STATE Vs. SETALU SUDAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, having convicted the accused under S.302, Indian Penal Code, and having sentenced him to be hanged by the neck till he is dead has made the reference to this Court under S.366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused has preferred the Criminal Appeal from the Jail against his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under S.302 as well as under S.324, Indian Penal Code. By the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused has been convicted under S.302, Indian Penal Code for killing a young girl called Sabita Reddy and has further been convicted under S.324, Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to P.Ws. 1 and 10 and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years on that count.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that one and half years prior to the date of occurrence, a quarrel had ensued between the accused and the father of the deceased and on account of the said quarrel, the accused had borne a grudge. On 20th of June, 1990, at 11.00 a.m. deceased a young girl of six years old was playing on the village 'Danda' along with her friends. The accused all on a sudden lifted the deceased and entered into his house and bolted the doors from inside. Several persons who saw the lifting of the girl raised hullah. P.Ws. 1, 4 and 10 came running and knocked the door of the accused, but the door was found to be closed. At last they broke open the back-side door and entered into the house and found deceased Sabita lying dead with bleeding injuries and a small 'Kati' (M.O.I) stained with blood was lying there. They also found the accused himself standing there with another 'Khanda-Kati' (M.O. II) and when P.Ws. 1 and 10 advanced towards the accused, he struck them with the weapon in his hand as a result of which both P.Ws. 1 and 10 sustained injuries and thereafter the accused escaped through the back-door with M.O. II in his hand. P.W. 1 then went to the police station and lodged a report which was treated as F.I.R. (Ext. 1). The two injured persons, namely P.Ws. 1 and 10 were examined medically, on police requisition. The police then registered a case and started investigation and on completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet. On being committed, the accused stood his trial.

(3.) The defence plea is one of denial.