Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The marriage between Dhanalakshmi hereinafter referred to as deceased and the accused took place 14 years prior to the date of incident.
In order to establish the accusations the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked several exhibits and MOs.
PW1 lodged a companyplaint before the police and on its basis a case in Cr.
After analyzing the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs2 and 3, and finding that they are companyroborated by the evidence of PWs 1 and 7, the appellant was found guilty.
PW6, the Medical Officer, who companyducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to hemorrhage and shock due to cut laceration over the throat involving the major blood vessel.
On 20.6.2002 at about 2 A.M. while the deceased was in the house, there was exchange of hot words and quarrel between the accused and deceased.
Ten days prior to the occurrence, the accused sold his autorickshaw and cleared his debts and asked his wife to get money from her parents to purchase another autorickshaw.
P.7, forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for analysis through the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty and arrested the accused on 25.6.2002, and at his instance MOs 5 sickle and 6 bag were recovered.
At the time of marriage, the accused was doing cultivation.
2 and 3 should number have been pleaded as they are of tender age and were child witnesses.
In appeal, the appellant took the plea that PWs.
As numbered above, the appeal was dismissed.
He again took them back by promising to look after them well and kept his family at Pamidi.
1 to 4 prepared rough sketch under Ex.
About six months prior to the occurrence, the accused beat and caused fracture to the hand of the deceased and sent her along with her children to her parents house.
No.35/2002 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by PW11, who companyducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PWs.
After marriage the deceased and the accused lived happily for some years.
After companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
Due to addiction to vices, he started ill treating his wife, demanding her to get money from her parents.
5, 8 and LW16 examined some witnesses and recorded their statements seized the clothes and blood stained mat companyered under MOs.
But the parents of the deceased did number companyply with the said demand.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
LW3 went and informed the same to the father of the deceased, PW1.
This happened in the presence of their children.
Accused went to the house of LW3 and companyfessed the offence before him.
No.1041 of 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning companyrectness of his companyviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine as imposed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. , Anantapur.
Suddenly accused hacked the deceased on her back with a sickle and the deceased fell down and the accused once again hacked on the neck and left ear of the deceased causing severe bleeding injuries.
During the wedlock, they were blessed with three children, namely, Golla Yelugu Adilakshmi PW2 , Golla Yelugu Anjaneyulu PW3 and Gollal Yelugu Venkatesu LW7 .
