CHEPURI KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in S.C.No.344/93 convicting the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) The facts in brief representing prosecution version of the case can be stated as follows:Accused No. 1 after the death of his first wife, married the deceased Vinoda. Thereafter he married another woman and started ill-treating the deceased Vinoda. The deceased is said to have complained about the ill-treatment to the village elders. On this grudge accused No. 1 is said to have decided to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly on the intervening night of 10/11-6-1992 midnight accused No.1 (appellant) with the help of A2 throttled the deceased. It is stated that while A1 caught the feet of the deceased Vinoda, A2 throttled her when she was fast asleep. It is stated that the accused thereafter hanged the dead body to a beam to make it appear as if it was a suicide. On the next day morning, the Village Administrative Officer who was doing some work in the nearby Chawdy was informed that the deceased Vinoda was murdered. He went to the house of accused No. 1 and saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the ground. When questioned, Al, it appears, told that the deceased had hanged herself and committed suicide. The Village Administrative Officer who was later examined as PW1 when questioned accused No.1 as to how the dead body was lying on the ground when she hanged herself to a beam, the accused replied that he thought that the deceased might have been still breathing, so he removed her from the beam and put her on the ground. According to the prosecution, the Village Administrative Officer took Al aside and kept him under his custody in the Chawdy. The villagers present there suspected that the explanation given by the accused could not be correct and when they further questioned him, Al made a confessional statement stating that he himself with the help of A2 strangulated the deceased. PW1 gave a report about these facts to the police under Ex.P1, the first information report. After investigation, the accused was duly arrested and his confessional statement was recorded. After conducting inquest and post-mortem and completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak, who in due course, committed the case to the Court of Sessions under PRC. No.46/93.

(3.) The case has been made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Medak, who duly framed the charge for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused having denied the charge, the trial was taken up. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 13 have been examined and Exs.Pl to P8 and MOs.1 and 2 have been marked. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the veracity of the alleged incriminating circumstances against him. The accused had not chosen to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.