IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.A.No.1056 OF 2007 Date: 21-01-2011 Between:- Golla Thirumalesh .. Appellant And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.R.L.Nageswara Rao) The accused in Sessions Case No.300 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, is the appellant herein. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Sujatha is the sister of P.W.1. The deceased and accused reside in the same locality at Ayyappanagar, Ambedkar Nagar at Alwal and they were at opposite houses. There were some disputes between the deceased and the family of the accused about her character and people coming to her house. The accused is said to have been given some electric connection to the mess of the house of the deceased and on 25-11- 2004, while she came, he supplied the current and she received some shock. Thereafter, the accused, armed with a knife, went to the deceased and stabbed her indiscriminately and the deceased cried. P.Ws.5 and 6, who were the neighbours, gathered there and the deceased was taken to the hospital. She died on 27-11-2004 while undergoing treatment. While she was in hospital, her statement was recorded by P.W.10 and during the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were also recorded, inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and it was sent for post mortem examination. The panchanama of the scene of offence was also conducted. On 02-12-2004, the accused was arrested and he gave a voluntary confession statement and blood stained clothes were seized. 3. The case was taken on file as P.R.C.No.54 of 2005 by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad and committed the same to the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad and it was made over to the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 4. After appearance of the accused, a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed, read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 and M.Os.1 to 7. 6. After the evidence of the prosecution is over, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no defence evidence was adduced but Ex.D.1 was marked. 7. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence charged and accordingly convicted him. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 8. As the accused has no means to engage an Advocate, Smt Shanthi Neelam was appointed as a Legal Aid Counsel. Heard. 9. The points that arise for consideration are: “1) Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused has committed murder of the deceased? and 2) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is legal and sustainable?” 10. POINTS 1 & 2:- In support of the prosecution case, P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was residing at Ambedkar Nagar and running a tea stall and that the accused was residing opposite to her house. The deceased informed him that there were some disputes with the accused. When he was at Jagathgirigutta, he received information about the admission of his sister in Gandhi Hospital. He went there at about 4 a.m. and enquired and the deceased informed him that at about 8 p.m., the accused stabbed her. On the next day, the deceased died. In the cross examination, he stated that no complaint was given about the quarrels with the accused, which were reported by the deceased. P.W.2 deposed that he knows the accused and the deceased and there were disputes between the accused and the deceased and on the date of incident at about 8 p.m., P.Ws.5 and 6 came and informed that the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife and he went there and found the deceased with injuries and shifted the deceased to Gandhi Hospital. He claims to have given a complaint- Ex.P-1 to the police. According to him, there was no power supply in the colony on that night and there were no street lights. He did not personally see the offence and he came to know about the same only through P.Ws.5 and 6. The evidence of P.W.3 is that the accused came to him at about 8.30 or 9 p.m. with some injuries to his hand and he treated him. He did not support the prosecution case about the cause of injuries and was declared as hostile. The evidence of P.W.4 is about conducting of post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and finding the following injuries and opined that the death was due to multiple injuries and Ex.P-3 is the post mortem report: “1. Sutured wound of 3. c.ms. with 4 sutures over fore-head on right side. 2. Linear abrasion 5 c.ms. x 0.5 c.m. vertically lateral to right eye. 3. Sutured wound 11 c.ms. with 17 sutures on right cheek. 4. Sutured wound 2.5 c.m.s with 3 sutures above pinna of left ear. 5. Sutured wound 3 c.ms. with 3 sutures lateral to left eye. 6. Linear abrasion 6 x 0.5 c.m. over left cheek. 7. Linear abrasion 4 c.ms. x 0.05 c.ms. over outer aspect of left shoulder. 8. Sutured wound 1.5 c.ms. with 2 sutures over left breast in upper laternal quadrant 9. Sutured wound 0.5 c.ms. with 1 suture over lower 1/3 of outer aspect of right fore-arm. 10. Sutured wound 4 c.ms. with 4 sutures on lower 1/3rd of back of right fore-arm. 11. Sutured wound of 3 c.ms. with 3 sutures on front of lower 1/3rd of right fore-arm. 12. Sutured wound of 2.5 c.ms. with 1 suture on outer aspect of right index finger. 13. Sutured wound of 8 c.ms. with 9 sutures over right index finger from outer to inner aspect. 14. Clrainage tube opening wound on right side of abdomen of 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.ms. 15. Internal drainage tube in sitema in right Ilioe fossa. 16. Drainage opening wound on left side of abdomen 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. 17. Sutured wound 3 c.ms. with 2 sutures over right palm at thenar eminence. 18. Sutured wound 5 c.ms. with 6 sutures in right palm in medial half. 19. Sutured wound 3 c.ms. with 1 sutures back of right little finger. 