Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Sanjay Kumar and Dr. Shameem Akther, JJ.
Konakala Ramakrishna @ Ramu
and Ors. —Appellants
versus
State of A.P. rep. by its Public
Prosecutor —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2011
Decided on 22.9.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 326 and 324/149—Six accused-appellants convicted for murder of D1 and D2, father and son and for causing grevious hurt to PW8 and injury to other prosecution witness—Conviction on testimony of eyewitnesses and injured witnesses—Appeal—A5 had been got married to D2 about four years prior to incident as they had fallen in love—By the date of incident A5 was expelled from matrimonial home and was residing with her parents A1 and A2—A1 to A5 on the date of incident armed with weapons axe, crowbar, toddy tapper knife and stick entered into the house of D1 and D2 and A6 sprinkled chilly powder in eyes of D1 and D2 and A to A5 attacked them with their weapons—PW8, other son of D1, came to scene of offence and A1 and A2 attacked him and accused fled from village—Appeal—Cross FIR was registered by A5 u/ss 324, 354 and 506 IPC—Incident though occurred at 10 a.m., FIR in murder case was received by Magistrate at 8.50 p.m. on the date of incident but cross FIR which was registered at 12.30 p.m. on same day was received by Magistrate on next day at 1.30 p.m.—Prosecution case was fraught with inconsistencies and weaknesses—Fundamental defect was its failure to present the origin and genesis of occurrence in its full and true form—PW1 to PW5 and PW8 eyewitnesses account was unworthy of credence—Benefit of doubt deserved to be given and conviction was liable to be set aside.
(Paras 30, 31, 36, 37, 44 and 45)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar, J.—This appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC is directed against the judgment dated 21.02.2011 passed by the learned Family Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam in Sessions Case No.560 of 2008. By the said judgment, the Sessions Court held A1 to A5 guilty under Section 148 IPC; A1 and A5 were held guilty under Section 302 IPC for the murder of M.Sheshulu (D1); A2 to A4 were also held guilty under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of D1; A1 to A4 were found guilty under Section 302 IPC for the murder of M.Venkata Satyanarayana (D2), the son of D1; A3 and A5 were held guilty under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon to Mareedu Srinivasa Rao (P.W.8); A1, A2 and A4 were held guilty under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC for having caused hurt with a dangerous weapon to Mareedu Srinivasa Rao (P.W.8); and A5 was acquitted of the charge under Section 427 IPC. Pursuant to the aforestated convictions, the following sentences were imposed by the Sessions Court:
A1 to A5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for their conviction under Section 148 IPC; A1 and A5 were sentenced to imprisonment for life apart from paying a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each, for their conviction under Section 302 IPC in so far as the murder of D1 was concerned; A2 to A4 were sentenced to imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each, for their conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of D1; A1 to A4 were sentenced to imprisonment for life and payment of a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of which they were to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each, for their conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murder of D2; A3 and A5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each apart from payment of a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of which they were to undergo imprisonment for two months each, for their conviction under Section 326 IPC; A1, A2 and A4 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year each for their conviction under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. Aggrieved by the convictions and sentences visited upon them, A1 to A5 are in appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was as under:
“The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalluru Police Station (P.W.14), received Ex.P1 report from P.W.1 on 28.02.2007 at about 12.00 noon. He thereupon registered a case in Crime No.24 of 2007 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Ex.P30 is the printed FIR. He sent the injured to the Government Hospital, Sathupalli. The Circle Inspector of Police, Sathupalli (P.W.15), thereupon took up investigation. He examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1. He visited the scene of the offence and having secured the presence of mediators, P.W.9 and Venukonda Koteswar Rao (L.W.14), he observed the scene of the offence and drew up a rough sketch, in their presence. Ex.P2 is the Crime Details Form along with the sketch of the scene. He seized blood-stained earth and controlled earth from the scene of the offence and conducted an inquest over the body of D1 in the presence of P.W.9 and Venukonda Koteswar Rao (L.W.14) from 1.15 PM to 3.45 PM. During the inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 to 5, Mareedu Venkatakrishna (L.W.6), P.W.6 and P.W.7. He then conducted an inquest over the body of D2 in the presence of P.W.9 and Venukonda Koteswar Rao (L.W.14). He got the scene of the offence and the dead bodies photographed by P.W.10. He also recorded the statement of P.W.10 to this effect. He then forwarded the bodies of D1 and D2 to Penuballi Government Hospital for post-mortem examination. He examined P.W.8, Anabothu Seethamma (L.W.10) and Naidu K
