NALABANDHU KONDAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bomminayuni Apparao, the counsel representing the appellant provided by Legal Aid and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mohd. Osman Shaheed.

(2.) Sri Bomminayuni Apparao, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the version of the prosecution is that this is a quarrel between wife and husband and the wife was axed to death by M.O. 5. The learned counsel also further would contend that there is no direct evidence, but only on the strength of the circumstantial evidence, which would not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused had been convicted. The learned counsel also further pointed out that at any rate the accused is aged more than 70 years and in view of the facts and circumstances, the quantum of sentence imposed, definitely is highly excessive.

(3.) On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that there is clear substantial evidence as deposed by P.Ws. 1, 2 and also P.W. 3 Panch for the scene of offence. P.W. 4 Panch relating to recovery and P.W. 5 Panch for confession in relation to recovery and the medical evidence also would clearly corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and hence, the conviction and sentence are well justified.