PAMPANA VERRANNA Vs. THE STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in Sessions Case No.296 of 2011 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tanuku, stood trial on the following charges.

(2.) The case of the Prosecution, as unfolded by the charge sheet filed by the Police, is briefly stated hereunder: The accused and Kukkala Naga Suresh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') were the residents of Settibalijapeta, Peravali Village and Mandal. P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant, was the father of the deceased and P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 were the mother, younger sister and younger brother of the deceased. The families of the accused and the deceased being closely related, the accused and the deceased used to move very friendly. The deceased used to visit the house of the accused often. About two years prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased developed illicit intimacy with the wife of the accused. The accused, having come to know about the same, raised a dispute with the deceased and the matter was pacified in the presence of the caste elders i.e., P.W.9 and L.W.11 - Kukkala Nageswara Rao, but the accused could not forget the extra-marital relationship of his wife with the deceased and was very angry against the deceased. After the above incident, the wife of the accused went to Muscat for employment. Two years thereafter, she telephoned to the accused informing that she would return to India within two months. The accused refused for her return due to fear that the deceased might continue illicit intimacy with her, but she did not listen to him. The accused got depressed and became panic thinking that the deceased might yield his wife in his favour if she returns to India and that in such a case, his wife will go away from his life. Therefore, the accused hatched up a plan to do away with the life of the deceased. About four days prior to the incident, the accused went to the house of the deceased, and challenged that he will see the end of the latter. As the deceased was not there, he threatened PW.1 and left the house. Soon after the deceased returned home, PW.1 along with his family members informed him about the challenge of the accused to kill the deceased and asked him to beware of the accused.

(3.) As the appellant pleaded innocence, he was subjected to trial, during which, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 19, got Exs.P-1 to P-14 marked and produced M.Os.1 to 5. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was let in. However, the appellant got Exs.D-1 and D-2 - contradictions in the statements of P.Ws.3 and 9 respectively recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., marked.