Telangana High Court
Gugoloth Mangya, Khm Dist. vs P.P., Hyd on 15 July, 2022
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.163 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther) This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'), is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 21.11.2014, passed in S.C.No.361 of 2011 by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, whereby, the Court below convicted the appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. We have heard the submissions of Smt.B.Vaijayanthi, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant/accused, Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
PW.1-Settupalli Kousalya, lodged Ex.P.1-report to the police stating that on the night of 28.05.2011, while she along with her husband-Settupalli Ramu (hereinafter referred as 'deceased') were 2 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 sleeping on the cot in the front of their house, the deceased informed her that when he was at Julurpadu, the accused-Guguloth Mangya (hereinafter referred as 'accused'), met him at his work place. Later both the deceased and the accused came to Kothagudem and from there the deceased returned home but the accused remained at Kothagudem. During night, while she (PW.1) and the deceased were sleeping on the cot in front of their house, she heard some noise and woke up and noticed the accused beating the deceased with a pestle (M.O.1) on his head and another person stood on the road at a little distance. On that she raised screams and neighbours rushed to the scene, the accused and another person fled away from the spot. She further stated that the accused kept previous grudge in his mind that the deceased abused and beat him earlier when the accused beat his wife. In that regard, a panchayat was held and deceased apologized to the accused by touching his feet as he committed mistake. Even though the deceased apologized, the accused did not pardon him and developed grudge and beat the deceased with a pestle, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and fell unconscious.
Immediately, PW.1-Settupalli Kousalya shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Kothagudem, in ambulance and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 3 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 29.05.2011 at 02:30 hours. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against the accused.
4. Basing on Ex.P.1-report dated 29.05.2011 lodged by PW.1- Settupalli Kousalya, wife of the deceased, PW.15-Sub-Inspector of Police, Paloncha Rural Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.41 of 2011 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and issued Ex.P11-Express First Information Report and handed over the investigation to PW.16-Circle Inspector of Police, Paloncha, since the offence is grave in nature. PW.16 visited the scene of offence, recorded the statements of witnesses (PW.1-Settupalli Kousalya, PW.3-Kodupuganti Srinu, PW.4-Sarkar Shankar, PW.7- Shaik Meera Begum and PW.8-Nuthakki Venu), conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P.5 in the presence of LW13-Payam Papaiah (PW.6) and LW.14-Veeraboina Biksham and seized bloodstained apparels of the deceased and thereafter, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P.3 in the presence of LW.12-Rapolu Srisailam (PW.5) and LW.13-Payam Papaiah (PW.6) and subjected the dead body for autopsy. PW.2-Dr.B.Bala Subrahmanyam, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.2-post-mortem examination report, wherein the cause of death of the deceased was mentioned as "head injury with intracranial Haemorrhage due to hit by a heavy 4 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 blunt weapon". On 30.05.2011, PW.16 examined LW.8-Kalloju Karthik (PW.11) and LW.9-Kolla Rajasekhar, and recorded their statements. On 07.06.2011, PW.16 examined LW.10-Dara Mangapathi (PW.12) and LW.11-Laudiya Sarvan (PW.13) and recorded their statements. On 06.06.2011 at 15:00 hours, PW.16 arrested the accused and interrogated him in the presence of LW.15-Nanini Bala Raju (PW.14) and LW.16-Varasa Ramulu, during which, the accused confessed that he alone committed the offence and no one has accompanied with him. PW.16 recorded the confessional statement of the accused under Ex.P.9 and the accused lead PW.16 and other mediators to Bikkuthanda x roads, near shrubby bushes and shown M.O.1-pestle, which was used in the commission of offence. PW.16 seized M.O.1-pestle in the presence of mediators and sent the accused to the Court for judicial remand. In the charge sheet, it has been mentioned that the presence of another person, as stated by PW.1 has not been established since the accused alone committed the offence and therefore, the involvement of another person as stated by PW.1 was ruled out and the accused alone is liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC. On completion of investigation, PW.16 filed charge-sheet before the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, against the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
5 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015
5. The learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, registered the same as P.R.C.No.16 of 2011 and committed it to the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, since the offence under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On committal, the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, numbered the case as S.C.No.361 of 2011 and made over to the Court below for disposal, in accordance with law.
