BADAVATH LACHU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in S. C. No. 290 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. He has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00, in default to simple imprisonment for 15 days. This conviction is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as brought out in the prosecution evidence may be stated as follows :The accused is a resident of Thettekunta Thanda. The deceased was the resident of Ravikunta Thanda. P.W. 1, Badavath Lachi Ram, is the father-in-law of the deceased and he is also a resident of Thettekinta Thanda. The deceased along with his family were residing in Ravikunta Thanda on the date of the incident. P.W. 1 and the deceased proceeded to Ravipahad Thanda along with a bull (calf) to have it sold at Ravipahad Thanda on the date of incident. The deceased was proceeding in front of P. W. 1 holding the rope of the bull. The bull was proceeding behind the deceased and behind the bull P.W. 1 was proceeding. When they reached the work-shop of one Veera Reddy at Kotapahad on the way, the accused came from the opposite direction from the side of one 'dabba' and suddenly dealt blows on the right side of the temple region near the ear with an axe. The accused gave two blows with the axe and ran away. This is said to have occurred at about 12.00 noon. The deceased fell down. P.W. 1 took the deceased to Suryapet on a tractor driven by P. W. 2, Nakka Kotiah. On the way after crossing Thummalapen Pahad, the deceased died. They took the deadbody of the deceased to the Hospital, Suryapet at 5.00 p.m. P.W. 1 drafted complaint at Hospital and in the meanwhile the Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur, P.W. 11, went to Hospital where P.W. 1 handed over the complaint to him. P.W. 9, the police constable, Atmakur Police Station received Ex. P 1 complaint sent by Sub-Inspector of Police and registered the same as a case in Crime No. 38 of 1994 under Section 302, IPC and issued F.I.R., Ex. P10. P. W. 12, the Inspector of Police, Suryapet took up investigation in the case on 12-11-1994 at about 8.00 p.m. and he recorded the statement of P.W. 2 and another in the Government Hospital, Suryapet while the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 11 earlier recorded the statement of P.W. 1. P.W. 12 visited the village of Kotapahad and recorded the statements of P.W. 3, Koti Malliah, P.W. 4 Pagadala Susheelamma and P.W. 6 Shaik Nanne Saheb and others. He visited the scene of offence and seized blood stained earth (M.O. 5) and control earth (M.O. 6) from the scene of offence. On 30-11-1994 P.W. 4 conducted inquest over the dead body between 7.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. in the presence of P.W. 5, Bookya Fakeer and others and prepared the inquest report, Ex. P4. He seized blood stained clothes of the deceased, M. Os. 1 to 4. On 11-12-1994, he arrested the accused at about 2.45 p.m. and recorded the statement of the accused in the presence of P.W. 8, Kondeti Meeniah and another under Ex. P13. In pursuance of the statement of the accused, the accused led P.W. 12 and others to a place near the road side and produced M.O. 7, axe, from the thorney bushes under panchanama, Ex. P14. The blood stained axe and blood stained clothes of the deceased were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examiantion with a requisition, Ex. P15. Ex. P18 is the Forensic Science Laboratory report. P.W. 10, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Suryapet received Ex. P11 requisition from Atmakur P.S. on 13-11-1994 and he conducted autopsy over the deadbody at 11.30 a.m. and issued Ex. P12 post-mortem certificate. The Doctor gave opinion that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to head injury.

(3.) The plea of the accused is of total denial. Thus, P.Ws. 1 to 12 have been examined and Exs. P1 to P8 and MOs. 1 to 7 have been marked on behalf of the prosecution. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused. On this evidence, the learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution version and recorded the conviction and imposed sentence as stated above.