The court upheld a murder conviction based on eyewitness testimony, emphasizing intent and premeditation despite hostile witnesses, and ruled that motive was not essential due to strong circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

K.Surender, J.

1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.02.2018, in S.C.No.209 of 2016, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. According to the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the husband and son respectively, of Sonu Bai (deceased). On 07.07.2015, around 7 a.m., while P.W.1 was on his bed and the deceased was sweeping the courtyard of the house, the appellant came there and stabbed her repeatedly with a knife. P.W.2, who is the son of the deceased, went and sought the help of P.W.13. P.W.13 went to the scene and found the appellant stabbing the deceased. On seeing him, the appellant tried to run away. P.W.13 chased the appellant and the appellant was caught around 7:15 a.m. by P.W.16. According to P.W.16, around 7:15 a.m., he found the appellant with a knife, being chased by P.W.13. P.W.16 stopped the appellant and instructed him to keep the knife aside. P.W.13 informed P.W.16 that the appellant had killed a woman with a knife at Putli Bowli.

4. P.W.15 is the police constable, and on receiving the information though VHF set from the interceptor vehicle, he immediately went to the place where P.W.16 was present and found the appellant holding a knife with blood stains on his clothes, and a cut injury on his left hand index finger. The appellant was handed over by the interceptor vehicle to P.W.15 and P.W.15 took the accused into custody along with the knife. Firstly, he was taken to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and then he was taken to the Police Station.

5. P.W.8 is the Inspector of Police. On receiving information, he went to the scene of offence. The appellant was apprehended along with M.O.11/Jambia, the weapon used to assault the deceased. At the scene, P.W.8 collected material objects and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. At the Police Station, during interrogation, the confession was recorded and M.O.11/Jambia (knife) was seized, along with bloodstained wearing apparel of the accused/M.O.12 and M.O.13.

6. The deceased’s body was sent to Osmania General Hospital, where inquest proceedings were concluded. The body was then sent for postmortem examination. P.W.5 is the post mortem Doctor and he found the following injuries:-

“1. Cut injury 3x1.5 cm x muscle deep in front of the right ear.

2. Three abrasions 1x1 cm, 1x1cms, 1x0.5 cms on right side lower part of cheek on mandibular area.

3. Abrasion 1x0.5 cms on lower part of right side of neck.

4. Cut injury 3x1cm x skin deep on outer aspect of left forehead-obliquely placed.

5. Cut injury 2x0.5 cms x cartilage deep on outer part of left ear lobule.

6. Abrasion 1.5x0.5cms on right cheek.

7. Cut injury 7x3 cms x oesophagus deep on lower part of chin on left side of madibular area and below the chin madibular area-it cuts the left side muscles of the neck and then cuts the trachea and oesophagus at their upper part and then touches the superior part of third and fourth cervical vertebrae with the surrounding contusion and left side blood vessels of neck cut off.

8. Cut injury 2x1cm x subcutaneous tissue deep over middle part of the right colar bone area.

9. Cut injury 6x3cms x bone deep on inner aspect of right shoulder and arm