KOMMU VINJA RAO Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC by the Sessions Court, East Godavari Division, in SC No. 198 of 1994. His conviction was confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

(2.) WHAT has been held proved against him is that on 2.8.1993 at about 7.00 p.m., he assaulted Lakshmi with a knife and killed her on the spot. The prosecution case was that he had developed illicit intimacy with Lakshmi and for about 8 to 9 years they had stayed together as husband and wife. Some months before the date of incident, Lakshmi and the appellant had separated and since then she was staying in a thatched hut near the hut of her father. After separating from Lakshmi, the appellant wanted to join his first wife -Mariyamma but Lakshmi was creating obstacles in his way. That was the reason why h~ assaulted her on 2.8.1993.

(3.) WHAT was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court and also the trial Court failed to appreciate that there was no light at place of the incident and, therefore, PW 3 could not have identified, the assailant of Lakshmi. He submitted that it was raining on that day and as disclosed by the prosecution evidence it had become Clark when the incident had happened. There were no electric lights around because of load shedding. That, however, cannot mean that there was no sufficient light at the time of the incident. The evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 discloses that the incident had happened near the shop of one Kapala Bapiraju at a distance of about 10 feet. It can be safely assumed that the shopkeeper would not have kept his shop open without providing for some other source of light. Moreover, the incident took place at about 7.00 p.m. and, therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention that there must have been complete darkness at that time and PW 3 could not have identified the assailant. It was not raining heavily. There was movement of persons on the road. All these suggest that there was enough light and PW 3 could not have found it difficult to recognise the appellant, who was none other than the person with whom his sister had stayed for 8 to 9 years.