NINDUGONDA SREENU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A .1 to A.6 in S.C.No.82 of 2009 were tried by the Court of VIII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. Through its judgment dated 29.01.2010, the trial Court acquitted A.3 to A.6 and convicted A.1 of committing the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C, namely, causing the death of Nindugonda Brahmam and his wife Nindugonda Satyavathi of Gunupudi Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, on 03.12.2006. A.2 was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Both of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/ - each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Hence, this appeal by A.1 and A.2.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that P.W.1, the elder daughter of Nindugonda Brahmam (hereinafter referred to as D.1) and Nindugonda Satyavathi (hereinafter referred to as D.2) submitted a complaint, Ex.P.1 before the P.S. Nathavaram on 03.12.2006 stating that her father on one hand and A.4, by name, Nindugonda Venkanna had almost equal shares of Ac.0.40 cents of land in Survey No.50/3, and that dispute in this behalf was also resolved by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the year 2005. A.4 is said to have gone to the Court raising dispute.

(3.) SMT . A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.1 is not an eyewitness and she filed Ex.P.1, only on the basis of the information said to have been furnished to her by her younger brother and younger sister, P.Ws.2 and 3. She contends that the trial Court itself found that the various allegations made by P.Ws.1 to 3 are not correct and accordingly acquitted A.3 to 6 that included A.4, who was said to be having a dispute with D.1 and D.2. She contends that though nearly nine agricultural labourers were said to have been engaged for harvesting the crop and present when the incident took place, only one of them namely, P.W.4 was examined and even that witness was declared hostile. Learned counsel further submits that except the self -serving statements of P.Ws.1 to 3, there is no evidence worth the name and the trial Court ought not to have convicted A.1 and A.2. She has also urged that P.Ws.2 and 3 were said to be at a fish tank when the incident took place and the prosecution did not establish that a person, who stands at fish tank would be in a position to notice the events at the scene of offence.