ITIKALA SRINU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd accused in S.C. No.999 of 2000 on the file of Special Judge for SC/ST cases, Warangal preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the conviction under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows:

(3.) The police originally filed chargesheet against three accused. A-1 died during the pendency of the case, whereas A-3 was acquitted by the trial Court. Two years prior to the date of death of the deceased, A-1 returned to Ankushapuram and purchased sheep and was eking out his livelihood. The mother of A-1 was mentally retarded. During the Dasara Festival of 1999, the condition of the mother of A-1 became serious. Therefore she was taken by A-1 to Kotancha Temple thinking that she will be cured. During that period, half of the sheep which A-1 was owning died on account of disease. The sheep of others also died on account of disease. A-1 suspected that the sheep died and the condition of his mother became very serious on account of practicing sorcery by the deceased. Therefore A-1 used to threaten the deceased to kill. On the date of incident, the deceased Mothe Narsaiah went to sleep during night time in the cattle shed which is at a distance of 4 to 5 yards opposite to the house of PW-1, who is no other than the son of the deceased. PW-1 and his family members were sleeping inside their house. The deceased was sleeping alone in the cattle shed. At about 11.45 p.m. on the night of 17.8.2000 PW-1 heard the cries of the deceased. Then PW-1, PW-2 who is the wife of the deceased and PW-3 who is the son of PW-1 came out of the house and saw A-1 and A-2 coming out of the shed where the deceased was sleeping. A-1 was holding a knife. The witnesses identified the accused -with the help of electric light which was in front of their house. When they entered the shed, they found the deceased leaning to the wooden pole with bleeding injuries on the body. When they questioned as to who stabbed him, the deceased informed them that A-1 and A-2 stabbed him. They also found A-3 standing on the road near the hut. On the next day morning at about 10.00 a.m. PW-1 went to the Police Station and lodged a report. The S.I. of Police registered a case in Cr.No.60 of 2000 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC on 18.8.2000 and sent F.I.Rs. to all the concerned. PW-11 took up investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence which was located in the cattle shed in front of the house of PW-1. Then he held inquest on the dead body from 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. in the presence of PW-7 and another. During the inquest the bloodstained earth and control earth were seized. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died due to stab injuries. Thereafter the dead body was sent to post-mortem examination. PW-10 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body and opined that the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. The Inspector of Police also examined the scene of occurrence in the presence of PW-5 and another and seized the incriminating material. He also prepared the rough sketch of the scene of occurrence and photographed the same through PW-7. PW-9 examined the witnesses. On 21.8.2000 the Asst. S.I. of Police arrested the accused at Ankushapuram and produced before PW-11 who interrogated them. A-1 offered to show the knife and the towel used in the commission of offence. In pursuance of the confessional statement of A-1 he led the police and the mediators to his house and produced M.Os.6 and 7 -knife and towel - used in the commission of offence. The incriminating material was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and after receipt of report from the F.S.L., the Inspector of Police filed chargesheet against the three accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parkal. As the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The ease was taken on file as S.C. No.999 of 2000 and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, a charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was framed against all the accused. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked besides case properties M.Os.l to 9. Basing on the oral dying declaration and the circumstantial evidence the learned Sessions Judge found A-2 guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. As there was no evidence to show that A-3 participated in the commission of offence along with A-1 and A-2, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Since A-1 died during the pendency of the case, the case against him was abated. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by A-2.