- (1.) The accused in S.C.No.229 of 1989 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nalgonda who had been convicted for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine on Rs.2,000/- has preferred this appeal. He was tried for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The substance of accusation against him was that on 8-9-1989 at 9-00 a.m. at the outskirts of Chinnanemula village, he intentionally caused the death of D. Susheela who is his wife by throttling her neck and that thereafter threw her into a well.
(2.) The prosecution in order to establish the charge framed against the accused, examined as many as twelve witnesses. On a consideration of the evidence adduced during trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC, but sentenced him for offence under Section 306 IPC i.e., abetment to commit suicide. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.
(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the charge against the appellant was that he murdered his wife by throttling her neck, the Sessions Judge erred in holding that the appellant has abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased inasmuch as the ingredients necessary to constitute the two offences are altogether different. Apart from that, it was contended that the accused had notbeen required to meet the allegations necessary to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC and as such, great prejudice is caused to him by holding the appellant guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC. So, in view of this contention, it may not be necessary to advert to the facts of the case in full. However, for the purpose of proper appreciation, I would like to state the case of the prosecution in brief as disclosed from the evidence that is adduced during trial.;