D.BALA OBULESU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.693 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur. He was tried for the offence of committing the murder of A.Ramanjaneyulu @ Chandra on 18.05.2007 at 2.30 p.m. at Tabujula Village of Peddapappur Mandal, Anantapur District. The trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Fine of Rs.500/ - was imposed.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that the accused and the deceased were having illicit intimacy with one D.Obulamma, P.W.6, and on account of jealousy and to ensure that the information about the relationship between him and P.W.6 is not known to others, the accused was planning to kill the deceased. The deceased is said to be a regular farm servant of V. Mohan Reddy, P.W.5. On 18.05.2007, the deceased was said to be irrigating the garden of P.W.5, whereas P.Ws.3 and 4 were engaged as farm servants to remove the weed. It was alleged that though the accused also used to be engaged as farm servant by P.W.5, he was not engaged on 18.05.2007. It was also alleged that at around 2.30 p.m., Ramanjaneyulu was irrigating the plants at a distance of about 15 feet from the place where P.Ws.3 and 4 were working. The accused is said to have come from backside of Ramanjaneyulu and hit him with a sickle four or five times. P.Ws.3 and 4 are said to have gone to the spot on hearing the cries of the deceased and by that time they went there, the accused is said to have escaped by leaving his chappal and a rope. Both of them are said to have informed the parents of the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2, and P.W.1 submitted a complaint, Ex.P1, to the Station House Officer, Muchukota Police Station and on the basis of the same, Crime No.25 of 2007 was registered. The steps required under law, such as conducting inquest and post -mortem were taken and on the basis of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The trial Court framed the following charge against the accused:

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that P.Ws.3 and 4 categorically stated that they have seen the accused committing the murder of the deceased and the mere fact that they are related to P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. She further submits that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 or for that matter, between the evidence of those two witnesses or that of P.W.5, cannot create any doubt as to the involvement of the accused in committing the offence.