Thomas, J. - (1.) A trust betrayed in a hideous manner, is the hub of the prosecution story. When the son of an old housewife proceeded on a pilgrimage he entrusted his best friend with the care of his old mother. But that turned out to be like engaging a wolf to guard the chicken. When the son returned home from the pilgrimage he was welcomed by the dreadful news that his mother was butchered, her jewelleries plundered and the one to whom her care was entrusted had decamped. Prosecution indicated that friend to be one of the marauders of the ensanguined episode.
(2.) Both the indicted persons were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under Section 404, I. P. C. for which a sentence of RI for two years was awarded to each of them. They filed separate appeals before the High Court and a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeals. One of them (Ramesh) has filed this appeal by special leave. He is described by the prosecution as one of the friends of the son of the deceased.
(3.) Kamalavathi, the victim of the episode, was around 65 when she was murdered. She was the widow of one Ramagopala Subramanyam who died about 15 years before the incident in this case. She and her children were in a fairly affluent condition. Her two sons PW-2 Ramesh and PW-1 Gopalakrishna were staying with their mother on the first floor of the house it Palakol (West Gudawari District). Her only daughter was given in marriage to a businessman at Rajamundry. PW-1 Gopalakrishna had gone to his sisters' house at Rajamundry during the relevant period.;