KANCHUMOJU ANNA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Crl.P.C. against the order in SC No.114 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.) The sole accused in Sessions Case No.114 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is the appellant in the present Criminal appeal. The appellant was charged with Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). But however, on appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 13 and Exs.P-1 to P-16, the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 304-II and 201 IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 304-II IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and half years for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

(2.) Sri T.S.N. Murty, Counsel representing the appellant would submit that except the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused to P.Ws.1 and 2 and the evidence of P.W.4 to the effect that the accused was seen along with the deceased, here is no other material available on record and the conviction on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, which is not clear, cannot be sustained and hence, the appellant-accused is entitled for an acquittal.

(3.) On the contrary, the Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the dead body of the deceased, in fact, had been recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accuse and apart from this aspect of the matter, the accused and the deceased were last seen and this aspect was spoken by P.W.4 and that the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 relating to extra judicial confession made by the accused to these witnesses, is definitely sufficient to sustain he conviction and hence, the sentence may have to be confirmed.