CHINTAKAYALA KURMAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal arises out of judgment, dated 08.01.2010, on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, whereby the appellant/sole accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2.) The prosecution laid charge sheet against the appellant with the following allegations:

(3.) Based on the above report, PW.11- Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagar Kurnool, registered Crime No.112 of 2003 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and investigated into the same. Later, PW.9- Circle Inspector of Police, Nagar Kurnool, took up the investigation, visited the scene of offence at Nagar Kurnool, examined the dead body of the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood, secured the presence of mediators- LW.7 and PW.5, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and subjected the same to postmortem examination at the Government Area Hospital, Nagar Kurnool. PW.9 seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased i.e., Saree, Jacket and Petticoat. During the inquest, he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3, LW.4- Kavali Venkataiah and LW.5- Kavali Pullaiah. The scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of LW.7- Cheviti Laxmamma and PW.5 and the sketch was drawn with crime details incorporated therein. The blood stained earth and its control were seized from the scene. PW.10- Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Nagar Kurnool, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and furnished his opinion that the death was due to stab injury in the abdomen and the neck. The material objects seized in the course of investigation were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, for its analysis and report. PW.9 also got photographed the scene of offence through PW.7. After analyzing the material objects, the FSL authorities opined in their report that the blood was detected on items 1 to 4 and 5; that human blood was detected on items 1 to 4; that the blood group of the blood stains detected on the said items was of B origin; that the blood stains on item No.5 could not be determined; and that the blood was not detected on item No.6.