MUNAGALA CHENCHU RAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati in S. C. No. 10 of 2004 charged the appellant herein with the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 I. P. C, alleging that he committed the murder of his wife on 11. 10. 2003. The brother of the appellant, by name Munagala Nagaraju, was charged with the offence punishable under Section 201 read with 34 I. P. C. in relation to the same incident. Through its judgment, dated 30. 08. 2004, the trial Court acquitted A. 2 but found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 I. P. C. Sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. , and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 201 I. P. C. were imposed. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) INITIATION of proceedings against the appellant and the consequential prosecution commenced with the submission of a report, dated 13. 10. 2003, marked as Ex. P. 1 by the Panchayat Secretary of Gopalakrishnapuram-P. W. 1. He stated that the appellant, along with his parents came to the Panchayat Office building and stated that he killed his wife Durga Devi @ Mallika at 3:00 PM on 11. 10. 2003 in the forest near Ulavabanda canal and buried her dead body there. When questioned by P. W. 1, the appellant is said to have replied that the doubtful conduct and illicit intimacy of his wife, with others, is the cause for committing the murder. Thereafter, the villagers are said to have taken the appellant to the forest and shown them the place, where the dead body was buried. After recovery of the dead body from the pit, P. W. 1 is said to have brought the appellant to the police station.

(3.) ON receiving the complaint, P. W. 5, the Inspector of Police, registered f. I. R and initiated further steps. The Mandal Revenue Officer-P. W. 4 conducted the inquest over the dead body on 13. 10. 2003. The report thereof is marked as ex. P. 5. Post Mortem was conducted by P. W. 3, vide Ex. P. 7. On the basis of the material before it, the trial Court framed the charges against the appellant-A. 1 as well as his brother-A. 2. Both of them pleaded not guilty. While A. 2 was acquitted, the appellant herein was convicted and sentenced as indicated above.