The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

K. Lakshman, J.

Heard Mrs. G. Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.1 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 29.11.2019 in S.C. No.56 of 2019 passed by learned Principal & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to ‘trial Court’).

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant - accused No.1 for the charges under Sections - 302 and 506 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the charge under Section - 302 of IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two (02) years for the charge under Section - 506 of IPC. However, learned trial Court acquitted him and accused No.2 for charges Section - 302 read with 34 of IPC and Section - 506 read with 34 of IPC.

4. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

i) Mekala Ramaswamy - deceased belongs to Mala by caste and resident of Thungathurthy Village of Kethepally Mandal. He is eking out his livelihood by doing agriculture. He is also caste elder in the village. He has two (02) wives, namely Prameela and Rakela, respectively. LW.1 - complainant is the son of first wife.

ii) Accused No.1 was addicted to bad habits and used to quarrel with his wife - Kalamma, as such, his wife was living separately with her parents since last six (06) years. The deceased being caste elder conducted mediation between them. Pursuant to the mediation, accused No.1 and his wife started living together.

iii) Even then, accused No.1 did not change his attitude and, therefore, his wife started living separately, whereas accused No.1 was residing at Hyderabad by doing mechanic work.

iv) While so, accused No.1 approached the deceased and requested to mediate between him and his wife, for which the deceased refused by saying that he would not change his attitude. Due to such refusal, accused No.1 developed enmity towards the deceased.

v) In pursuance of such enmity, on 10.10.2017 at about 10.30 hours, while the deceased was at the house of Merugu Narsamma (PW.4), accused No.1 and his Aunt’s son - Mr.Nama Kotaiah (accused No.2) came on a motorcycle and called the deceased on the road. Then, accused No.1 attacked with a big knife, while accused No.2 attacked with a small knife on the deceased and inflicted injuries inhumanly on the hands, face, ribs, due to which, the deceased died on the spot.

5. On receipt of report (Ex.P15) from LW.1, son of the deceased, PW.15 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Kethepally Police Station registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2017 on 10.10.2017 for the offences under Sections - 302 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and issued Ex.P14 - FIR.

i) LW.18 - the doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.12 and LW.15. On completion of investigation, PW.16 - Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet against the appellant herein and accused No.2. Since the offences are triable by Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Court which was taken on file as S.C. No.56 of 2019 and proceeded with trial.

6. The trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections - 302, 302 read with 34, 506 and 506 read with 34 of IPC against both the accused.

7. During trial, PWs.1 to 18 were examined, Exs.P1 to P17 were marked and MOs.1 to 14 were also exhibited. The accused neither let in oral evidence nor exhibited any documents on his behalf.

8. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the acc