HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1715 OF 2007 DATED: 30.08.2011 BETWEEN: Buttala Sarappanna .. Appellant And The State of A.P. Rep.by Public Prosecutor .. Respondent HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1715 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 29.10.2007 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam in S.C.No.106 of 2007 convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. The appellant-sole accused Buttala Sarappanna was tried for the charge under Section 302 IPC on the allegation of committing murder of his wife on 11.12.2006 at about 7.30 AM by hacking on her neck with knife. To prove the said charge, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12, marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and MOs1 to 10. The appellant did not propose to examine any defence witness, Exs.D1 to D.8 were marked on his behalf. The learned trial Court upon considering the evidence on record, found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC, convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him as stated above. 4. Now the point for consideration in this appeal was whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court? 5. It was the prosecution case that the appellant was a drunkard and was suspecting the fidelity of his wife. He used to beat his wife and quarrel with his wife/deceased. The family of the appellant was living by raising a thatched hut in the land of PW.3. On the date of incident, the appellant came to the house and asked PW.2 as to whether the deceased had gone. PW.2 replied that she went to fetch water from a public tap. After the arrival of the deceased, the appellant questioned her as to where she had gone. She also replied that she went to fetch water from the public water tap. There ensued a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, during the course of which the appellant took out toddy tapers knife, hacked on the neck of the deceased. On receiving the said injury, the deceased died. According to the prosecution on the date of incident, soon after arriving at his house, the appellant started drinking liquor and thereafter the incident occurred. The crucial witness in this case is PW.2, who is the eyewitness and son of the appellant. He stated about his father consuming liquor after coming to the house asking about his mother and after the arrival of his mother, the appellant picking up quarrel and hacking on her neck with knife. PW.3, who is the owner of the land and where the family of the appellant was staying by raising hut, stated that the appellant was a drunkard and they used to be frequent quarrels between the appellant and his wife. PW.4 Is the brother of the deceased. He also stated about the drunkenness of the appellant and his picking up frequent quarrels with the deceased whenever she refused to give money for the purpose of his drinking. PWs.3 and 4 also stated about the appellant hacking on the ear of the deceased with knife on one previous occasion. PW.5, who is the co-sister of the deceased also deposed about the drunkenness of the appellant, his frequent quarrels with his wife and beating her. 6. The report in this case was lodged by V.A.O after knowing about the appellant hacking the deceased to death. Basing on his report, a case in Crime No.201 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC came to be registered in Anandapuram Police Station and investigated into by PW.11 Sub-Inspector of Police and PW.12-Inspector of Police and a charge sheet was laid against the appellant after investigation was completed. 7. PW.2 is no other than the son of the deceased and the appellant. His evidence is highly convincing and credible one and it cannot be accepted that his son had implicated his father falsely for heinous charge of murder. This apart, there is other circumstantial evidence indicating the drunkenness of the appellant, his frequent quarrels with the deceased and hacking the deceased on the ear on previous occasion. Therefore, there is no doubt in regard to the fact that the appellant hacked the deceased to death. The entire evidence proved the offence committed by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution as rightly held by the learned trial court successfully brought home the guilt of the appellant. 8. The learned trial Court also rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304-II IPC considering the fact that the incident took place during the course of sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. Therefore, the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court does not require any interference in this appeal. As regards the sentence, the appellant is a toddy-tapper having children and mother of extreme oldage, he has been in jail in connection with this case since 12.12.2006 i.e. nearly for a period of five years. Considering the background of the appellant and also the fact that he committed the offence during the course of sudden quarrel, I am of the considered view that the sentence of imprisonment passed against him can be reduced to the period which he had already undergone. 9. In the result, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction recorded against the appellant-accused by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Visakhapatnam, in Sessions Case No.106 of 2007, dated 29.10.2007 for the offence under Section 304-II IPC is confirmed. But, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant has been reduced to the period which he had already undergone. The appellant-accused is set at liberty forthwith and shall be released from the jail if he is not required to be detained in any other case. ___________________ Date: 30.08.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1715 OF 2007 DATE: 30.08.2011