma to continue illicit intimacy and was harassing her and that he threatened her mother by giving life threat if she objects. On 30-4-2004 at 3.30 hours when Mannem Ankamma and her daughter Kokila Venkayamma and the family members were sleeping outside the house, the accused went to the cot of Kokila Venkayamma and woke her up and when she questioned the attitude of the accused the accused abused her in filthy language touching her caste and in the mean time her mother Ankamma also woke up and questioned the accused to which he rebelled against her, abused her in filthy language and also stated that she was responsible for disconnection of illegal intimacy with Venkayamma and stabbed her with knife on the abdomen and kicked her which was witnessed by other family members and neighbour in the opposite house. P.W. 1 to P.W. 8 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-6 and Ex. D-1 were marked. The accused was found not guilty under Section 3(2)(v) and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but was found guilty under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2.000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment forfour months. Hence the Criminal Appeal.

(3.) Sri Rajendra Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the appellant would contend that from the material available on record, the scene of offence itself is doubtful. The learned Counsel also pointed out the observation report where it was specifically specified that there was no blood stains or weapons at the scene of offence. The learned Counsel also would submit that the weapon also was not seized and apart from this aspect of the matter, it appears that P.W. 1 had given another statement to the complainant which had been suppressed and hence the version of the prosecution may have to be viewed with suspicion inasmuch as in the first report the name of the accused was not mentioned at all and subsequently the accused had been implicated. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W. 7 and would contend that the Doctor who had conducted surgery also was not examined and on the strength of the evidence of P.W. 7 alone the conviction cannot be sustained. The Counsel also had pointed out certain infirmities in the evidence of P.W. 1 and the other witnesses.