6. On appearance of the accused, the trial Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, read over and explained to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11, besides case properties, MOs.1 to 5. PW.1-Settupalli Kousalya, wife of the deceased, is the complainant and eye witness to the commission of offence. PW.2- Dr.B.Bala Subramanyam, is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.2-post-mortem examination report. PW.3-Kodupuganti Srinu, is the village elder, who pacified the disputes between the deceased and accused. PW.4-Sarkar Shankar, is neighbour of the deceased. PW.5-Rapolu 6 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 Srisailam, is the witness for Ex.P.3-inquest panchanama. PW.6- Payam Papaiah, is the witness for Ex.P.3-inquest panchanama and Ex.P.4-crime details form. PW.7-Shaik Meera Begum and PW.8- Nuthakki Venu, are neighbours of the deceased and circumstantial witnesses. PW.9-Koppula Venkateswarlu, is the photographer, who took photos of the scene of offence. PW.10-M. Prabhakar is the photographer, who took photos of the dead body of the deceased at Government Hospital, Kothagudem. PW.11-Kalloju Karthik, is the scribe of Ex.P.1-report and circumstantial witness. PW.12- D.Mangapathi, is the circumstantial witness. PW.13-Lavudya Sarvan, is the circumstantial witness. PW.14-N. Balaraju, is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanamas, PW.15- D.Venkatarathnam, Sub-Inspector of Police, Paloncha Rural PS, who registered the subject crime and issued Ex.P.11-First Information Report. PW.16-B.Ravindranath, Circle Inspector of Police, Paloncha, is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation, arrested the accused and laid charge-sheet before the Court. Ex.P.1 is the report. Ex.P.2 is post-mortem examination report. Ex.P.3 is inquest report. Ex.P.4 is crime details form. Ex.P.5 is rough sketch. Ex.P.6- photographs of scene of offence along with C.D. Ex.P.7-photographs of dead body of the deceased along with C.D. Ex.P.8 is the signature of PW.11 on Ex.P.1-report. Ex.P.9 is confession panchanama. Ex.P.10 is seizure panchanama and Ex.P.11 is the 7 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 First Information Report. MO.1 is pestle. MO.2 is one pair blue slippers. MO.3 is bloodstained shirt. MO.4 is bloodstained banian. MO.5 is bloodstained blanket (Bontha).
8. On completion of the prosecution evidence, when the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him and pleaded that there is no relation between him and the deceased. He further stated that he did not kill the deceased and he was falsely implicated in this case. The accused admitted that a dispute has arisen. The accused did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.
9. The trial Court, having considered the submissions made and the evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment, dated 21.11.2014, convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred this appeal.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that there are inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence of PW.1 and other witnesses. PW.1 in her evidence stated that one more person was standing on the road. There is no direct evidence of other witnesses to substantiate that the accused had caused the subject death of the deceased. It is unsafe to act upon the sole 8 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 testimony of PW.1. There is no motive on the part of the accused to commit the subject offence. In order to knock away the property of the deceased i.e, house where he was residing, PW.1 and her brother killed the deceased with M.O.1-pestle and foisted a false case against the accused. The subject death was caused in the late night, identification of the accused by PW.1 is doubtful and therefore, no credibility can be given to the evidence of PW.1 with regard to identification of the accused. There are also inconsistencies with regard to alleged confession of accused and recovery of M.O.1-pestle. Without there being any evidence on record, the trial Court came to an erroneous conclusion that the accused caused the subject death and convicted and sentenced the accused of the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused and acquit him of the said offence.
11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that since two decades PW.1 and the deceased were living together at Basavatharaka Colony, Paloncha, as husband and wife. PW.1 is the direct witness to the commission of offence by the 9 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 accused. M.O.1-pestle was used in the commission of offence and it was seized pursuant to the confession made by the accused. There is evidence of PW.13 who saw the accused on the intervening night of 28/29.05.2011 around 1:00AM by the side of his house. PW.3 spoke about the motive for commission of offence and that PW.1 had informed him that the accused caused the subject death. Ex.P.1-report lodged by PW.1 immediately on the next day of the incident, discloses the commission of offence by the accused and it has been corroborated by PW.1 and also PW.15-S.I of Police, who received the same. There is no reason for PW.1 to falsely implicate the accused for the death of her husband (deceased). On earlier occasion, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. In that quarrel, the deceased slapped the accused. Even though the deceased apologized to the accused, the accused keeping the same in mind, caused the subject death by beating the deceased with M.O.1-pestle. It clearly demonstrates the intention on the part of the accused to cause the subject death. The Court below elaborately dealt with entire evidence on record and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offence under Section 302 of IPC and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused vide the impugned judgment.
