JUDGMENT :

C.Praveen Kumar, J.

The present Criminal Appeal came to be filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the conviction and sentenced imposed in Sessions Case No.165 of 2014 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

2. The sole accused herein was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Vide judgment, dated 29.06.2015, the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

3. The graveman of the charge levelled against the accused is that on 17.04.2014, at about 01.30 p.m., in Lankalapallipalem Village, the accused hacked one Nakkana Appanna (hereinafter, referred to as “the deceased”) with a knife near his neck causing bleeding injuries leading to his death.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. P.W.2 is the younger brother of P.W.1 and one Bangaramma is his mother. P.W.3, who is a resident of Resupeta Village of Poosapatirega Mandal, toddy tapper by profession, knows the deceased and P.W.1. On the date of incident i.e., on 17.04.2014, at about 1.00 p.m., in the afternoon, P.W.1 and the deceased were guarding sheep in the fields of one Somanna. At that time, P.W.3 came there. The accused, who was present there, requested P.W.3 to provide him with some toddy. On that, P.W.3 informed the accused that toddy was not available. On that, the accused climbed the toddy tree of P.W.3 and started cutting the palmyra leaves. At that point of time, P.W.3 came to deceased and requested him and P.Ws.4 and 5 to intervene and reprimand the accused, as the accused was unnecessarily cutting the palmyra leaves. Then, the deceased and the above two persons requested the accused to come down and also questioned him as to why he is cutting the palmyra leaves. The accused got down from the palmyra tree and shouted at the deceased as to what business he has to reprimand him. On accused making such comment, the deceased came back to the place where they were guarding the sheep. Then, the accused is said to have followed the deceased abusing him on the ground that the deceased supported P.W.3 instead of supporting the accused, who belongs to same caste. So saying, the accused tried to hack the deceased with a knife, which was warded of with a stick. The said stick was cut into two pieces. Thereafter, the accused came upon the deceased to assault him. On that, the deceased, with a broken stick, beat on the head of the accused. At that point of time, the accused hacked the deceased forcibly on the right side of the neck. Seeing the same, P.W.1 intervened to save his father. The accused also tried to hack P.W.1 with a knife, which was warded off by putting a stick across. The said stick was cut into two pieces. Seeing the attitude of the accused, P.W.1 ran away raising cries. P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 rushed towards the scene and on seeing them coming towards him, the accused ran away. P.W.1 informed about the incident to his younger brother on telephone. On that, his relatives came and then, all of them along with V.R.O. (P.W.8) proceeded to the police station and lodged a report before P.W.10 – Sub Inspector of Police. Ex.P-1 is the Report. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.71 of 2014 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P-8 is the F.I.R.

P.W.10, who proceeded to the scene of offence, took photographs of the scene.

P.W.11 – Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation, proceeded to the scene of offence and received a copy of the F.I.R. At the scene, he prepared a scene observation report with the help of P.W.8. Ex.P-4 is the Scene Observation Report and Ex.P-10 is the Rough Sketch of the scene. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.7. Ex.P-3 is the Inquest Report. At the time of inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and record