GOLLA MALLANNA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was tried by the Court of II Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak at Sangareddy, in S.C.No.20 of 2011, for the offence of causing the death of one Edulapally Maheshwar, son of P.W.1, on 12.08.2010. It was alleged that Maheshwar was asked at 4.00 p.m. on 12.08.2010 to take the cows for grazing, and 20 minutes thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded behind him. On the way, P.W.1 is said to have seen the accused running away, and when P.W.1 asked the accused about his son, the latter is said to have answered that he may have gone to a different field. On proceeding further, P.W.1 is said to have found the slippers of his son in a thrown away condition, and at a further distance, he found his son lying on the ground with an electric wire and a stick upon him. Burn injuries are said to have been found on the body of his son.

(2.) SOON thereafter, P.W.1 is said to have brought his son to his house, kept there for two or three hours, and took him to the Government Hospital at Zaheerabad. The doctors are said to have observed that Maheshwar was brought dead, and thereupon, P.W.1 brought the dead body of his son to his house and submitted a complaint (Ex.P.1) at 8.00 p.m. in the police station located in the same village. Crime No.77 of 2010 was registered alleging the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against the accused. The police caused the inquest and scene of offence panchnama was prepared by proceeding to the site, where the offence is said to have taken place. Inquest and post -mortem were also caused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty.

(3.) SRI Chilumala Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, submits that even according to P.W.1, he removed the body of his son from the alleged scene of occurrence and brought it to his house, and from there, he took it to the hospital, without reference to the police. He submits that there was a serious lapse, in this behalf, and the trial Court ought not to have found the accused guilty. He further submits that in Ex.P.9 inquest report itself, it was mentioned that there are burn injuries on the body of the deceased and they can be caused through electrocution, and that the findings of the trial Court are totally perverse. He further submits that the deposition of P.W.1 is a substantial improvement upon Ex.P.1, and almost all the witnesses cited by the prosecution have turned hostile. He contends that the judgment rendered by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law.