In a crime involving an enclosed space locked from the inside, the presence of the accused with the victim, coupled with medical evidence of homicidal injury and the absence of third-party involvement, forms a complete chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.

This Court delivered the following:

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

Heard Mrs. Pendiyala Suhasini 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 20.04.2018 in S.C. No.414 of 2013 passed by learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Mancherial.

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.1,000 (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month.

4. The charge levelled against the appellant herein is that on 19th/20th February, 2013 in between 24.00 hours and 1.00 A.M. at Indanpally Village, intentionally committed murder of his wife - Podeti Mamatha, aged 22 years, by cutting her throat and neck with a knife, suspecting her fidelity.

5. On receipt of Ex.P1 - report from the brother of the deceased (PW.1) on 20.02.2013 at 0700 hours, LW.34 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Jannaram Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2013 under Sections - 302 and 309 of IPC, issued Ex.P19 - 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 statement of accused and receipt of post-mortem examination report and FSL report etc., the Investigating Officer (LW.36) 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.414 of 2013 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 19 were examined, Exs.P1 to P20 were marked and MOs.1 to 10 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 no eye-witnesses in the present case and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence.

ii. PWs.8 and 9 did not support the case of prosecution and they were turned hostile.

iii. There are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the statements recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. as well.

iv. Motive was also not proved by the prosecution.

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

vi. 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 P