KOKKANTI RAJASEKHAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kokkanti Rajasekhar, the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1994 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 18-11-1998, had preferred the present criminal appeal.

(2.) The learned Judge, on appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 12, D.W. 1 and Exs. P-1 to P-16, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 304-Part-ll IPC, and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months.

(3.) Sri V. Venkataramana, Counsel representing the appellant-accused would submit that this is a case based on the circumstantial evidence, and in fact, the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5 were declared hostile and there is no acceptable evidence available on record, but however, the learned Judge recorded findings, based on the information said to have been furnished by the accused coupled with the evidence of D.W. 1 and had recorded findings as though the guilt of the accused had been proved by the prosecution. The learned Counsel would submit that the very approach adopted by the learned Judge definitely cannot be sustained, since the burden is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused and not otherwise, more so, in a case based on the circumstantial evidence. The learned Counsel also would contend that in view of the close relationship between the parties and also the clear evidence of other witnesses, it would be highly improbable that the appellant-accused would have perpetrated the offence with which he had been charged. At any rate, on the strength of the medical evidence and the strong suspicion as against the accused, definitely, the accused cannot be convicted unless there is some acceptable evidence in this regard.