10 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015
12. In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows:
1. Whether the appellant/accused caused the death of the deceased-Settupalli Ramu on the intervening night of 28/29.05.2011?
2. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt?
3. Whether the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, are liable to be set aside?"
POINTS:
13. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of 28.05.2011, while PW.1 and the deceased were sleeping on the cot in the front of their house, situated at Basavarthaka Colony, Paloncha, the accused beat the deceased with M.O.1-pestle on the head, as a result of which, the deceased received bleeding injuries and fell unconscious. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kothagudem and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 29.05.2011 at 02:30 hours. Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished for committing murder of the deceased.
14. There is evidence of PW.2-Dr.B.Bala Subrahmanyam, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the 11 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 deceased. He deposed that on 29.05.2011, while he was on duty, the Paloncha Rural Police brought the dead body of the deceased with a request to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased-Settupalli Ramu. Accordingly, he conducted post-mortem examination between 3:15 PM and 5:15 PM and found the following anti-mortem injuries:
"1) An open blunt injury of 10 x 1 x 2cm, is present over the frontal area of the skull extending from right eyebrow to the middle of the frontal hair line of scalp.
2) A cult injury of 4 x 1 x 3 cm is present over the left cheek 5 cm below the left lower eye lid.
3) A cut injury of 2 x 2 cm is present over the left angle of the upper lip."
PW.2 further deposed that on internal examination, he found blood clot over the anterior parietal brain matter and the rest of the organs are intact. He issued post mortem examination report and opined that the deceased died due to "head injury with intracranial haemorrhage due to hit by a heavy blunt weapon". Ex.P.2-post- mortem examination report substantiates the same. PW.2 further stated that the death of the deceased might have occurred 12 to 14 hours prior to his post-mortem examination. MO.1-pestle was seized, pursuant to the confession made by the accused. There is also Ex.P3-inquest report to show that the deceased was beaten with pestle. Ex.P.4-crime detail form, Ex.P.5-rough sketch of the scene of offence and Ex.P.6-photographs of the scene of offence, 12 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 coupled with the evidence of PW.3, PW.4, PW.6, PW.7 and PW.8 demonstrate that the deceased was beaten at his house, situated at Basavarthaka Colony, Paloncha, on the intervening night of 28/29.05.2011. Thus the evidence on record clinchingly establishes that the death of the deceased is homicidal and it was caused on the intervening night of 28/29.05.2011 at Basavatharaka Colony, Paloncha. There is no dispute that the subject death is homicidal. The question that needs to be answered in this case is as to who caused the death of the deceased.
15. As seen from the material placed on record, PW.1-S.Kousalya, is wife of the deceased and she is the sole eye witness to the commission of offence by the accused. Since PW.1 being wife of the deceased, is an interested and sole direct witness and her evidence is required to be examined with due care and caution.
16. It is pertinent to state that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Bhimappa Chandappa v. State of Karnataka1, observed as follows:
"This Court has repeatedly observed that on the basis of the testimony of a single eye witness a conviction may be recorded, but it has also cautioned that while doing so the Court must be satisfied that the testimony of the solitary eye witness is of such sterling quality that the Court finds it safe to base a conviction solely on the testimony of that witness. In doing so the Court must test the credibility of the witness 1 (2006) 11 SCC 323 13 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 by reference to the quality of his evidence. The evidence must be free of any blemish or suspicion, must impress the Court as wholly truthful, must appear to be natural and so convincing that the Court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on the basis of the testimony of a single witness."
