TEKULAPALLI KONDAL Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, by his judgment dated 12.04.2012, in S.C.No.301 of 2011, has convicted the accused, Tekulapalli Kondal, for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for allegedly causing the death of his brother-in-law. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, the accused has been sentenced to life imprisonment, and imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, to undergo a simple imprisonment for six months; for the offence under Section 201 IPC, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, imposed with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default, to undergo a simple imprisonment for six months. It was further ordered that both the sentences and default sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.04.2007 at 8:00 a.m., Bashapaka Yellaiah (L.W.1) lodged a report with the Police, Gudipally Police Station stating that on the same day, he found a male dead body aged about 21-22 years on his village outskirts, near by Dubba Thanda, with injuries on his right cheek, head, right leg and blood was oozing from his ear. Basing on the said report, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudipally (P.W.9), registered a criminal case, namely Crime No.46 of 2007, for offence under Section 304(A) IPC. During the course of investigation by subsequent Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudipally (P.W.12), it has been elicited that the accused is the second son-in-law of the parents of the deceased (Ganaboina Ramalingaiah). The accused was working as a Cleaner of a lorry and married Alivelu, the sister of the deceased. Not satisfied with the dowry given to him in the marriage, the accused used to demand from his parents-in-law i.e., Ganaboina Peddulu (P.W.2) and Ganaboina Narsamma (P.W.3) to convey their part of land in his favour. When Ganaboina Peddulu (P.W.2) and Ganaboina Narsamma (P.W.3) refused the request of the accused on the ground that the land is for their son (deceased), the accused decided that until the deceased is alive, he cannot get the land. Accordingly, he hatched a plan and went to the house of the deceased on 20.04.2007 and asked the deceased to sleep with him at the thrashing floor to watch the paddy. While the accused and deceased were proceeding to the agricultural fields of the accused, Naini Srinivasa Rao (L.W.8) saw them and enquired them as to where they were proceeding. After reaching the agricultural fields, the accused and deceased laid their blankets and fell asleep beside the paddy. While the deceased was sleeping, the accused picked up a boulder and gave blows with it on the chest of the deceased, due to which, the deceased died. Thereafter, the accused wrapped the dead body with the blankets, shifted the corpse, and laid it by the side of road near Dubba Thanda, which is located near his agricultural fields. The accused threw the blood stained blankets by wrapping them with boulder. He threw the blankets into the SLBC canal which is passing through the vicinity of the agricultural lands of the accused. On the next day, when Ganaboina Peddulu (P.W.2) and Ganaboina Narsamma (P.W.3), the parents of the deceased, enquired about their son, the accused told them that their son had already left for Polkampally village to meet his friends by borrowing Rs.50/- from him. Therefore, Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudipally (P.W.12) altered section of law to Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Thereafter, K.Manohar (P.W.11) took over further investigation in the matter. He arrested the accused on 01.05.2007, and recorded his confessional statement. The accused was put up for trial.

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