A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC is sustainable where the prosecution proves a complete and consistent chain of events through credible eye-witness testimony corroborated by independent witnesses, forensic evidence, and medical reports, irrespective of the accused's prior criminal background.

This Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 31.01.2019 in S.C. No.740 of 2016 passed by learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District.

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted the appellant - accused for the offence under Section - 302 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months.

4. The charge levelled against the appellant herein is that on 02.11.2015 at about 7.00 P.M., he quarreled with the deceased - Immadi Karthik Reddy S/o Damodhar Reddy in front of Sai Sree Power System Work Shop, Subash Nagar, and thereby beat the deceased with a granite stone on his head and caused his death.

5. On receipt of Ex.P1 - report from the father of the deceased (PW.1) on 02.11.2015 at 21:45 hours, PW.11 - Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.970 of 2015 under Section - 302 of IPC, issued Ex.P10 - express FIR and took up investigation. After completion of due formalities, such as examination of witnesses, recording their statements, securing the panch witnesses and drawing panchanama in their presence, taking steps for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, recording confessional statements of accused and receipt of post-mortem examination report and FSL report etc., the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence. The same was committed to the Sessions Court which has taken on file as S.C. No.740 of 2016 and thereafter made over to the trial Court.

6. The trial Court framed charge for the offence under Section - 302 of IPC against the accused and then proceeded with trial.

7. During trial, PWs.1 to 11 were examined, Exs.P1 to P10 were marked and MOs.1 to 8 was exhibited. No evidence, both oral and documentary, was let in by the accused.

8. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence and accordingly imposed sentence of imprisonment in the manner stated above. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused contended as follows:

i. There are contradictions in the versions of the prosecution witnesses.

ii. There is variance in number of injuries inflicted upon the deceased between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the post-mortem examination report.

iii. Motive on the part of the accused was not proved by the prosecution.

iv. The accused was implicated in the present case falsely.

v. The trial Court did not consider all the aforesaid aspects.

With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.

10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit as under:

i. There is clear evidence from the prosecution witnesses to connect the guilt of the accused in commission of offence.

ii. There is direct evidence throug