GURRAMKONDA SUBRAMANYAM REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was tried by the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, as sole accused, in S.C.No.44 of 2008. The case as presented by the prosecution before the trial Court was that the appellant had 1/8th share in the water of a Well, known as Dorabavi at Pothavanigunta Village, whereas one Sri P.Krishna Mandali, husband of PW.1, has 7/8th share. On 22.01.2007, it was said to be the turn of Krishna Mandali to draw water. However, by the time he went to the Well in the morning, the accused is said to have switched on the motor and when Krishna Mandali questioned about this, the accused is said to have taken out a wooden plank and beat Krishna Mandali on the head. Krishna Mandali is said to have died on the spot.

(2.) A complaint, in this behalf, was submitted by one Sri P.Subramanyam Mandali nephew of the deceased, in K.Nagar P.S., on 22.01.2007 at 2.30 P.M. It was stated that himself, PWs.4 to 6 were present at the site as labourers. He has also furnished the other details of the occurrence. The police registered Crime No.11 of 2007 alleging offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., against the accused. The scene of offence was visited by the police, panchanama in that behalf was drawn, inquest was made and the body of the deceased was sent for post -mortem examination. During the course of investigation, the statements of the persons, who are acquainted with the crime were recorded and a charge -sheet was filed. The trial Court framed charge in this behalf and on accused pleading not guilty, trial was conducted. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 18, and Exs.P.1 to P.14 were marked. M.Os.1 to 7 were also taken on record.

(3.) SRI C.Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the person, who presented Ex.P.6, was not available for examination; PWs.4 to 6, named therein, did not support the case of the prosecution, and though PW.3 deposed in favour of the prosecution, his name did not figure in Ex.P.6. He contends that the evidence of PW.7 is not trustworthy and the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of PW.3 does not accord with the scene of offence panchanama, or with the evidence of other witnesses.