YALLA POTHANNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) He Sri T. Suresh Kumar Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellant- accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant- accused aggrieved by the judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, in S.C.No. 566 of 1999, dated 07-08-2000, convicting the appellant-accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'IPC') and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1007- (Rupees one hundred only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall under go simple imprisonment for one month.

(3.) Sri T. Suresh Kumar Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellant-accused by way of legal aid, made the following submissions: The learned counsel would submit that the learned Judge having disbelieved the prosecution version, so far as it relates to Section 302 of IPC or in alternative under Section 304-BIPC, totally erred in convicting the accused and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1007- under Section 306 IPC even in the absence of a charge in this regard. The learned counsel also would further submit that the very story of the prosecution is that 15 days prior to the death of the deceased, there was a quarrel, as the appellant was addicted to drinking and started beating the deceased and ultimately on the date of incident, the deceased beat the appellant-accused for coming in a drunken state and in the process of scuffle, the appellant-accused caught hold of her, squeezed her neck and pushed her on the ground and in that process, the deceased died. That is the reason why the appellant-accused had been charged with Secs. 302 and 304-B IPC. The learned counsel also would maintain that it is nobody's case that the deceased committed suicide and even on appreciation of the material available on record, it is highly doubtful whether the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are attracted at all. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the medical evidence and would submit that the cause of death is recorded because of throttling and this would not be possible by way of suicide and hence, the ingredients of Section 306 1PC are not attracted at all. The learned counsel also had drawn attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the learned Judge in paragraph-22 of the judgment and had commented that on some suspicion and on the strength of the opinion of the Panchayatdar, recording such findings and convicting the appellant-accused under Section 306 IPC is totally unjustified. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a passage from Modi's Medical Jurisprudence to substantiate his stand in this regard.