KOMPALA MALLAIAH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A1 to A3 in Sessions Case No. 338 of 2007, on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kamareddy, Nizamabad District filed this appeal against the judgment, dated 11.08.2010, by and under which, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants/A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand only) each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years each for the offence under section 302 IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 (Rupees two thousand only) each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence under Sec. 379 IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that Dondadi Chinna Beeraiah (since died) lodged Ex.P6 complaint on 01.08.2006 at 10 a.m. with the police, Gandhari P.S of Nizamabad District, stating that since 22.07.2006 his son Dondadi Chinna Kashiram, aged about 35 years, was missing, and that PW 2 found the dead body of his son-in-law in a decomposed state on the outskirts of Seetaipalli village near Kattukalva. PW 8-ASI of Police registered the complaint as Cr.No.87/2006 under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C and took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence, seized the material objects, drew rough sketch of the scene of offence, and recorded the statements of witnesses. He conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW 6 and another, and that the de facto complainant, PWs 1 and 2 identified the dead body as that of Kashiram. On requisition, PW 9 conducted autopsy over the dead body at the scene of offence, but he could not give any opinion as the skull and other parts of the body were separated from one another. During course of investigation, the investigating agency found that A1 to A3 are responsible for the death of Kashiram, as they made extra judicial confession before PWs 3 to 5 of having killed Kashiram. PW 12-Inspector of Police took up the further investigation and examined the witnesses. His investigation revealed that A2 and A3 are brothers and A1 is their maternal uncle, and that Kashiram had appointed A2 as his shepherd as he was having 200 sheep. That during his tenure of such employment A2 committed theft of 30 to 35 sheep from the sheep flock of Kashiram and added into the sheep flock of A1, that noticing the shortage of sheep, Kashiram asked A2, that A1 to A3 picked up a quarrel with him as he questioned A2 for the shortage of sheep. That on 22.07.2006 Kashiram found and identified his sheep in the sheep flock of A1, chastised the accused, drove his sheep to his sheep flock and threatened the accused that he would place the matter before the village panchayat. That being afraid of damage to their reputation and prestige, if Kashiram places the matter before the village elders, A1 to A3 decided to kill him. That while Kashiram and A1 to A3 were returning from the forest with their sheep flocks and reached the outskirts of the village, A1 coiled the service wire around the neck of Kashiram, A1 and A3 pulled the wire and both of them tied him to a tree, later A2 took out rumal (short towel) from the head of Kashiram, tied it around his neck and all the accused pressed his neck till he died. That thereafter, A1 to A3 have stolen away the wrist watch, silver hand kada and gold ear pogu from Kashiram and absconded from the village. After completion of investigation, PW 11 filed charge sheet, after altering the section of law to under sections 302 and 379 IPC.

(3.) The plea of the accused is one of denial.