MIRYALA SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment dtd. 24/6/2015 in S.C.No.388 of 2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that appellant/accused alleged to have killed his son and is alleged that accused committed offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 309 of IPC. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 on their behalf and also marked M.Os.1 to 5. The Trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also the entire evidence on record, convicted the accused under Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one months for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of I.P.C, and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Sec. 309 IPC. The remand period already undergone shall be set of against the imprisonment as per Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said judgment, accused preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that there was no corroboration on material facts in the evidence in the evidence led by prosecution. None of the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.1 to 4 stated that the deceased had breathing problem, now and then he was taken to the hospital for treatment. Even the mother of the deceased who was examined as P.W.9 not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.5 is panch witness for scene of offence and confession has not supported the case of the prosecution and stated that his signatures were obtained and he has not witnessed any proceedings. P.W.1 stated that he has not seen the accused in unconscious state. There is material evidence to show that the door was bolted from inside and it was broke upon and the prosecution failed to prove the material evidence. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court.