VARRI APPALANAIDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Jayasree, Counsel representing the appellant and the Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 4-4-2000 in Sessions Case No. 198 of 1999 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, wherein the appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six years for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC; and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 324, IPC and further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years, for the offence under Section 326, IPC and to run all these sentences concurrently.

(3.) Ms. T. Bala Jayasree, the learned counsel appointed by way of Legal Aid, representing the appellant-accused, made the following submissions : The learned counsel pointed out that P.W. 1 and accused had illicit intimacy and P.W. 1 and accused had illicit intimacy and P.W. 1 appears to have objected to the continuance of the same, in view of the grown up children. The learned counsel also would submit that the version of the prosecution is that on the fateful day, there was some marriage and since there was no place at the spot, the other witnesses also came and slept in the house of P.W. 1 and the accused attacked the injured with an axe and caused injuries. The learned counsel also would submit that the version of the prosecution is that on 20-12-1997 at about 3,00 a.m., the appellant-accused hacked P.W. 1 with an axe, when she refused to continue to live with him with an intention to kill her and caused bleeding injuries and also hacked Mokka Kanthamma, Vallaya Pushpa and Vallaya Rajamma, who were sleeping at the same place. The learned counsel pointed out that the material discrepancy relating to the date of marriage, as spoken by P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 the marriage took place on 13-12-1997 and not on the intervening night of 19/20-12-1997 and in view of this material discrepancy, the version of the prosecution itself cannot be believed. The learned counsel also would maintain that M.O.1 - axe was not sent for chemical analysis and the learned counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of Ex. P9 and also what had been recorded in the wound certificate-Ex. P.4, unknown person and unknown weapon. The learned counsel also would submit that some light was introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of identification, which is also highly doubtful. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Exs. P.4, P.9 and Ex. P. 10 and also would comment that the evidence of P.W.6 cannot be relied upon, as the same being the evidence of a child witness and the Court had not taken the precautions of examining whether the child was capable of giving rational answers and without satisfying, the Court had proceeded with the examination of the child witness on par with the ordinary witnesses, and hence, the same suffers from legal infirmity. The learned counsel also would comment that the absence of X-Ray report and the non examination of radiographer also would throw a doubt on the version of the prosecution.