GIRELLI LAXMAIAH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/appellant herein, was alleged to have committed the murder of his daughter, by name, Mounika, on 06.05.2009 at 4.30 p.m. The complaint in this behalf was submitted by PW.1, the wife of the accused, alleging that the accused used to harass her for providing money to consume toddy, and if his demand is not acceded to, he used to beat her. She further stated that the accused used to harass their two daughters, by name, G.Lakshmi (PW.2), and Mounik, the deceased. One day prior to the incident, the accused is said to have threatened PW.1 with knife, while demanding money.

(2.) On 06.05.2009, PW.1 is said to have gone to near by the place, to attend the marriage of their relation, and when she returned, PW.2 went for coolie work, and their son was not present in the house, and she found that the deceased hung by clutch wire, in the house. She alleged that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused. She gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to the Sub Inspector of Police (PW.9), Jaipur, and a case was registered as Crime No.47 of 2009, by citing Section 174 Cr.P.C. The scene of offence, panchanama was conducted, inquest was caused, and postmortem was done. On the basis of investigation conducted by him, the Investigating Officer, PW.10 filed the charge sheet. The case was committed to the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, and numbered as S.C. No.344 of 2009. On denial of the charge by the accused, the trial Court took up the case, for trial. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs. P1 to P11 were filed. MO.1 i.e., clutch wire was also taken on record.

(3.) Through its judgment dated 25.09.2009, the trial Court found the accused guilty, and imposed sentence of imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Hence, this appeal. Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the accused submits that there is no direct evidence in the case, and the circumstantial evidence is too weak to hold the accused guilty of the offence. He contends that PWs.1 and 2 have at the most, narrated their grievance, against the accused, and their suspicion cannot lead to the conviction of the accused. Learned counsel further submits that PW.3, who is said to have noticed the deceased, at the earliest, was declared hostile, and if that is excluded, nothing remains on record, to enable the Court, to hold the accused guilty.