(1.) A1 in S. C. No. 129 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Khammam, filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, handed out to her by the trial Court. She, along with A2 were accused of committing the murder of a minor girl by name Swaroopa, none other than her daughter, on 03. 12. 2003, by administering poison. The trial Court acquitted A2, but convicted the appellant, of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. It imposed fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
(2.) THE case presented by the prosecution to the trial Court runs thus: a1 is the daughter of P. Ws. 1 and 2. P. W. 3 is her brother. She was married to P. W. 7 and they were blessed with two daughters, the deceased, being the elder, and another by name Divya. P. Ws. 1 to 3, on the one hand, and the appellant with her minor daughters, on the other, were living in the separate house located opposite to each other in Tanikella Village. On 03. 12. 2003, at about 11. 30 a. m. , Swaroopa came from their house and fell on the lap of P. W. 2, her grandmother, and immediately started vomiting. P. Ws. 4 to 6 gathered there and administered tamarind water to Swaroopa, to ensure that the poison in her stomach comes out. Simultaneously, they made attempts to shift her to government Hospital. In the meanwhile, she died.
(3.) P. W. 1, the father of A1 submitted a complaint, marked as Ex. P1, stating that A1 developed illicit intimacy with A2, left her husband, P. W. 7 and that she administered poison by mixing the same in banana, to Swaroopa, with a view to remove the obstacle for her illegal contact with A2. F. I. R. , marked as Ex. P8 was registered, followed by inquest and post mortem. The charge sheet was filed on the basis of the information gathered during the course of the investigation. While the appellant pleaded guilty, A2 pleaded not guilty. Full-fledged trial was conducted. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure by the trial Court, the appellant denied of the acquisitions against her. Ultimately, she was found guilty and sentenced accordingly.