In a criminal case, the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the evidence is insufficient or unreliable, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by A. 1 and A. 2 is from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions judge, Nizamabad, convicting and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200. 00 each in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 34, 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) THERE are four accused in the case before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. A. 1 and A. 2, appellants herein, were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. for committing the murder of the deceased Laxman Rao on 4-8-1990 at 2. 00 a. m. at Padampalli village by beating him with an axe and kammakatti respectively on his head, shoulder and chest. A. 3 and A. 4 were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. for assisting A. 1 and A. 2 in the commission of the offence.

( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : A. 1 proposed to give his daughter in marriage to P. W. 5 Shivkumar who is the brother of A. 2, P. W. 5 was not agreeable to it. P. W. 5 approached the deceased, his cousin, who took initiative in the matter and got the marriage of P. W. 5 performed with one Manik Bai on 11-4-1990 in spite of the opposition of A. 2. Since the date of marriage, A. 1 and A. 2 bore grudge against the deceased and hatched a conspiracy to murder the deceased with the assistance of A. 3 and A. 4. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, A. 3 on 4-8-90 at 2. 00 a. m. went to the house of the deceased and asked him to accompany him on some work. The deceased followed A. 3 to the nearby school building. In the meanwhile, A. 1 armed with an axe and A. 2 armed with a kammakatti (knife) went to the school building and beat the deceased on his head, shoulder, chest and other parts of the body resulting in his instantaneous death. P. Ws. 1 and 2, the brothers of the deceased who came to the mango garden nearby for guarding purpose came to the place of incident on hearing the cries from school building and they identified A. 1 and A. 2 on focussing the battery light and they witnessed the incident. On the next morning i. e. 5-6-90, P. W. 1 went to the Police Station, Madnoor at 11 a. m. and gave Ex. P. 1 complaint to P. W. 9, the Sub-Inspector of Police. On the basis of that, a case in Cr. No. 26 of 1990 under section 302, I. P. C. was registered and Ex. P. 9, F. I. R. was issued. Thereafter, P. W. 9 visited the scene of offence at about 12. 30 p. m. after securing the presence of P. W. 6, a Junior Assistant working in Juker Mandal and another and prepared the inquest report Ex. P. 3 and Exs. P. 4 and P. 5 panchanama of the scene of offence and sketch plan of the incident and seized M. Os. 1 to 3 and examined P. Ws 1, 2 and 4 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by the Civil Asstt. Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Banswada (P. W. 7) and she issued Ex. P. 6 post-mortem certificate opining that the deceased died due to shock due to the injuries. A. 1, A. 3 and A. 4 were arrested on 1-7-90 and A. 2 surrendered before the Court.

( 4 ) IN support of their case, the prosecution has examined P. Ws 1 to 10 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 11. On behalf of the defence, D. W. 1 was examined to prove that there was no motive for the accused to commit the offence and that the marriage of P. W. 5 was performed by him (D. W. 1) only.

( 5 ) A. 1 and A. 2 who were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under section 302, I. P. C. were found guilty basing on the direct testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the evidence of P. W. 3 and the medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life. However, the learned Sessions Judge gave benefit of doubt to A. 3 and A. 4 and acquitted them of the charges. The present appeal has now been filed by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document