17. In the instant case, the prosecution placed heavy reliance over the evidence of PW.1-Settupalli Kousalya, wife of the deceased. PW.1 in her evidence deposed that she is resident of Basavatharaka Colony, Paloncha Village and Mandal and she was doing coolie work. The deceased-Settupalli Ramu is her husband, who was a tractor driver. She knows PW.3-Kodupuganti Srinu, PW.4-S.Shankar, PW.7-Shaik Meera Begum and PW.8-N. Venu, who are residents of her colony. She knows the accused, who is resident of Somulagudem, which is popularly called as Veerunaik Thanda. She stated that the house of accused and her house are separated by a road. The deceased died at her residence in the month of May i.e, more than three years prior to her deposition at about 00:45 hours (on the intervening night). She stated that five days prior to the occurrence of the incident, the deceased went to Julurpad for transportation of cement electrical poles and on the date of incident, at 9:00 PM, the deceased came to house and after bath, he slept in her house. Prior to sleep, the deceased narrated her that the accused came to the office of his boss and informed that he is the brother-in-law of deceased and after finishing his job, he 14 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 wants to see deceased and within short period, the deceased came to the office and asked the accused as to why he came to the office and for what purpose, for which, the accused told that he alienated the chairs and wants to see the deceased. Both the accused and the deceased came to Kothagudem and the deceased left the company of accused and came to the house of PW.1. Further, the deceased had informed PW.1 that he has to go to duty on the early hours of next day morning and asked PW.1 to wake him up in the early hours. While PW.1 and the deceased slept, at about 00:45 hours, during night, the accused came with M.O.1-pestle and beat on the forehead of the deceased and on hearing the sound, PW.1 woke up and found the accused with M.O.1-pestle and on seeing PW.1, the accused escaped from the scene leaving the M.O.1-pestle and his chappals at her house. She stated that she saw the accused not only with the help of burning street light but also the burning light in her house. Immediately, she raised cries and on hearing her cries, PW.4-S.Shankar and PW.7-Shaik Meera Begum and other neighbours came there. She deposed that the deceased received severe bleeding injuries and lost conscious. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to the Hospital in ambulance and in the hospital, the deceased succumbed to injuries at about 02:00 hours. On the next day morning, she lodged Ex.P.1-report to the police, which was drafted by one Karthik (PW.11) on her dictation and the 15 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 contents of the report were explained to her in Telugu and thereafter, she affixed her thumb impression on the report. The contents of the report were read over to the witness by the prosecution and in turn the witness admitted the same as true and correct. The report dated 29.05.2011 was marked as Ex.P.1. PW.1 further deposed that the reason for the death of the deceased in the hands of the accused was that the accused bore grudge against the deceased when the wife of accused called the deceased as 'Anna' (Brother), the accused beat her and the deceased chastised the accused and since then the accused bore grudge against the deceased. PW.1 stated that she can identify the pestle if it is shown to her. M.O.1 is the pestle, M.O.2-one pair of slippers of the deceased, M.O.3-one blood stained shirt, M.O.4-blood stained banian and M.O.5-bloodstained blanked (bontha) were marked. Though PW.1 was cross-examined at length, she reiterated what she stated in her chief-examination. There are no material omissions or contradictions in her evidence. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated with Ex.P.1-report dated 29.05.2011.
18. Regarding lodging of Ex.P.1-report with the police on the next day i.e, on 29.05.2011 at 10:00 hours, the trial Court elaborately dealt with this aspect and held that there was no delay in lodging 16 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 Ex.P.1-report with the police and placed reliance over the decision in Gunnana Pentaiah @ Pentadu v. State of Andhra Pradesh2.
19. As regards, identification of the accused, PW.1 categorically deposed that at about 00:45 hours on the fateful night, the accused came with M.O.1-pestle and beat on the forehead of the deceased and on hearing the sound, she woke up and found the accused with M.O.1-pestle and on seeing her, the accused escaped from the scene leaving the M.O.1-pestle and his chappals at her house. The house of accused and her house is separated by a road. She categorically stated that she saw the accused not only with the help of burning street light but also the burning light in her house. There is no omission in relation to this piece of evidence also.
