CRLA/312/2007 of Talari Srinivas, Vs State of A.P., on 30 December 2013

JUDGMENT:

The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accusedchallenging the judgment dated 23.02.2007 rendered in SC No.35 of 2006passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast TrackCourt), Medak, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judgeconvicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part IIIPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six yearsand to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonmentfor three months.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

On the basis of the allegation that the appellant herein wants tomarry with the second sister of the deceased by name Mangamma, evenafter a marriage was fixed for the said Mangamma. In connection with thesaid proposal, the accused came and picked up a quarrel with thedeceased. On 30.11.2005 morning the accused quarrelled with deceasedand when she strongly opposed his arguments, the accused enraged andcame in furious to strangulate with his towel, when she tried to escape hethrottled her with hands and due to asphyxia she died on the spot and theaccused fled away from the spot. The investigation agency after dueinvestigation, filed charge sheet against the accused placing reliance onthe evidence of the relatives and also examined PW.6 for an offence underSection 302 IPC.

The learned trial Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC Theappellant denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Inorder to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examinedPWs 1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.O.1. In defence, nonewere examined and no documents were marked.

The learned trial Judge after evaluating the evidence adduced by theprosecution before the trial Court since the accused is not having anyintention to commit the murder but he is having knowledge that his act willcause death and further the accused used a towel and throttled the neck ofthe deceased due to which she died and accordingly convicted theaccused stated above.

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused thematerial on record.

The learned counsel argued at length, pursued the court on theground that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and PW.6 who is theonly independent witness also not supported the case of the prosecution. But the Court after perusal of the records and evidence informed thecounsel even the motive is not proved. It is the duty of the accused toexplain the death of his wife that too when he also resides in the samehouse. Further, there is an evidence that after the occurrence, theaccused absconded from the house and when the relatives reached thehouse of the deceased. The learned counsel then confined his argumentand also informed that though there is some evidence on record to convictthe accused, but at the same time, prayed for lenient view on the groundthat the accused committed the crime in a spur of the movement and that he has to look after the welfare of three children.

Considering the submissions and also in view of the facts andcircumstances of the case, while confirming the conviction recorded by thetrial Court, as far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, the sameis modified to three years. The period already suffered is directed to begiven set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. and the accused is directed tosurrender before the Court on or before 10[th] of March, 2014 to serve thesentence on failure, the trial Court is at liberty to take appropriate steps.

With the above modification, the criminal appeal is partly allowed.

_________________

RAJA ELANGO,J

30[th] December, 2013

PNV