(1.) In disagreement with the findings given and the consequent sentence passed, the appellant, who is the accused in Sessions Case No.306 of 2011 that stood pending on the file of the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, is before this Court.
(2.) Heard Sri S.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who represented the respondent-State.
(3.) Making his submission, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had no intention whatsoever to attack his mother-in-law and cause her death and indeed, the prosecution miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant equally had no intention to attack his wife and his daughter and absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant attempted to kill his wife and his daughter. Learned counsel further contended that even if the version of the prosecution is taken to be true that the appellant hit his mother-in-law with a fire wood stick, the case, at best, would fall within the ambit of Sec. 304 Part-II IPC, but not under Sec. 302 IPC. He also stated that the injured i.e., the wife and the daughter of the appellant, sustained only simple injuries and thus, the case does not fall within the ambit of Sec. 307 IPC, but falls within the ambit of Sec. 323 IPC. Learned counsel referring to Ex.P-9-Scene Observation Report and Ex.P-20-Rough sketch, contended that those documents reveals the presence of kitchen very near to the scene of offence and further, there is convincing material on record to show that the appellant took the stick from that place and hit his mother-in-law, his wife and his daughter and had the appellant carried any intention to kill those persons, he would have reached the scene of offence with a weapon, but he did not do so. Learned counsel finally pleads the Court to revisit the entire evidence and do justice.