GORLAPALLI BUCHAIAH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was tried by the Court of the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Asifabad in S.C.No.410 of 2008. The basis for initiating the proceedings was a complaint, Ex.P1, dated 16.06.2008, submitted by PW.1. It was stated that PW.1 is the wife of one Mallaiah, who was employed in Singareni Collieries, and took Voluntary Retirement about 10 years ago, and out of the retirement benefits, Mallaiah gave a sum of Rs.30,000/ - to the accused on loan. She further stated that since the amount was not paid for quite a long time, the accused handed over one acre of land to them in lieu of the amount, and it is under their cultivation, but, there existed disputes between the accused and Mallaiah in relation thereto.

(2.) ON 16.06.2008, at 7.00 a.m., Mallaiah and his friend Duguta Lingaiah are said to have gone to a place known as MVK -III, and they were followed by the accused. At about 8.00 a.m., a person from MVK -III area, is said to have telephoned PW.1 and informed that the accused killed Mallaiah and Lingaiah (for short D1 and D2). Soon thereafter, PW.1, her son and PW.2, i.e., the second wife of Mallaiah are said to have gone to the place and found D1 and D2 with injuries caused with axe. The neighbours in the locality are said to have informed PW.1 that the accused killed D1 and D2, by beating them with an axe. Crime No.9 of 2008 was registered under Section 302 IPC. The police have drawn the scene of offence panchanama and arranged for the inquest and postmortem. After recording the statements of the Listed Witnesses, and taking the accused into custody, they filed the charge sheet. The trial Court farmed the charges and on denial of the same by the accused, took up the matter for trial. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 17 were examined and Ex.P1 to P23 were filed. MOs. 1 to 14 were also taken on record. Through its judgment, dated 29.06.2009, the trial Court held the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - . Hence, this appeal.

(3.) NEITHER PW.1 nor PW.2 were the eye witnesses. Both of them stated that the information about the death of D1 and D2 was furnished by someone. Their evidence is not clear as to who that person was, and as between them, who received the information. Further, though PW.1 stated that her son also visited the scene of occurrence, he was not examined. Another aspect is that no one complained of anything about the death of D2. It is only the son of his wife through another person that deposed as PW8. He did not state as to how he came to know about the death of the D2. The prosecution cited PWs.3 and 4 as eye witnesses. Both of them are women and are said to be residents of MVK -III locality, residing in huts. PW.3 stated that she knows D1 and D2, and she saw both of them proceeding from in front of her hut at 8.00 a.m., and the accused attacking D1 first, and latter on D2 with axe. At that time, she is said to have passed through the scene of occurrence in the process of dropping her son at school. On getting frightened with the incident, she is said to have gone inside the house and came out only after the police arrived. In the cross examination, this witness stated that the accused caused only one injury to D1, and then she immediately went inside the house. She has also stated that she did not see anything further and again stated that the accused attacked the deceased with an axe. The postmortem report of D1 discloses that as many as six injuries were noticed on the body of D1. It is also important to note that injuries 3 and 4 were caused by stabbing, and both of them are 5 long 2 wide. Those injuries cannot be said to have been caused by an axe. The right little finger of D1 was also found cut off and right ring finger was partially cut of. Injury No.6 was on the skull. On D2 also there were two serious stab injuries almost similar in size to those found on the D1. Apart from that, the nostril bone was found fractured. In all, there were six injuries.