IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.

JUDGMENT

A.V. Sesha Sai, J.—Sole accused in S.C.No.226 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Judgment, dated 05.11.2012, rendered in the aforesaid Sessions Case, is under challenge in this appeal. By way of the said judgment, the learned Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

The accused, who is a resident of Venkataraopet, Guntur is the eldest son-in-law of the deceased, one Smt.Kanigiri Polamma, and the deceased owned three terraced houses, one four portioned tiled house and a vacant site of 350 Sq.Yards at Venkataraopet, Guntur. The deceased was blessed with four daughters and son, by name Srinivasa Rao. The daughter of the accused, who is the grand daughter of the deceased, namely Chowdamma, was given in marriage to the said Srinivasa Rao. The deceased gave three terraced houses to her son and retained four portioned tiled house and 350 sq.yards vacant site for herself for giving to her daughters equally at the end of her life. About four years prior to 04.12.2006, the son of the deceased i.e., Srinivasa Rao died due to AIDS after begetting a female child with Chowdamma and since then the said Chowdamma, daughter of the accused, is residing with him. Since then, the accused had been demanding the deceased to give away the four portioned tiled house and vacant site of 350 sq.yards also to his daughter i.e., the daughter-in-law of the deceased, but the deceased resisted the same which made the accused to take a decision to do away with the deceased. In furtherance of the same, at 9.00 p.m., on 04.12.2006, the accused took his Ape Auto AP7 TT 7236 and a knife available in his house and went to the shop of the deceased situated at the house of the deceased in Venkataraopet and had hacked on the right hand of the deceased with the knife, finding fault with the deceased for not giving property to his daughter, and the deceased fell down and raised alarm. P.W.2, daughter of the deceased, and L.W.3 were preparing food in the house of the deceased and L.W.4, who is a tenant in the house of the deceased, came out and noticed that the accused was hacking twice on the head and on the right side of the stomach of the deceased which resulted in bleeding injuries. In the meanwhile, L.Ws.5 to 7, who were not examined during trial, came out of their houses. On noticing the arrival of the said persons, the accused went away from the shop with knife in his Auto. L.Ws.5 to 7 noticed the departure of the accused with blood stained knife in his Auto and the deceased fell unconscious. The accused went home and took two pairs of clothes and had gone to Vijayawada and P.W.2, Rebba Govindamma, M.Kiran, M.Suri Babu shifted the deceased to GGH, Guntur where the deceased gave statement to P.W.8-Head Constable and the Sub-Inspector of Police registered the same as Cr.No.170 of 2006 under Section 307 IPC on the file of the Old Guntur Law & Order Police Station and, on 28.12.2006 at 3.05 a.m., the injured succumbed to injuries in Government General Hospital, Guntur and, on receipt of the death information, the provision of law was altered as Section 302 IPC and the police, after conducting the investigation, filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 apart from M.O.1. On behalf of the defence, accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D6.

5. On the basis of the material available on record, the learned Judge framed the following point for consideration:—

“Whether the prosecution could able to establish charge under