M.SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused of Crime No.18 of 2012 of Khammam III Town P.S., registered on the report of Marri Anjali Devi, daughter of the deceased and accused, who subsequently died, dated 20.02.2012, at about 07:00 p.m. from the Police final report completing the investigation in P.R.C. No.20 of 2012 taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. by the learned committal Magistrate, from which the case committed to the Court of Session, allotted Sessions Case No.285 of 2012 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam. After framing of the charge for the said offence and when explained the accused since pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried put to trial and after trial, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 and Exs.P-1 to P-11 and M.Os.1 to 4, with no independent defence evidence, convicted the accused by judgment, dated 14.08.2013, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-, without mention of default sentence, mistakenly, and by impugning the same, present Appeal is filed by the accused with the contentions in the grounds of Appeal vis- ?-vis the submissions by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that, the trial Court's conviction judgment is contrary to law, weight of evidence, and probabilities of the case; failed to observe that there is no direct evidence to the prosecution case; failed to see that there is no evidence to say accused harassed the deceased; failed to see that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies and not reliable, failed to see that the M.O.1 is planted by creating a so called confession under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the conviction is un-sustainable and the trial Judge also did not properly consider the factum of the prosecution evidence speaks the accused was intoxicated and there is no proof regarding the quarrels and no motive and material witnesses not examined and to show the alleged quarrels and disputes between the couple (accused and deceased), no previous reports and registration of crimes, if any, filed, and thereby there is no case within the meaning of Section 300 I.P.C. to attract the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and thereby sought for setting-aside conviction judgment and to acquit the accused by allowing the Appeal.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor supported the trial Court's judgment saying the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 categorical about the deceased with axe fleeing away, even PW.1 tried to catch hold of him but in vain, when he is fleeing away after killing the deceased with the axe from the accused and that evidence is consistent, no other than the children of the deceased and accused, and in the cross- examination there is nothing to say any motive for their false implication of the father, the accused, but for truth and the evidence of P.W.3 is otherwise consistent with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 supra and it is corroborated by the other evidence on record including the medical evidence and on the axe human blood is detected as per the Ex.P-11 - R.F.S.L. report by the scientific examiner and P.M.E. report also correlates the possibility of the injuries by use of M.O.1 - axe i.e., deposed by P.W.7, the doctor, and thereby for this Court there is nothing to interfere either with the conviction judgment or the quantum of sentence including the fining for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

(3.) Heard both sides at length and perused the entire material on record.