THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.184 of 2019

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 06.12.2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad in S.C.No.233 of 2014, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Smt. D. Madhavi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as Smt. Shalini Sakena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. The trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court failed to see that the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of IPC are not made out by the prosecution and failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 and they are none other than the parents and the brother of the deceased. According to them, the deceased informed about the alleged harassment made by the appellant. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge should have seen that after the death of the deceased the prosecution has come forward with an allegation against the accused that he was addicted to alcohol and harassed the deceased for the first time. He further submitted that the evidence on record is not corroborating with each other and the material witnesses are turned hostile. The evidence of P.W.3 who is the son of the deceased and the accused, turned hostile. Even though, he turned hostile, his evidence was considered by the trial Court which is against the settled principles of law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment by acquitting the accused.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed stating that there is ample evidence on record to prove the accusation against the appellant. Evidence of witnesses is corroborating with each other. Though P.W.3 not supported the case and declared as hostile, chief examination of P.W.3 supports the prosecution case with regard to the occurrence of incident on the alleged date of incident. PWs.1 to 4 evidences are sufficient to prove the motive for commission of offence. As such, there are no infirmities in the judgment of the trial Court and there are no merits in the appeal and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, they examined PWs.1 to 18 and Exs.P1 to P17 are marked. Basing on the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused/appellant.

7. The facts of the case are that on 12.06.2014 at about 08:00 A.M., the de-facto complainant i.e., Dasari Bohajanna went to Police Station and lodged complaint stating that he performed the marriage of his younger daughter by name Vijaya (deceased) with the accused, he was addicted to alcohol, not attending any work and was quarrelling with his daughter. On 11.06.2014, his daughter went to field work and returned home lately. Due to tiredness, she could not prepare food. Thereupon, the accused picked up a quarrel with her, beat her with hands and throttled her to death. The same was informed to him by Sarpanch on phone and he was further informed to the deceased father that his daughter was admitted in Government hospital, Bhainsa and therefore, he requested necessary action against the accused. On that, the Police, Kuntala registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The Police examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and conducted scene of offence, inquest panchnama and handed over the dead body. After completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet against the accused.

8. To prove the same, the evidence on record is P.W.1-de-facto complainant, father of the deceased and PWs.2 to 5 are mother of the decease