SHEELAM PRABHAKER Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Prasad, learned counsel representing the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused (A-2) in S.C. No. 380 of 1996 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Warangal is a close associate of one Kesavulu, who was the 1st accused (A-1) in the case. The said Kesavulu was murdered and hence the matter stood abated as against the said Kesavulu-A-1. The deceased- Sheelam Eswaramma is house wife and she is the sister-in-law of Kesavulu-A-1, who was murdered. The version of prosecution is that on 20-08-1995 at about 9.30 a.m. in the house of P.W. 2 the said occurrence had taken place. There were ill feelings between the families of the decease and A-1. It is stated that Kesavulu-A-1 and his family members were indulging in illicit arrack business, for which the deceased and her husband objected and thereby Kesavulu- A-1 and his family members had a grudge against the deceased. While so, one day prior to the incident i.e. on 19-08-1995 the excise officials raided the house of Kesavulu- A-1 and found liquor of five liters. In that connection, the wife of Kesavulu-A-1 was arrested and a criminal case in crime No. 383 of 1994-95 under Section 34 of A.P. Excise Act had been registered. Kesavulu-A-1 and his family members suspected that the deceased and her husband are responsible for the report and arrest of wife of Kesavulu- A-1 . On the next day morning i.e. on the date of incident, Kesavulu-A-1 and the appellant- A-2 trespassed into the house of P.W. 2, when the deceased went there in order to use the telephone of P.W. 2, took up quarrel with her. In spite of intervention of P.W. 2, Kesavulu-A-1 took up an iron dumble available in the house of P.W. 2 and beat the deceased on her head. Due to head injuries, she died instantaneously. The same was witnessed by P.Ws. 3 to 5. After the death of the deceased both the accused went away.

(3.) Prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and documents Exs. P-1 to P-8 were marked. On behalf of defence, neither witnesses examined nordocuments marked. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Judge had arrived at a conclusion that the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 450, 326 read with 34 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of five years for the offence under Section 450 IPC and also sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 IPC and ordered both the sentences shall run concurrently. Hence the Criminal Appeal.