RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor at the admission stage.

( 2 ) THE accused-respondent was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian penal Code in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1997 tried by the learned Sessions Judge, nizamabad.

( 3 ) ON evidence, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused- respondent under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code, but held that the charge under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was proved. Therefore, the accused-respondent was acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two years.

( 4 ) THE State of Andhra Pradesh felt aggrieved in not convicting the accused- respondent for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, filed the present appeal.

( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has taken us through the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court held that it has been the case of the prosecution that the accused-respondent had purchased

Click Here to Read the rest of this document