KONDAPAKA SRIDHAR @ SIDHU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment, which is assailed in this Appeal, is passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, FAC: Judge, Family Court cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in S.C. No. 502 of 2011 on 13.07.2012, convicting the Appellant / Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) The facts of the case, as per the charge-sheet, are briefly, as follows:

(3.) On 09.01.2007, at 18.00 hours, the complainant came to the police station and gave a report stating that his son (deceased), who left the house on 05.01.2007 on his Passion motor cycle, did not turn up. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered in Crime No. 6 of 2007, under the head man missing. During the course of investigation, look out notices were ordered to all the police stations and a requisition was sent to the authorities of cellular network services, to furnish the list of incoming and outgoing calls to the mobile phone of the deceased. The identity of the subscribers, who are in contact with the mobile phone of the missing person, was collected. The user was identified as Kondapaka Sridhar, who is the accused in this case. On investigation, it came to light that the accused stayed as tenant at Prashanth Nagar Housing Board Colony and Siripuram Colony of Karimnagar, besides staying at Turkapalli and Medchal of Ranga Reddy District and Gajwel of Medak District. The antecedents of Accused No.2, who is a close associate of Accused No.1, were also collected, which revealed that Accused 1 and 2 had past criminal record.