THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.764 of 2008 25-11-2014 BETWEEN:
Gaddam Galaiah AND …..Appellant The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.764 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the sole accused challenging the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in S.C.No.412 of 2007 dated 19.06.2008, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer S.I. for three months.
The case of the prosecution is that the wife of the accused used to talk with the deceased as he hails from her parents’ village, on which, the accused suspected that his wife is having illicit intimacy with the deceased. the accused warned the deceased three or four times to change his attitude towards his wife, however, the deceased did not change his attitude and as such the accused decided to do away with the life of the deceased. While so, on 20.11.2006, the wife of the accused had been to see her son at Rajapet, where her son was studying. As she did not turn up till the evening, the accused thought that his wife went to the deceased and having enraged himself, he decided to kill the deceased, took an axe by wrapping it in a cloth, went to Choutuppal village, where the deceased was living, enquired about the deceased but as he could not found the deceased, he was waiting in front of Sri Vani Hotel, Choutuppal. In the meantime, the deceased and the wife of the accused have got down from an auto at about 7.30 p.m. and while they were proceeding towards said hotel, the accused followed them and axed the deceased causing his death. Thereafter, he ran away towards Chityal side. On coming to know about the incident, the police rushed to the spot, chased the accused. After observing all formalities and after completion of investigation, police laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and exhibited M.O.1-axe. On behalf of accused, Ex.D.1 was marked. After evaluating the evidence brought on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned.
P.W.1 is the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Choutuppal. According to him, on 20.11.2006 at about 7.30 p.m. he found the accused running with an axe in his hand and he tried to chase him, but the accused ran away. Meanwhile, the accused was caught by constable-P.W.2. On his enquiry, the accused told him that he killed the deceased as he was having illicit intimacy with his wife. P.W.2 deposed that he found P.W.1 and other villagers chasing the accused and he chased the accused and caught hold of him. P.W.3 and 4, who are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. P.W.5 is Home Guard and he deposed that the accused was running with an axe in his hand and P.W.1 and others were chasing the accused and as such he too joined them and caught hold of the accused. P.W.6 is none other than the wife of deceased and her evidence of no use to the prosecution. P.W.7 is a panchayatdar and he deposed that on his enquiry, the accused told him that his wife had illicit intimacy with the deceased and therefore, he gave a blow on the head of the deceased. P.W.8 is the mediator to the inquest Ex.P.4.
P.W.9 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.5 post-mortem certificate. P.W.10 is Head constable, who registered a case in Cr.No.281 of 2006 under Section 307 IPC and issued Ex.P.6-F.I.R. P.W.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police and he deposed that on coming to know the incident, he rushed to the police station and by that time P.W.10 issued Ex.P.6-F.I.R. and as the deceased found head, he filed memo altering the Section of law from 307 to 302 IPC. P.W.12 is the investigating officer, who deposed regarding the investigation conducted in the case.
After arguing for some time, on evaluation of entire evidence and the findings of the trial Court, when this Court pointed out that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment, learned counsel for appellant confined his arguments only to the extent of quantum of sentence and prayed this Court to reduce the sentence of imprisonment in the circumstances of the case.
No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned conviction imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the conviction imposed on the accused- appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC is hereby confirmed, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year. The fine amount and the default clause imposed by the trial Court is not interfered with. The appellant-accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 30th December, 2014 to serve the remaining sentence.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO,J 25.11.2014.
Tsr