AMOS THAMONG Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), having been sentenced to life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.200/- and directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in default thereof, having been aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.06.2013 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in S.C.No.421 of 2010, the appellant, Amos Thamong, has approached this court.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.05.2010 at about 5:00 pm., Raju Thapa (P.W.5) came to Raidurgam Police Station and lodged a complaint (Ex. P.5) stating that his brother-inlaw, Milan Thapa, is working as Assistant Cook in Ultimate Hospital Service at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, and staying at Badderabasthi, Rajeevnagar, for the last four years with his friends Bishal (L.W.3), Yuvaraj Rana (P.W.1) and Deva (L.W.4). On 10.05.2010 at about 10:00 am., he was informed by Bishal (L.W.3) that on 09.05.2010 at 11:30 pm., the accused came to their room at Vaddarabasthi and after some time, Milan Thapa (deceased) and the accused left the room. At about 3:00 am., the Milan Thapa returned to the room with stab injuries and collapsed. When he was asked about the injuries by Yuvaraj Rana (P.W.1), he informed that he was stabbed by the accused. The deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. When Raju Thapa (P.W.5) came to know about the incident, he rushed to Vaddarabasthi, and enquired about the incident. He came to know that due to previous enmity, the accused attacked the deceased with a knife. Basing on the said complaint (Ex. P.5), the Inspector of Police, Raidurgam (P.W.6), registered a case in Crime No.136 of 2010 for offence under Section 302 IPC. During the course of investigation, Inspector of Police, Raidugram (P.W.6) examined the witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama, inquest panchanama, apprehended the accused, and sent the accused to Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

(3.) In order to support its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, exhibited eight documents, and produced six material objects. After appreciating the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated. Hence, the present appeal.