KIOTAPALLY PENTAIAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment dtd. 26/9/2014 in S.C.No.64 of 2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, R.R. District.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 alleged to have killed one Heera Bai (herein after referred to as deceased) and thus A-1 and A-2 committed the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 379 IPC. To prove the guilt of accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and also M.Os.1 to 9 on their behalf. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defense. The Trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also the entire evidence on record, convicted A-1 under Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Ss. 302 and 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. Apart from that he was sentenced for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000.00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for the offence under Sec. 379 IPC. A-2 was found guilty under Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sec. 411 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months. The remand period of accused No.2 shall be set off. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A-1 and A-2 preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants/accused contended that there is no eye witness in the case and the entire case of the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, which is not proved by any legal evidence. The Trial Court erred in placing reliance on the highly interested and discrepant testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5. P.Ws.4 and 5 have no acquaintance with the accused and the prosecution did not conduct Test Identification Parade. P.W.1 gave complaint against A-1 on suspicion only. The Trial Court relied upon the alleged confession of the accused before police which is not admissible and some of the gold ornaments were seized at the scene of offence and hence A-1 committed offence for taking gold ornaments is false and the motive for the offence is not proved. The medical evidence falsified the case of the prosecution. The recovery of articles from the accused should not fall under the ambit of Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The sentence given to A-2 is unduly severe. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court.