GADDAM BRAHMAMA ALIAS CHINNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried for offences under Ss. 307 and 302. IPC, found guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5, years and pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 for an offence under S. 307, IPC and further to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for an offence under S. 302, IPC in Sessions Case No. 58 of 1994, decided on 12-9-1994 by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari Division, Kakinada. Being aggrieved, he has preferred this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) The victim Janakamma alias Janaki (P.W. 1) was the wife of the appellant's younger brother, Geddam Eswara Rao (P.W. 7) and the daughter of the deceased Gubbala Seethamma. They were residents of village Nadakuduru. It was alleged that earlier the appellant and his brother Geddam Eswara Rao used to reside in different portions of one and the same house belonging to them. Subsequently, Geddam Eswara Rao and his wife Janakamma went to reside with the deceased Gubbala Seethamma with the result that the appellant could get no monetary help from them. While so residing separately, the appellant sold two wooden door planks of his brother's portion of the house to one Penkey Raju for Rs. 250.00, When Janakamma (P.W. 1) came to know this fact, she went to the appellant on 27-9-1993 at about 1-30 p.m. along with her mother to lodge her protest, which was to the annoyance of the appellant. The appellant, thereupon, was alleged to have brought a knife from inside the house and then to have caused knife injuries on the left shoulder, on the head and on the fingers of both hands of P.W. 1 Janakamma. When the deceased Gubbala Seethamma tried to intervene, she was also assaulted by knife on her left hand and left leg below the knee joint. The injuries caused her death on the spot. Hearing the hue and cry, the people were attracted towards the scene of occurrence and, therefore, the appellant was alleged to have run away from the spot. A report of the incident was lodged, investigation carried out and then the appellant was prosecuted for the said offences, which resulted in his convictions and sentences as aforesaid, giving cause to this Criminal Appeal.

(3.) The prosecution evidence is so clinching and convincing that the learned counsel for the appellant did not make any serious attempt to show the innocence of the appellant, or to make any prayer for his acquittal. His entire attempt and concentration was to establish that the offences made out against the appellant were under Ss. 324 and 304 Part II, IPC and not those for which he was convicted and sentenced. We, therefore, proceed to examine the case from this limited angle.