20. As seen from the entire evidence on record, there is no animosity or grudge between PW.1 and the accused. There is no reason for PW.1 to depose falsely against the accused and implicate the accused for the death of her husband (deceased). There is also evidence of PW.1 that earlier a panchayat was held when the deceased beat the accused and in that panchayat, the deceased apologised to the accused. However, the accused bearing the said insult in mind, had caused the subject death. PW.3-K.Srinu, neighbour of the deceased also spoke about the altercation that 2 2009 (2) SCJ 802 17 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 took place between accused and the deceased and that the deceased beating the accused and apologising. On the next day morning, when PW.3 and PW.4 questioned PW.1 with regard to cause of death of deceased, she informed them that the accused beat the deceased with M.O.1-pestle and caused the subject death. As per the evidence of PW.2-Doctor, the cause of the death of deceased was due to "head injury with intracranial haemorrhage due to hit by a heavy blunt weapon". There is specific evidence of PW.1 that the accused beat the deceased with M.O.1-pestle on the forehead and caused bleeding injuries. She woke up and saw the accused with M.O.1-pestle. On raising screams, the accused ran away. Though PW.1 stated in Ex.P.1-report that one more person was standing on the road, no specific overtact is attributed against the so-called other person. There is no mention of involvement of that person in the commission of offence. Such statement has no adverse effect over the prosecution case. Mere mention of PW.1 in Ex.P.1-report that some person was standing on the road against whom no specific overt acts are attributed, will not make the testimony of PW.1 doubtful.
21. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that there are inconsistencies with regard to alleged confession of accused and recovery of M.O.1-pestle. As per the evidence of 18 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 PW.16-Investigating Officer and panch witnesses, M.O.1-pestle was recovered pursuant to the confession made by the accused. However, PW.1 stated that on seeing her, the accused escaped from the scene leaving M.O.1-pestle and his chappals at her house. Though there is discrepancy in relation to seizure of M.O.1-pestle, in view of the cogent and convincing evidence of PW.1 and also identification of M.O.1-pestle as a weapon used in the commission of offence, the manner in which it was recovered as deposed by the PW.16-Investigating Officer loses its significance. It will not vitiate the evidence of PW.1. PW.1 is a natural and truthful witness. There is no reason for PW.1 to implicate the accused in a case of this nature. The evidence of PW.1 has been corroborated with the evidence of PW.2-Doctor and Ex.P.2-post-mortem examination report. The offence took place at midnight and there was no possibility for any other person to witness the offence. Moreover, the subject death was caused in the house of PW.1. As the PW.1 and deceased were living as husband and wife for more than two decades, it cannot be held that PW.1 was not present when the subject offence was committed. PW.1 is a natural and credible witness. The testimony given by PW.1 is trustworthy. What the Court needs to see is quality of the evidence but not the quantity of the evidence. The evidence of PW.1 is free from any blemish and suspicion. There are no omissions and contradictions in her 19 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 evidence. PW.1 is a wholly truthful witness. Her evidence is quite natural and convincing. Therefore, there cannot be any hesitation to accept the testimony of PW.1, as it also corroborates with Ex.P.2- post-mortem examination report. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 can be safely acted upon.
22. As seen from the entire evidence on record, the manner in which the accused beat the deceased with M.O.1-pestle at 00:45 hours on the intervening night of 28/29.05.2011 and the death of the deceased within few hours i.e, at 02:00hours on 29.05.2011 while undergoing treatment in the hospital, and the injuries caused to the deceased, which are indicated in Ex.P.2-post-mortem examination report and the evidence of PW.2-Doctor demonstrate that the accused in order to eliminate the deceased beat him with MO.1-pestle over the frontal area of the skull and also over the left cheek and upper lip of the deceased and the injury No.1 shown in Ex.P.2-post-mortem examination report is fatal and it was caused with an intention to cause the subject death and he was successful in doing so, as premeditated. The motive for commission of offence by the accused is also proved by the prosecution by getting the evidence of PW.3 on record. The accused on being insulted by the deceased in a panchayat, bore grudge against the deceased and committed the subject death of deceased. Thus the prosecution 20 Dr.SA, J & NTR, J Crl.A.No.163 of 2015 proved the guilt of the accused for the under Section 302 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
23. The trial Court had meticulously dealt with the entire evidence on record and rightly found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 of IPC. There is nothing to take a different view. In view of these circumstances, all the contentions raised by the accused do not merit consideration to allow the appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
24. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused of the offence under Section 302 of IPC vide judgment dated 21.11.2014, passed in S.C.No.361 of 2011 by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J ___________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 15th July, 2022 SCS