- (1.) The sole accused in Sessions Case No.109 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SC/STs (POA) Act Cases, Nalgonda, filed this appeal against judgment, dated 19.08.2010, in the said sessions case, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, besides payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. For the sake of convenience, the appellant hereinafter is referred to as the accused.
(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.07.2009 at about 12.45 hrs, the accused intentionally murdered his son Harish (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) by rolling his kerchief around his neck and strangulating him. When the deceased fell down, he sat on him and squeezed his throat with hands and thereby, he committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. PW.1 is the wife of the accused and the mother of the deceased. PW.2 is the nephew of PW.1 and the son of PW.3. As per the prosecution case, the accused was working as a cook in the dhaba of PW.6. Around 10 to 15 years prior to PW.1 giving her evidence, she married the accused. They had three children, of whom two died due to ill-health and the deceased was the only child alive. That the accused used to quarrel with PW.1 suspecting her fidelity and he also suspected that the deceased was not born to him. That two to three months prior to the incident, the accused left his job. That on the day of occurrence, at about 1.00 p.m., PW.5 informed PW.1 that her son the deceased was suffering from fever and PW.4 took him to the hospital. Immediately, she went to the hospital and found her son dead with neck injury. PW.2 informed PW.1 that while he was returning to his shop after having meals, he heard the cries of a boy; that he went to the house of PW.1 and peeped through the window and found the accused sitting on the chest of the deceased and strangulating him with a dasti (kerchief); that on seeing him, the accused ran away and that then he took the deceased in his last breath to PW.4 - R.M.P. doctor, who declared the patient brought dead. Later, PW.2 informed PW.5, who was going on the road, about the incident and asked him to inform PW.1. Then, PW.5 informed PW.1, who then rushed to the hospital. Thereafter, PW.1 brought the dead body to her house and lodged Ex.P1 report with Chityal Police Station. PW.14 the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.158 of 2009 under Section 302 I.P.C., issued Ex.P16 express FIR and sent the same to all the concerned. On the same day, PW.14 recorded the statement of PW.1, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of the mediators and prepared rough sketch Ex.P7 and the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6. Then, he handed over the charge to PW.15 the Circle Inspector, Yadagirigutta. On the next day, PW.15 visited the scene of offence, re-examined PW.1, visited the Government Area Hospital, Ramannapet, conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of the mediators PW.10 and LW.13 Redapaka Muthaiah and sent the dead body for autopsy. He then examined the other witnesses to the case. On the same day, at about 1.30 p.m., he arrested the accused in the mango grove of one Rajashekar at the outskirts of the village and then recorded his confessional statement in the presence of PWs.11 and 12 the mediators. He then seized MO.3 the kerchief at the instance of the accused. Ex.P17 is the admissible portion of the confessional statement of the accused. Ex.P14 is the seizure report.
(3.) On the next day, he sent the accused to judicial custody. PW.13 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found four injuries. He did not mention whether the injuries are ante-mortem or post-mortem in nature. He mentioned the cause of death to be due to strangulation. Ex.P15 is the post mortem report. After receiving the F.S.L. report and the post-mortem report, PW.16 laid the charge sheet. As the accused denied his guilt, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16, marked Exs.P1 to P18 and produced MOs.1 to 3. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was let in, however, Ex.D1 the contradiction in the statement of PW.2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was marked. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him as stated hereinbefore. Ms.Naseeb Afshan, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, has submitted that PW.1 did not specifically state in Ex.P1 the police report that the accused was at home when the alleged offence took place and that this would falsify the whole case of the prosecution that the accused is responsible for causing the death of the deceased. She has further argued that as evident from the evidence of PW.9 - the panch witness for Ex.P6 - the scene of offence panchanama, there was no window to the house of PW.1 and therefore, there was no possibility for PW.2 to peep through a non-existent window and witness the occurrence. She has also argued that as per the evidence of PW.1, herself handed over MO.3 kerchief (dasti) to the Police and that the recovery of MO.3 set up by the prosecution from the accused is in the teeth of this evidence.;