KADAMANCHI SRINIVAS Vs. THE STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused aggrieved by the conviction judgment of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet of Medak District in SC.No.29 of 2012 (outcome of PRC.No.46 of 2011 and crime No.43 of 2011 registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC) dtd. 27/8/2013 in finding the accused guilty for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC on the sole charge to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000.00 with default sentence of three months simple imprisonment, maintained the present appeal.

(2.) The contentions in the grounds of appeal vis -vis the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused including from the written arguments submitted are that the conviction judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, the learned Judge went wrong in placing reliance on the so called circumstantial evidence of prosecution witnesses and the trial Judge should have seen that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the chain linking the circumstances not proved by the prosecution and should have acquitted rather than conviction on unsound and unsustainable conclusions apart from no basis to convict for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC solely on the last seen theory of the case solely rested on circumstantial evidence and auto driver or persons concerned with temple are not examined, PW.1- B.Yellagoud did not mention in Ex.P1 presence of PWs.2 and 3 and they are only the planted witnesses later, to support the false case of prosecution and there is a time gap between the occurrence and last seen from said evidence and PWs.4 and 5 evidence is totally hearsay of what allegedly PW.1 informed them. The so called theory of MO.1-cycle and MO-9 blood stained shirt of accused under cover of Exs.P11 and P12 from accused in the presence of PW.9-MGVN Rao and another by the Inspector after arrest of accused is an introduced story and there is nothing to link the accused to the crime with any complicity and thereby sought to set aside the conviction judgment and acquit the accused by allowing the appeal.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor supported the trial Court's conviction judgment on all material aspects with the contentions of for this Court while sitting in the appeal with reasoned conclusions arrived by the trial Court's in finding the guilt for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC in sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with fine no way requires interference in any manner that too when trial Court is fresh in mind of the facts having recorded the evidence and sought for dismissal of the appeal.