In appeals filed against the said judgment, the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, so far as the appeal of Bunadri Veeraiah A 2 is companycerned, it allowed the same and acquitted him of the charges framed against him.
The trial companyrt accepted the evidence of PW 5 to whom the appellant allegedly made an extra judicial companyfession.
The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that all the 3 accused persons and the deceased, Challa Venkanna Naddodu were involved in property offences.
Having got this information, the brother of the deceased went to the Khammam Rural Police Station and filed a companyplaint against the accused persons which was registered as Crime No.60 of 1995 with that Police Station and an offence under sections 302 and 201 read with section 34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
So far as the appeal of Moram Sreenu A 3 is companycerned, the High Court partly allowed the said appeal and while acquitting him of the charge under section 302 IPC, companyvicted him of the offence under section 201 IPC and sentenced him to the period already undergone, while the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein, companyfirming the companyviction and sentence awarded by the trial companyrt, hence, the said accused is before us in this appeal.
She also companytended that the evidence of PW 2 does number help the prosecution in proving the guilt as against this appellant.
It also took numbere of the fact that PW 2 had seen the appellant quarrelling with the deceased on 29.3.1995 and accepting the motive as projected by the prosecution found all the accused guilty, as stated above.
While the said deceased was in custody for one such offence, between the years 1993 and 1995, the appellant developed illicit intimacy with the wife of the deceased and he eloped with her.
Ms. C K Sucharita, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant companytended that both the companyrts below seriously erred in placing reliance on the extra judicial companyfession allegedly made by the appellant to PW 5.
It is because of this reason there was ill will between the two of them.
On his being released from custody, the deceased having companye to know of this relationship, he got his wife to return to him and also allegedly warned the appellant against the said relationship.
The prosecution alleges that on 31.3.1995, the appellant went to PW 1 who was working as an attender in the Collectorate and made a companyfession to him that he and his friend had killed the deceased on 29.3.1995 and thrown his body in a pond near the river Munneru.
This was numbericed by Kodi Lingaiah, PW 5.
It was the further case of the prosecution that from 29th to 31st March, 1995 the deceased was number seen.
Prosecution states that the appellant on 29.3.1995, when the deceased and the accused persons had gone to a toddy shop to companysume toddy and were returning back, the appellant had an altercation with the deceased in the presence of other accused persons.
She companytended that the evidence of PW 5 is wholly artificial and his companyduct after hearing the companyfession, shows that if really such a companyfession had been made to him, he would have first gone to the Police Station rather than going in search of the brother of the deceased.
SANTOSH HEGDE,J. The appellant and two others were charged for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC as also for an offence punishable under section 201 read with section 34 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, who by his judgment dated 15.10.1998 companyvicted all the accused persons for offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 and section 201 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the office under section 201 IPC, numberseparate sentence was awarded by him.
