THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1013 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

(PER HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA)

This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.05.2019 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, in S.C.No.123 of 2017 wherein, the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989’). For offence under Section 307 of IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for life. For offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred Only) I.D.S.I. for one month.

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused is unmarried and is having illegal intimacy with the victim – Smt Era Venkatamma (LW.2). Both of them used to go to the labour work together. When LW.2 started avoiding the accused and was also unwilling to talk to him and was closely moving with another person, the accused got annoyed and suspected her character and hatched a plan to eliminate her and was waiting for opportunity. On 21.07.2015 LW.2 came to Tandur Village for attending labour work and then went to Antharam Village for attending labour work at LW.3 – Mohd Rafiq Ahmed’s scrap shop. After completing her work, while she was returning to her village at about 17:00 hours, the accused picked up quarrel with her and stabbed her with knife on the right side of stomach, due to which she received bleeding injuries.

3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and got marked MO.1. On behalf of accused/appellant, none were examined and no documents were marked.

4. Basing on the evidence on record and after hearing submissions from either side, the trial Court convicted the accused, as stated supra.

5. Though legal aid counsel is appointed to represent the appellant/accused, no arguments are advanced on behalf of appellant/accused. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent – State.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused and there are no infirmities in the judgment of the Trial Court, as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.

7. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and marked MO.1.

 PW.1 is the de facto complainant and the husband of the victim. He deposed that he is having two wives and the victim is his second wife. His first wife is Mallamma with whom he has two sons and one daughter. His second wife is the victim (LW.2) with whom he has two daughters. About three years back LW.2 went to attend coolie work and he got a phone call from LW.2 who informed him that while returning from work, the accused picked up quarrel with her and stabbed with knife on her right side stomach and she received bleeding injuries. On the same day at night he lodged complaint before the Police, Tandur.

 PW.2 is the victim. She deposed that on the day of incident at about 06:00 P.M., while she was returning from work, the accused came to the scrap shop in Antaram Village and picked up quarrel with her as she was not attending work along with him and then the accused stabbed her with knife on the right side of stomach as a result of which she fell unconscious and by her co-labourers, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Tandur, for treatment. She informed about the incident to PW.1 over a phone call.

 PW.3 is the owner of the scrap shop where LW.2 went to attend coolie work. He deposed that he came to know th