MALLADI RAMAIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment, of the Sessions Judge, Guntur, convicting the first, accused (1st appellant) under Sections 302 and 201, I. P. C. and sentencing him to transportation, for life and to four years' rigorous imprisonment respectively and the third accused i. e. , the second appellant herein under Section 201 and sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment. Three-accused were put up before him for trial for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 323, I, P. C. The first accused was charged with the murder of his wife under Section 302 and also under Section 201, I. P. C. for causing the disappearance of evidence relating to the offence of murder. The third accused was charged under Section 201 in that he is said to have assisted the first accused to disposed of the body after the commission of murder. The charge against the second accused was that she voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased Mangamma by pulling her hair. The Sessions Judge acquitted the second accused but found the other two accused guilty of the offences they were charged with.

(2.) SHORTLY stated, the case against the accused is this: The deceased was the wife of the-first accused, the 2nd accused being his concubine and the 3rd accused his brother. The deceased and Al were married 20 years back and they got on well till two years before the date in question i. e. 26-5-54 when he contracted illicit intimacy with A-2 a married woman but was abandoned her husband. On 26-5-1954 A-1, was carting manure from his hay-yard. His concubine, the second accused, went into the yard to get some hay. She was prevented by the deceased from doing it and they came to grips. The deceased caught hold of A-2's hair and refused to release the grip in spite of the persuasion of the first accused. This led him to give a blow with a cart-peg. The deceased who was a pregnant woman fell down dead on the spot. This was witnessed by P. Ws. 4 and 5. The first of them immediately went to the house of P. W. 2. , the mother of the deceased to give the information but she was not found there. Again, in the evening, he appeared at her house and told her of what had happened. The next day, P. W. 2 sent word to her husband, P. W. 1, who was away at another village lit connection with some business. On receiving this, news, he returned to his village and was informed by the wife of their daughter having been, murdered by the first and second accused. On 29-5-1954 at 7 P. M. he laid the first information with the police of Karempudi (Ex. P-1 ).

(3.) THE contents of this document may beset out in 'extenso,' having regard to the part it plays in the determination of the question about the guilty or otherwise of the accused: