GUGLOTH RENA Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused, who has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and imprisonment for two years (both sentences were directed to be run concurrently) and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - and Rs. 100/ - respectively in S.C. No. 190 of 2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, is the appellant herein.

(2.) SMT . Ammi (hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased') was the mother of P.W.5, the husband of the accused. P.W.5 was stated to be working in Dubai and was remitting the money saved by him there for the purpose of meeting the domestic expenses, but however, it appears, the accused was spending the said money very liberally and in particular, for certain vices. During one of those sojourns of P.W.5 to India, the accused could not give a satisfactory explanation for the monies spent away by her. As a consequence of this conduct of the accused, P.W.5 lost confidence in her and hence, started remitting the money in the name of his mother, the deceased. That seems to have triggered constant disputes between the mother -in -law, the deceased and the daughter -in -law, the accused.

(3.) SRI P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in Ex. P10 seizure panchnama, the recovery of plastic rope M.O.7, which has been used for the commission of the offence, has been recorded. He would submit that two panch witnesses examined as P.Ws.9 and 11 have turned hostile and therefore, Ex. P10 seizure panchnama cannot be believed and consequently, the recovery of M.O.7 remains unexplained. In the absence of such an important event, the chain of events remains incomplete. He therefore, places heavy reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Krishnan @ Ramaswamy v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2014(3) ALT (Crl.) 534 (SC), wherein, in paragraph 21, the Supreme Court has set out as under: