JUDGMENT :

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Accused No. 2 and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

2. Accused No.2 in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, is the Appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’], while Accused No. 1, 3 and 4 were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 109 read with 302 of I.P.C. By its Judgment, dated 29.10.2015, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of the offences punishable under Sections 109 read with 302 of I.P.C., convicted Accused No.2 alone for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Accused No. 2 was also convicted under Section 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The gravamen of the charge against the Accused is that, on 05.09.2011 at about 9.00 p.m. night, while Thandra Papa Rao [‘deceased’] was proceeding from Kotha Road junction towards Akkivaram village by walk, Accused No.2 is said to have stabbed the deceased and killed him. It is said that, Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have aided Accused No. 2 in killing the deceased.

4. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under :

i) PW1 is the Son and PW2 & PW4 are Brothers of the deceased, while PW3 is the Mother of Accused No. 2.

ii) Accused No. 2 was working as a Constable in Border Security Force in Jammu and Kashmir State and as PW3 was not well, he came to see her and, thereafter, the family members did not send him back and, as such, he was removed from service.

iii) The family members of the deceased had Ac. 6.00 cents of land. PW1 claims to have cashew nut tope by the side of Nagavali River in their Village and there were sand heaps by the side of their tope in Nagavali River. It is said that, the Accused used to lift the sand illegally during night time and sell the same to lorry drivers. When the deceased, who is the father of PW1 obstructed the Accused and tried to prevent them from lifting the sand from the reach, which was by the side of their tope, disputes arose between them.

iv) It is said that, frequent quarrels took place between both of them. Representations were sent by the deceased to the higher officials i.e., Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, against the Accused. On the complaints of the deceased, the Vigilance officials and Mandal Revenue Officer seized the sand collected by the Accused, which was auctioned by the Government for Rs.8,86,000/-.

v) It is said that, on 05.05.2011, Accused No. 2 beat PW1 at his house, suspecting that PW1 has taken away his cell-phone. When the Mother of PW1 intervened, she was also beaten. On that a complaint was given in the Police Station. The request of Accused No. 2 for compromise was refused by the deceased. For the aforesaid reasons, Accused No. 2 along with other Accused, bore grudge against the deceased.

vi) On 05.09.2011, the deceased left his house stating that, he is going to Mandal Revenue Office, Amadalavalasa, on work. PW1 and other family members waited for him till 8.30 or 9.00 p.m., but the deceased did not return. On that night, at about 9.30 or 9.45 p.m., Accused No. 2 in drunken state came and went inside his house by limping. As it was the habit of the deceased to return to house two or three days later whenever he leaves the house, PW1 and other inmates of the house did not bother to enquire on that day. But, however, on the next day morning, they enquired, but to no avail.

vii) On 08.09.2011 at a