METLAKUNTA RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment dtd. 19/10/2015 in S.C.No.446 of 2013 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak, Sangareddy.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that appellant/accused No.1 alleged to have killed the deceased and is alleged that accused committed offences punishable under Sec. 302 and of IPC. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 on their behalf and also marked M.Os.1 to 9. The Trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also the entire evidence on record, convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of I.P.C, and acquitted the accused No.2 under Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A.1 preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/A.1 mainly contended that there is no direct evidence against A.1, but on the same incident, accused No.2 was acquitted and also stated that suspicion is not a sufficient proof for the offence. The Sub-Inspector/Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses till 10/9/2013. There is no legal evidence to convict A.1 and lacks credibility and truthfulness. P.W.3, in his evidence stated that due to disputes between deceased and A.1, they were living separately. There is no evidence to show that deceased was living separately with A.1. From the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it shows that there is no corroborative evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, but still the Trial Court erred in passing the conviction basing on their evidence and erstwhile M.Os.2 to 5 are not proved. P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 9 are not blood relatives. The Trial Court even though failed to appreciate the motive of the offence and material objects, convicted the appellant/A.1. P.W.1 clearly stated that she came to know that deceased No.1 developed illicit intimacy with A.1. The prosecution failed to establish the finger prints of the appellants. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court.