KARNATI SHIVAMMA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.137 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Nalgonda at Miryalguda. She was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 302 IPC for causing the death of one Nagaraju (deceased) on 27-08-2010 at 7.30 am. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused of the said charges, under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C., and sentenced her to suffer 'imprisonment for life' and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge directed both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts, as culled out, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, are that the deceased is the son of the accused. P.W.3 is the mother of the accused. On 27.08.2010, at about 8.00 am., while the P.W.1 was at his house, he received information that the accused murdered her son (the deceased) by tying to a tree. On that, P.W.1 went to the spot and noticed that the accused tied the deceased to neem tree situated in front of her house with G.I wire from shoulders to legs, tied the neck to the tree with cloth and tied waist to the tree with another cloth. An electric wire is connected to the G.I wire which was rounded to the deceased from the switch board of the house of the accused. On enquiry, the accused stated that the deceased is not taking care of her, not listening to her words and not studying well and when she advised the deceased to concentrate on studies, he used to came upon her with angry and used to beat her and hence she tied the accused to neem tree situated in front of her house with a G.I wire and clothes and connected the G.I wire with an electric wire and gave connection from the switch board of her house and killed him by giving electric shock. Then P.W.1 proceeded to the Police Station and gave a report (Ex.P.1) before P.W.14 Head Constable. Basing on the said report, P.W.14 registered a case in Crime No.83 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 302 IPC and issued Ex.P.9-First Information Report. Immediately thereafter, he informed about the incident to P.W.15 S.I of Police. As P.W.16, C.I of Police, was on another duty, P.W.15 took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, P.W.15 proceeded to the scene of offence and observed the scene and got photographed by P.W.10. He conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.W.12 and another and seized M.Os.1 to 4 under a cover of panchanama. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene. He examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.12 and another. Ex.P.7 is the inquest report. Thereafter, the body was sent to Area Hospital, Miryalguda, for conducting postmortem examination. P.W.13, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Miryalguda, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.8 is the Postmortem Examination Report. The Doctor noticed three injuries. According to him, the cause of death was "due to electrocution." Subsequently, P.W.16, C.I of Police, took up investigation. On 01.09.2010, at about 10.00 am., P.W.9 produced the accused before P.W.16 at his office at Miryalguda. P.W.16 examined P.W.9 and recorded his statement. P.W.16 arrested the accused, interrogated her in the presence of mediators. After collecting all the relevant material, a charge sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.110 of 2010, which on committal came to be numbered as S.C.No.137 of 2011.

(3.) After complying with the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., charges under Sections 342 and 302 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused. The plea of the accused is one of total denial.