20. Sutured wound 5 c.ms. with 4 sutures right side of lower abdomen. 21. Sutured wound 28 c.ms. with 23 sutures in middle of abdomen. 22. Sutured wound of 2 c.ms. with 3 sutures just above right knee. 23. Sutured wound of 7 c.ms. with 8 sutures above lateral aspect of right knee joint. 24. Sutured wound 3 c.ms. with 3 sutures below inner side of right knee joint. 25. Sutured wound 4 c.ms. with 3 sutures below right knee. 26. Sutured wound 6 c.m.s with 5 sutures back of left leg. 27. Sutured wound 5 c.ms. with 3 sutures in back of waist line on right side. 28. Sutured wound 3 c.ms. with 3 sutures on outer aspect of lower ½ of left thigh. 29. Sutured wound 2 c.ms. with 3 sutures just below left buttock. 30. Sutured wound 3 c.ms. with 3 sutures in back of waist line on left side. 31. Sutured wound 4 c.ms. with 5 sutures in front of fore-arm in upper 1/3rd. 32. Sutured wound 3 c.ms. with 3 sutures back of left fore-arm. 33. Sutured wound of 3 c.ms. with 2 sutures on michal aspect of palm. 34. Contusion scalp of 13 c.ms. x 9 c.ms. on right frontal region. 35. Sutured wound of small intestine at 40 c.ms. from pyloric end.” The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 is that they are the neighbours at the scene of offence and the accused and deceased lived in the same locality. On the date of incident, on hearing the barking of the dogs, P.W.5 came out and found the accused stabbing the deceased with a knife and P.W.5 raised cries. Subsequently, P.W.6 and others also gathered and accused went away. The deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital and the deceased informed that the accused was responsible for her injuries. In the cross examination, it was elicited that there are no street lights in Ambedkar Nagar but there are lights in the house. It was a dark night at the time of incident. The evidence of P.W.6 is also in support of the evidence of P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.7 is about the presence at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.8 is apprehension of the accused by the police and on interrogation, the accused confessed the crime and seizure of M.Os.1 and 2. The evidence of P.W.9 is about the presence at the time of panchanama at the scene and preparation of the sketch. The evidence of P.W.10, who was 22nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is about the recording the dying declaration of the deceased under Ex.P-8. The evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12 is about the investigation done by them in this case. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant strongly contend that identification of the accused is not possible in view of the positive evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 6 that there was no electric supply and therefore, the accused could not have been convicted by the Sessions Judge. 12. In this case, apart from the direct evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, the dying declaration-Ex.P-8 of the deceased also narrates the incident. The fact that the accused and the deceased are in the neighbourhood and opposite to the house of P.Ws.5 and 6 is not in dispute. When known persons are involved in a murder and the identity of the persons cannot be disputed, the mere absence of electric supply is no ground to discredit the testimony. Even if no electric supply is there, people will not be living in darkness and there will be alternative supply of power and light either by kerosene lamps or candles. It cannot be presumed that all the houses in the colony were in darkness without any light for living or movement of the people. In fact, when the material witnesses, P.Ws.5 and 6, who have spoken about the identification of the accused and their capacity to identify the accused, as assailant, in the absence of the power supply, was not at all questioned. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that in the absence of the electric supply, the possibility of the accused to be identified as assailant cannot be accepted. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and the evidence of P.W.2 also clearly goes to show that the accused was residing in the area since long time. When a person is known, the identity is not very difficult even in the slightest of the light available in any place. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that identification of the accused by P.Ws.5 and 6, as assailant, need not be doubted. On the other hand, their evidence positively shows that the accused attacked the deceased with knife and has caused several injuries, which is also proved by the medical evidence filed. It is a homicidal death of the deceased. 13. Added to the direct evidence of P.Ws5 and 6, the dying declaration given by the deceased clearly goes to show that some electric power supply was given to the house when she received shock and thereafter, the accused attacked her and caused injuries with knives. Therefore, it is quite clear that prior to the incident, there was electric supply and subsequently, it might not have been there but this is of no consequence since the deceased is well acquainted with the accused and their neighbours. Therefore, her capacity to identify the accused need not be doubted. In fact, no witness was cross examined as to the manner in which they could identify the accused if really there was no light at the scene of incident. 14. Therefore, for all the above reasons, when the dying declaration given by the deceased clearly narrates the incident and the attack on the deceased was proved by the direct evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, we have absolutely no grievance against the accused to implicate in the crime holding that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, there are no merits in this appeal and liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J ____​________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 21st January, 2011 AMD