On 22.5.1993 they were arrested by the police and recovered a number of ornaments from them.
He informed Kamalavathis step son PW 3 Narasimharao who was living with his family on the ground floor of the same building.
When there was numberresponse to his call from inside the house PW 4 entered into the house and found to his companysternation the dead body of Kamalavathi lying on the floor in a puddle of blood.
They were also companyvicted under Section 404 IPC for which a sentence of RI for two years was awarded to each of them.
He further numbericed that the dead body of Kamalavathi did number have the ornaments which she was usually wearing.
The finger impression of A 2 Golla Bujji was found sticking on the almirah of the deceaseds house.
But when he returned appellant was numberhere to the scene.
Prosecution indicted that friend to be one of the marauders of the ensanguined episode.
They filed separate appeals before the High Court and a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence and dismissed the appeals.
One of them Ramesh has filed this appeal by special leave.
A number of gold ornaments were found in their possession.
Both the companyrts found that those circumstances were well established by the prosecution and they were sufficient to form a companyplete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of both of them.
It was Dr. C. Raghavelu PW 13 who companyducted autopsy on the dead body and found that the neck was severely cut, separating the platysma, sternomastoid, jugular vein and carotid artery on the right side, the thyroid cartilage up to the subcutaneous tissues.
The case against the accused was sought to be proved by the prosecution with the help of circumstantial evidence.
The trial companyrt and the High Court enumerated those circumstances companylected from the evidence.
Her only daughter was given in marriage to a businessman at Rajamundry.
When the son of an old housewife proceeded on a pilgrimage he entrusted his best friend with the care of his old mother.
It was the appellant Mangaraju who escorted PW 2 up to the railway station, being a close friend.
On 11.4.1993, PW 2 Ramesh boarded a train for Sabarimalai on a pilgrimage.
PW 4 screamed and ran out.
She and her children were in a fairly affluent companydition.
Gold ornaments were sold by two persons to PW 10 a gold dealer at Tirupati on 17.10.1993.
PW 5 sought permission for making a call.
All persons companycerned were informed about it.
PW 2, son of the deceased, entrusted the appellant with the duty to be with his mother in the house during the absence of all the children of the deceased.
The murder of Kamalavathi took place on the night of 14th April, 1993, at some time after 8 P.M. On the next morning the milkman PW 4 Bramajirao went to the house of Kamalavathi for supplying milk as usual.
PW 2 then told Mangaraju to stay in his house for giving companypany to his mother who otherwise would have been all alone.
On the next day 16.4.1993 appellant would have left the place.
PW 1 Gopalakrishna had gone to his sisters house at Rajamundry during the relevant period.
But that turned out to be like engaging a wolf to guard the chicken.
Appellant and the companyaccused were together arrested on the same day.
On 15.4.1993, the police dog under the companymand of PW 8, after smelling the handkerchief and some other articles of the deceased scampered up to the house of the appellant.
On hearing the news PW 3 and his wife rushed to the first floor and saw the dead body.
Both the indicted persons were companyvicted by the sessions companyrt under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life.
PW 5 Rammohan Rao saw the appellant in the house at 8 P.M. on 14.4.1993 watching the TV programme and the deceased was present inside.
She was the widow of one Ramagopala Subramanyam who died about 15 years before the incident in this case.
It happened sometime between 8 M. on the night of 14.4.1993 and 7 A.M. on the next morning.
A large number of circumstances were projected by the prosecution.
He is described by the prosecution as one of the friends of the son of the deceased.
When the son returned home from the pilgrimage he was welcomed by the dreadful news that his mother was butchered, her jewelleries plundered and the one to whom her care was entrusted had decamped.
Shri Mohit Mathur, learned companynsel who argued for the appellant Mangaraju, made a serious endeavour to dig out holes on the edifice of the prosecution case and for that purpose he made an appeal for reappraisal of the evidence.
Kamalavathi, the victim of the episode, was around 65 when she was murdered.
Her two sons PW 2 Ramesh and PW 1 Gopalakrishna were staying with their mother on the first floor of the house at Palakol West Godawari District .
They are the following Death of Kamalavathi was doubtlessly a case of murder for gain.
The appellant denied all the circumstances including the fact that PW 2 entrusted to him the care of his mother when he went on a pilgrimage to Sabarimalai.
At about 9 P.M. PW 6 Rambabu saw A 1 Mangaraju and A 2 Golla Bujji in a restaurant at Palokal.
But he was number present there.
All those ornaments were identified to be the belongings of the deceased.
He and the companyaccused requisitioned the services of PW 9 who had earlier acquaintance with the appellant, to sell some gold ornaments at Tirupati.
Those two persons were introduced to the dealer by PW 9 Sankara Prakash.
The investigating officer deployed a sniffer dog to track down the hideout of the culprits.
THOMAS, J. A trust betrayed in a hideous manner, is the nub of the prosecution story.
The track dog went up to the house of the appellant, but he was number there then.
Thereafter he saw both the accused riding on a motorcycle leaving the restaurant.
A number of days later, police got information that appellant and his company accused Golla Bujji were in a train destined to Palakol.
