CHENNA JAGADEESWAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Jagadeshwar and his wife Saroja were accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in Sessions Case No. 150/86 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. They were tried for several charges. Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 were under Section 302 I.P.C. against both the accused, for having killed their four young children, Charge No. 5 was under Section 307 I.P.C. against accused No. 1 for attempting to murder his wife Saroja, accused No. 2. Charge No. 6 is under Section 309 I.P.C. against aacused No. 1 for attempting to commit suicide and Charge No. 7 was against accused No. 2 under Section 309 I.P.C. for attempting to commit suicide. Accused No. 2 was acquitted on all charges excepting charge No. 7. She was found guilty under the said charge and released on probation of good conduct for a period of 2 years.

(2.) Accused No. 1 was found guilty of the 4 charges under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was also found guilty under Charge No. 6 and convicted under section 309 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. With regard to Charge No. 6 under Section 307 I.P.C. for attempting to murder his wife Saroja, accused No. 2, he was acquitted. Against the conviction and sentences under section 302 I.P.C. and Section 309 I.P.C., the first accused has preferred the appeal. The 2nd accused also challenges her conviction under section 309 I.P.C.

(3.) The first appellant Dr. Jagadeshwar is an young man aged about 35 years. He married Sarcja, the daughter of P.W. 3 about 13 years prior to the date of occurrence. At the time of marriage P.W. 3 gave an amount of Rs. 10,000/-besides other presentations. After marriage, he completed his M.B.B.S. course mainly with the financial help from his father-in-law, P.W.3. He set up practice at Malial, Jagyal Taluk, Karimnagar District and he was flourishing well. The evidence shows that he was getting an income of Rs. 500 to 600/- a day. The appellant had 4 children Mrunalini, aged 12 years, Mrudula 9 years, Mruthyunjaya 7 years and Mrunmayi 5 years.