USURUPATI ANJAIAH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein, the sole accused in S.C.No.155 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ongole, was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and was convicted by the trial Court through its judgment, dated 18.08.2008. Sentence of imprisonment for life was imposed.

(2.) IT was alleged that the appellant and his wife, the deceased, are residents of Nelapatipalle Village, Pedecherlopalli Mandal, Prakasam District, and they proceeded to Kanigiri, on 12.12.2008, for treatment of the appellant and that when the Doctor, who examined him, advised them to go to Ongole for better treatment, both of them, went to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ongole. After the treatment, they are said to have gone to Marlapadu Village at about 9.00 P.M., to the house of distant relation of the accused, Yanubari Abraham (PW.2) and stayed there overnight. PW.2 and his wife - PW.1 are said to have noticed that the accused and his wife, the deceased, were quarrelling during night, and in the morning also, there was some quarrel between them.

(3.) ON receipt of Ex.P.1, the Sub -Inspector of Police - PW.10 registered Crime No.20 of 2008, under Section 302 I.P.C., against the accused, and started investigation. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (IO) - PW.11 caused the scene of offence panchanama, inquest on the dead body and sent the body for post -mortem thereof. He examined LWs.1 to 27, and ultimately, filed the charge sheet alleging an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., against the accused. The trial Court framed the charges and the trial was taken up. PWs.1 to 11 were examined by the prosecution and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were filed. Broken pieces of bangles, said to be of the deceased, were marked as M.O.1. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal. Sri Pavuluri Sreenivasulu, learned counsel for the accused, submits that there was absolutely no evidence whatever to support the conviction of the accused. He contends that PW.1, who submitted the complaint - Ex.P.1, was declared hostile and whatever was stated by her in the chief -examination against the accused was proved to be not reliable. He further submits that PW.1 did not speak about the presence of PW.2 at the Bunk, nor the same was mentioned in Ex.P.1, whereas PW.2 stated that he too was present along with his wife at the Bunk, when the accused was said to have come in the opposite direction and informed about the incident. He submits that PW.2 was not declared hostile and from him it was elicited that he was not examined by the police at all and that his mental condition was stable. Learned counsel further submits that barring the deposition of PWs.1 and 2, there was no other evidence that throws light upon the occurrence, much less to link the incident to the accused.