JUDGMENT:

The convict filed this Criminal Appeal under Section

374(2) of Cr.P.C questioning the correctness of judgment dated 29.10.2015 of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mangalagiri in S.C.No.295 of 2014. By the impugned judgment, the sole appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 307 IPC and 365 IPC. Towards punishment for the offence under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months. Towards punishment and under Section 365 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 months. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge directed both the substantive sentences to run concurrently without mentioning the remand period he underwent, a direction for setting off the period of detention was ordered in terms of Section 428 CrPC.

2. State is the respondent and on its prosecution, the appellant was tried and was convicted and was punished.

3. Learned counsel for appellant Sri.Dr.Majji.Suri Babu submitted oral arguments and also submitted a brief note of arguments. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the state submitted oral arguments.

4. Point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the evidence on record has not established the guilt of the accused/appellant for the offences under Section 307 and 365 IPC beyond reasonable doubt but the learned trial Court on erroneous appreciation of the evidence recorded the conviction and inflicted the punishment requiring interference?”

POINT:-

Cr.No.170 of 2013 was investigated into and resulted in filing of a charge sheet by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tadikonda Police Station. The charge sheet was filed as against five accused who were arrayed as A1 to A5. The charge sheet was laid before learned Magistrate where it was registered as PRC.No.60 of 2013. On securing the presence of accused and after furnishing copies of documents and after hearing both sides, learned Magistrate, acting in terms of Section 209 CrPC, committed the case to the Court of sessions. The case was numbered as S.C.No.295 of 2014 and was made over to learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mangalagiri (Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri).

5. After hearing both sides, learned Assistant Sessions Judge adopted the procedure prescribed under Chapter 18 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/procedure for trial before a Court of Session. After hearing both sides, relevant charges were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The first charge is under Section 307 read with 34 IPC as against A1 to A5 and the second charge is under Section 365 read with 34 IPC as against A1 to A5. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1to8 and got marked Exs.P1toP12 and MOs.1to4. Defence cross-examined all the witnesses. Incriminating evidence was offered to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C seeking their explanations and they denied the truth of the entire evidence. On being invited to enter the defence evidence, all the accused reported no evidence on their behalf. After hearing arguments on both sides and after scrutiny of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court found A2 to A5 not guilty for all the charges and accordingly it acquitted them of all the charges. It found A1 guilty for both the charges. After affording an opportunity of hearing on the quantum and nature of sentence, learned Assistant Sessions Judge sentenced A1 as indicated earlier. It is that judgment which is assailed here in this appeal.

7. The grounds urged in this appeal:

• That the evidence on record is discrepant.

• According to prosecution version Sri Alla Hanumantha Rao is a crucial witness for several material facts but the prosecution never examined him as a witness.

• The medical evidence did not match with the ocular eviden