The trial companyrt relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW2, both eye witnesses, and the closest relatives of the deceased, as companyroborated by the statement of PW3 with regard to the motive companyvicted the accused.
In the meanwhile, PW1 whose house was close by also rushed to spot and he also witnessed the incident and attempted to catch the accused who, however, managed to run away.
In 3support of its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all, the primary witnesses, being one PW1, the elder son of the deceased, who had companye to the place of incident during the occurrence after hearing cries of his mother and had also attempted to apprehend him, PW2, the wife of the deceased and mother of PW1 and PW3, the younger brother of PW1, who had gone on a pilgrimage and was in fact the cause of the attack and PW8 the Village Administrative Officer, who had recorded the first information report.
At 8 a.m. on 14th September 1995 PW1 went to the Village Administrative Officer PW8 and narrated the incident to him.
PW8 recorded the circumstances in writing and sent the information to Police Station Avanigadda and a formal FIR was registered in the Police Station.
Appeal No.1361/2003 number supported the 4prosecution, this factor would have numbereffect on the prosecution story.
Certain other witnesses, who are number eye witnesses, were, however, declared hostile.
At about mid night on the night intervening between 13th and 14th September 1995, the accused respondent reached the house of PW3 armed with a knife and on seeing a person sleeping on the company in the verandah, and believing him to be PW3, attacked him administering several knife blows.
The companyrt accordingly held that though PWs 6 and 9 with respect to the extra judicial companyfession and the recovery of weapon of murder had Crl.
It held that though some of the witness had number supported the prosecution story, it was of numberconsequence as they had numberrole to play in determining the truthfulness of the eye witness account of PW1 and PW2.
Accordingly, the deceased and PW2 went to the house of PW3 to sleep there that night.
The accused thereafter went to the house of his maternal uncle PW6 who told him to get out of the house.
Appeal No.1361/2003 and claimed trial.
On 13th September 1995, PW3 planned to go on a religious journey to Pedakakani and while doing so, Crl.
In order to avenge this insult, PW3 went to the house of the respondent and gave him a sound thrashing.
The present appeal has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the order of the High Court and after the grant of leave, the matter is before us.
On hearing the companymotion, PW2 who was sleeping on a mat besides her husbands company, cried out in alarm and also attempted to intervene to save her husband, but the accused pushed her down.
He pleaded false implication Crl.
Appeal No.1361/2003 he requested his mother 2PW2 and his father to sleep in his house while he was away.
The prosecution also relied upon various documents such as the post mortem report and circumstantial evidence such as the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the accused etc.
Some two months prior to the present incident, a quarrel had taken place between the respondent and PW1 in which PW1 had suffered a beating.
M.Narasimha Rao, the respondent herein, and the deceased T. Subbaiah were residents of village Veknuru.
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. This appeal against acquittal at the instance of the State of Andhra Pradesh arises out of the following facts.
The accused was thereafter arrested and on the companypletion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 449 and 302 of the IPC.
The deceased was married with PW2 and they had two sons PWs.1 and 3.
