S. KANNAIAH SINGH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A girl of 20 years, namely, K. Rani, who is said to have been betrothed to a person for marriage, was unfortunately put to death on 21.08.2006. A complaint (Ex.P.1), in this behalf, was submitted by her father, P.W.1, at 6.30 p.m. to the police at Tappachabutra. Crime No. 153 of 2006 was registered. It was mentioned in Ex.P.1 complaint that the sole accused, by name, S. Kannaiah Singh @ Kannaiah @ Khanniahlal, used to attend to the electrical works in the area, and did some work in the house of P.W.1 also. The accused is said to have fallen in love with Rani and intended to marry her. Few months before the incident, the marriage of Rani was said to have been fixed with another, and unable to digest it, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 at 6.00 p.m. on 21.08.2006, when Rani alone was in the house. P.W. 1 is said to be sitting on a pial, which is at about 20 ft. away from his house. The accused is said to have picked up a sword from the nearby Gurudwara, and attacked Rani on the neck and other parts of the body, resulting in her instantaneous death. P.W. 1 stated that soon after he heard about the incident, he went to the spot and found her daughter dead, and prayed for action.

(2.) THE police rushed to the spot immediately and prepared the scene of offence panchanama, conducted inquest and sent the dead body for post -mortem. The persons acquainted with the offence were examined and their statements were recorded. Charge sheet was filed, alleging the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, as S.C. No. 229 of 2007. The trial Court framed a charge, and on the accused pleading not guilty, trial was conducted.

(3.) MS . Naseeb Afshan, learned counsel for the accused, submits that while according to Ex. P. 1 complaint, there are no eyewitnesses and P.W.1 rushed to the spot only on receiving the information; in the evidence before the Court, the prosecution came out with an alleged eyewitness in the form of P.W.2. She contends that the name of P.W.2 was not mentioned in Ex.P. 1, and that the trial Court did not take into account these inconsistencies. She submits that P.W. 1 admitted in the cross -examination that he did not see the accused and the deceased moving together, and that he went to the place of occurrence, only at 6.30 p.m. after the incident.