DIDDIKADI SRINIVAS Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals, namely Crl.A.Nos.1186 of 2014 and 580 of 2015, arise from the same impugned judgment, namely judgment dated 05.11.2014, in S.C.No.10 of 2012, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the learned Judge has convicted both the appellants for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentenced each of them to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC, imposed them with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each; for the offence under Section 201 IPC, sentenced each of them to seven years, and imposed them with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) In a nutshell the story of the prosecution is that on 17.08.2011 around 11:30 AM, Mr. Diddikadi Pedda Narsimulu (P.W.1) lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1) with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mohammadabad Police Station, wherein he claimed that his elder son, Diddikadi Ramulu, went to the farm on 16.08.2011 at night, but did not come back home at night. On 17.08.2011, his son was found dead with small injuries on his body under suspicious circumstances. He suspected that Diddikadi Anjilamma-accused No.1, his daughter-in-law, may have caused his death. Therefore, he requested that proper action should be taken against her. On the basis of the said complaint (Ex.P.1), a formal FIR (Ex.P.13), namely FIR.No.74 of 2011, was chalked out under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for suspicious death. Subsequently, after the confession of Diddikadi Anjilamma, accused No.1, the offence was altered from one under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to one under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Thereafter, both the appellants, accused Nos.1 and 2, were arrested by the police; they were put up for trial.

(3.) In order to support its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, submitted fifteen documents, and produced five material objects. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution, and as no evidence was produced by the defence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced both the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, these two appeals.