KUMMARI KESHAVULU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the sole accused in S.C.No.465 of 2005 on the file of VI -Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Through its judgment, dated 31 -08 -2009, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence of murder and imposed punishment of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/ -.

(2.) THE case, as presented by the prosecution, is as under: The deceased (Nacharam Balaiah Goud) is an agriculturist of Bogaram village, Kosgi mandal, Mahaboobnagar district. The accused had the lands by the side of the lands of the deceased. PW -1, the wife of the deceased, filed complaint (Ex.P.1) at 7.00 a.m. on 15.01.2005, stating that there are disputes between their family and the family of the accused in the context of the cattle of the accused damaging their crops. On an earlier occasion, the Sarpanch of the village is said to have admonished the accused. On 13.01.2005, the cattle of the accused are said to have strayed into the harvesting yard of the deceased and grazed the red -gram left over, and when PW -1 along with her husband objected, the mother of the accused is said to have scolded them in filthy language. PW -1 further stated that on 14.01.2005 her husband left the house at 2.00 p.m. to the fields and at about 4.30 p.m. one Mr. Mallesham Goud (LW -12, not examined as a witness), informed her that the accused beat her husband, thereafter hacked with an axe, and fled away. The parents of the accused are said to have instigated him to commit the offence. PW -1 further stated that LW -12 was furnished the information about the incident by PW -6. She and with other members of the family are said to have gone to the fields and found the dead body of the deceased, at a distance from the bore -well. She also stated that PWs.3, 4, 5 and 9, who are shepherds in the village informed her that they have seen the accused killing the deceased. Hence, she prayed for action against the accused. The Police, Kosgi P.S., registered Crime No. 2 of 2005 under Sec.302 IPC against the accused, issued F.I.R., visited the place of occurrence, prepared the scene of offence panchanama, and caused inquest and post -mortem over the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and after interrogating him and completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet.

(3.) SRI Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is absolutely no truth in Ex.P.1 or for that matter in the deposition of PW -1. He contends that while in Ex.P.1, PW.1 stated that PWs.3, 4, 5 and 9, the alleged eye -witnesses, have informed her about the incident, nothing of that sort was spoken to, in her evidence, much less it was supported by those witnesses. He contends that there was inordinate delay in submission of the complaint, and PW.8 who drafted the complaint stated that the complaint was prepared at 7.00 p.m., on 14.01.2005; whereas it was submitted 12 hours thereafter. He submits that the rivalry within the family of PW -1played a role in the matter and that the accused was unnecessarily implicated. He further argues that the only source of information for PW -1 about the incident was LW -12, and for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said witness (LW -12) was not examined. The learned counsel submits that all the four alleged eye -witnesses are minors, and while recording their evidence, the trial Court has not taken the precautions that are required under law.