GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J.

( 1 ) THE sole accused, who was tried in sessions Case No. 124 of 2002 on the file of the Court of HI Additional Sessions Judge, fast Track Court, Cuddapah, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 182, 194 and 211 IPC, is the appellant in Crl. Appeal no. 1290 of 2002. The learned Sessions Judge having held the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him sentenced him to suffer the extreme penalty of death for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He also convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 194 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The learned sessions Judge also convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 211 ipc and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He ordered that all the sentences should run concurrently. The record has been transmitted to this court for confirmation of the death sentence imposed against the accused as required under Section366cr. P. C Hence, the Referred trial. As the referred trial and the criminal appeal arose out of one and the same sessions case, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE substance of the charge against the appellant herein is that on the intervening night of 11/12-9-2001, the appellant committed the murder of his own daughter by name Prasanna, aged about 3 years, and gave false information to the police as if one d. Suryanarayana (who is examined as p. W. 7) committed the said offence.

( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the appellant herein is also an accused in another sessions Case i. e. , S. CNo. 363/1999 wherein the said D. Suryanarayana (P. W. 7) is one of the witnesses. Although the appellant tried for compromise, as P. W. 7 did not agree for the same, the appellant bore grudge against him and was waiting for an opportunity to wreak vengeance against him. Be that as it may, on the intervening night of 11 /12-9-2001 i. e. , in the wee hours of 12-9-2001, the appellant took the deceased to the bushes situated on eastern side of the road near maddimadugu village and murdered her by inflicting multiple injuries with a sickle on her head. Subsequently, he placed a notebook (M. O. 2), pancha (M. O. 3) and a photograph of P. W. 7 (MO. 1) near the dead body of the deceased to create an impression as if P. W. 7 committed the said offence. In the morning i. e. , on 13-9-2001, the appellant along with one M. Purushottam Reddy, the landlord under whom the appellant was working as a farm servant (examined as P. W. 2), came to c. K. Dinne Police Station at about 12. 30 p. m. and submitted a report (Ex. P-1 ).

( 4 ) IN Ex. P-1 report it was alleged that the daughter of the accused was kidnapped by p. W. 7. The S. I. of Police, C. K. Dinne Police station (examined as P. W. 11) registered the same as F. I. R. (Ex. P-7) and sent copies of the same to all the concerned. On the same day in the evening, the appellant again went to the polite station along with P. W. 2 and informed the police that the dead body of the deceased was traced and that he was suspecting the involvement of P. W. 7. Basing on the said report, the S. I. of Police (P. W. 11) altered the F. I. R. and the altered F. I. R. is ex. P-17. M. Os. 1 to 3 were seized under ex. P-8 report on 13-9-2001.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER on 14-9-2001, the Inspector of Police, Cuddapah (examined as P. W. 13) took up investigation from P. W. 11 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 7. 00 a. m. to 10. 00 a. m. in the presence of P. Ws. 8 and 9. Ex. P-4 is the inquest report. A rough sketch of the scene of offence (marked as Ex. P-12) was also prepared. A ready made gown and plastic bangles were seized from the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination.

( 6 ) THE Civil Assistant Surgeon, government Hospital, Cuddapah (examined as P. W. 10), conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document