The accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when witness testimonies are inconsistent and unreliable, leading to a lack of credible evidence for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

(Sambasiva Rao Naidu, J.)

1. This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the sole accused in SC. No. 605 of 2010 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. This appeal has been filed under Section 74(2) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the judgment and conviction recorded by the trial Court dated 10-07-2012 by the trial Court, where under, the appellant herein was convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment of fine to undergo further Simple Imprisonment of Six months.

2. As could be seen from the impugned judgment, it appears that the appellant herein was tried before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal in SC. No. 605 of 2010 with an allegation that he has committed an offence under Section 302 of IPC. However, after the trial, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. However, held that the evidence placed before the Court proved the guilt of appellant for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC, accordingly, convicted him under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. with the sentence as referred above.

3. As per the charge sheet filed by the respondent/complainant, it was alleged that one Palleboina Ramesh (herein after will be referred as 'deceased') and appellant herein were brothers and sons of one Palleboina Mallamma, who was examined as PW.5 before the trial Court. Palleboina Ilamma, who was examined as PW.1 is the wife, PWs. 2 and 3 namely Anusha and Akhila were the children of the deceased.

4. The prosecution has alleged that on 27-04-2010, PW.1 had been to Odela to attend Mallanna Jathara for offering the prayer and on her return from Jathara on 28-04-2010 and when she reached the house at about 4.00 p.m., she found a mob of villagers near her house. When she rushed to the place, she found the dead body of her husband in front of the house of Kandi Sammaiah with stab injuries on his body. When she caused enquiry, she came to know from his another brother-in-law by name Sammaiah that at about 3.30 p.m., the children of PW.1 and deceased were playing in front of the house of LW.5 Palleboina Sammaiah, the accused abused them, thereby, his mother i.e., PW.5 intervened and questioned him as to why he was abusing the children, thereby, accused started scolding his mother in filthy language. The deceased who is no other than the brother of accused and son of PW.5 intervened and questioned his brother as to why he was abusing their mother in such a filthy language. Therefore, the accused went into his house, brought a knife and stabbed him on his chest and left side armpit due to which he died on the spot. PW.1 having come to know about the incident, went to police station, Parkal and presented a report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was examined as PW.12. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No. 85/2010 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC has been registered and the same was investigated by the Inspector of Police, Parkal, who was examined as PW.11 before the trial Court.

5. The prosecution has claimed that during the course of his investigation, PW.11 visited the scene of offence, secured the independent mediators, who were examined as PW.6 and PW.10, conducted a panchanama at the scene of offence and seized the blood stained earth and control earth from the scene of offence. After completing the other investigation including the preparation of a rough sketch at the scene of offence, obtaining photographs and conducting inquest etc., the dead body was referred for post-mortem examination. The accused herein was arrested by PW.11 on 05-05-2010 and he was interrogated in the presence of two mediators. PW.8, one Sampath and accused said to have co