JUDGMENT (Per D.S.R. Varma, J.)

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

2. Appellant is the sole accused in the Sessions Case.

3. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the sole accused, is directed against the judgment, dated 6-12-2006, passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, in Sessions Case NO.1 06 of 2006, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity "IPC") and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2001-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the accused is the son and one Badnaik Nageswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased")is the grand-son (daughter's son) of P.W. 1; that the accused wanted to give his eldest daughter by name Sumithra, in marriage to the deceased for which the deceased did not agree; that, on the fateful day, the accused went to the house of the deceased and raised the topic of the marriage of his daughter with the deceased, for which the deceased did not agree as he was of the opinion that the accused was not a person of good character, upon which the accused grew wild and beat the deceased with a stone on the backside of his head, due to which the deceased had fell down and died instantly; that, at that point of time, P.W. 1 was present; that, on the next day, P.W. 1 gave a report, under Ex. P-1, to the police, Arukuvalley and that after completion of all the formalities, police laid the charge sheet.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-21, in addition to M.Os. 1 to 4, on its behalf. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

6. The Court below, having considered the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him, as stated above.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

7. Now, the point that arises for consideration, in this Criminal Appeal, is - as to whether the Court below has rightly appreciated the material on record in arriving at the conclusion that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased and liable for punishment for the offence under Section 302 IPC?

8. Except the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 8 and the report, under Ex. P-1, the other' evidence on record, either oral or documentary, is not very relevant. Hence, the same is not being referred to for the purpose of this Criminal Appeal.

9. P. W. 1, who is no other than the mother of the accused, stated that the deceased was her grand-son (Daughter's son); that the accused is herson; that the accused has four daughters and two sons; that the accused wanted to give in marriage his eldest daughter to the deceased, to which the deceased did not agree; that having got enraged the outright rejection by the deceased, the accused gave a blow with a stone on the backside of the head ofthe deceased, due to which he fell down and died on the spot. She further asserted that she affixed her thumb impression on the report, under Ex. P-1, given to the police and it was she who got the same drafted.

10. Except the above evidence, nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 to demolish her testimony, on all material aspects.

11. P.W. 2 is a neighbour of P.W. 1. He spoke in the same manner as was spoken to by P.W. 1.

12. The only thing that was found by the Court below was that P.W. 1 did not state, in her evidence, about the presence of P.W. 2, nor it was stated at the earliest point of time i.e., in the report, under Ex. P-1.

13. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document