SHIVARATHRI VENKATAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused, who are the appellants herein, were tried in S. C. No. 248 of 2000 by the learned ii Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal forthe alleged offence punishable undersection 302 read with 34 IPC. In all, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 15 and got marked exs. P1 to P10. The 1st appellant-A-1 was examined as DW1 and Exs. D-1 to D-3 were marked on behalf of the defence. The trial court, having considered the entire evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-ll read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that deceased-Anjaiah and A-1 i. e. S. Venkataiah are the sons of Yellaiah, who was examined as P. W. 2. P. W. 2 has five sons. Three years prior to the date of offence, P. W. 2 partitioned his property and each of his sons got Ac. 00. 30 guntas of land and Ac. 00. 08 guntas of Chelka. All of them are residing separately. Manjula is the wife of Biksham, the third son of P. W. 2. Biksham died seven months prior to the date of incident. Two days before the date of incident, Manjula's father, who was examined as P. W. 5, came to the house of P. W. 2, assisted Manjula in the transplantation of paddy in herfields. On 28. 7. 1999, when P. W. 5 was trying to cut a Babul tree situated adjacent to the land belonging to the deceased-Anjaiah, a-2, who is the wife of A-1, objected him from cutting the tree. In the evening, when Anjaiah questioned A-2 as to why she had objected p. W. 5 from cutting the tree, she abused the deceased, caught hold of his collarand dragged him to a distance where A1 dealt a blow on him with a blunt portion of an axe given to him by his son, as a result, the deceased received bleeding injuries. Immediately, he was given the First Aid by one R. M. P. doctor, who was examined as P. W. 7. As per his advice, the deceased was taken to M. G. M. Hospital, warangal where he died at 3. 00 P. M. while undergoing treatment. On the basis of a report given by P. W. 1 i. e. the wife of the deceased, the police registered a case in Cr. No. 66 of 1999 against the appellants and their son and issued F. I. R. to the concerned. After recording the statement of P. W. 1, the Sub-Inspector of police, who was examined as P. W. 14, proceeded to M. G. M. Hospital, conducted inquest in the presence of P. W. 8 and Rajender reddy, recorded the statements of P. Ws. 2 to 5, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and handed overthe investigation to the Inspector of Police, who was examined as P. W. 15. The Assistant Professor, Forensic medicine, Kakatiya Medical College, warangal, on receipt of requisition from p. W. 14, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that there is a contusion on both parietal regions of brain and the injuries must have been caused with a blunt object with heavy force and the same are sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. P. W. 15 tookover investigation from P. W. 14, proceeded to the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchnama in the presence of P. W. 10 and seized blood-stained and controlled earth. He prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which was marked as Ex. P8, and examined P. Ws. 6, 7, and 8 and recorded their statements. On reliable information, P. W. 15 went to Sannooru village, arrested the accused on 8. 8. 1999 and recorded their confessional statements in the presence of P. Ws. 12 and 13. The axe with which the death of the deceased was caused was recovered on the basis of the confession and the recovery panchanama, which was marked as Ex. P-9. After completing the entire investigation, the inspector of Police i. e. P. W. 15 filed charge sheet. As the son of the appellants is a juvenile, the Juvenile Court tried him and after examining the witnesses, acquitted him of the charge.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that there was no prior conspiracy or pre-meditation and there is absolutely nothing on record to establish that the appellants shared common intention and the trial Court erred in convicting the appellants of the offence punishable under Section 304 part-ll read with 34 IPC. He has further contended that the accused have neither intention nor knowledge that their acts are likely to cause death forthe purpose of bringing their actions within the ambit of Section 304 part-ll IPC. Moreover, there are so many discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as such, the trial Court ought to have rejected the evidence.