HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.216 OF 2007 Dated:30-06-2010 BETWEEN: Kethavath Ranjith & 2 others. …Appellants AND State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.216 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This is an appeal by the accused Nos.1 to 3 challenging the judgment of III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak, dated 08.02.2007, whereby they were convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused-appellants is that on 9.3.2005 at 6.30 p.m., all the accused committed the murder of Kevathavath Devi Singh (hereinafter called as ‘deceased’) by sprinkling chilli powder in the eyes of the deceased and by stabbing and hurling the stones and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. 3. The case of the prosecution as narrated during the course of trial, in brief, is as under: The deceased was lodged in sub-jail, Jogipet for kidnapping and causing the murder of one boy-Naresh, aged about 9 years, son of A.1. He was released on bail on 9.3.2005 at about 6.00 p.m. and was proceeding towards the bus-stand along with his wife-P.W.1 and P.W.5. When they reached near Grampanchayat of Jogipet, at about 6.30 p.m., A.1 to A.3 came behind, poured chilli powder in the eyes of the deceased, stabbed with knives in the stomach of the deceased, assaulted with stones on the head of the deceased and caused the death of the deceased. Then P.W.1 rushed to the police station, Jogipet and lodged Ex.P.1 report at about 7.30 p.m. on the basis of which, P.W.10-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2005 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. against the accused and issued Ex.P.14 F.I.R. P.W.11-Circle Inspector of Police took up the investigation, visited the scene of offence, conducted the panchanama under Ex.P.6, seized two stones (M.Os.1 and 2), chilli powder pocket, bloodstained earth and controlled earth. He drew a rough sketch under Ex.P.7 and got photographed the dead body and the scene of offence through P.W.2. He shifted the dead body of the deceased to the Government Community Hospital, Jogipet. On the next day morning, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P.8 in the presence of P.W.7 and L.W.8. He examined P.Ws.2 to 4, recorded their statements and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He apprehended the accused on 15.3.2005, in the presence of P.W.9 and L.W.10, recorded the confessional statements of the accused under Ex.P.12 and at the instance of accused, he recovered three knives-M.Os.5 to 7 which were used in the commission of offence. He sent the bloodstained stones for Forensic Science Laboratory and got examined A.1 and A.2 by the medical officer as certain injuries were found on them. After receipt of relevant reports and completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused. 4. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and explained it to the accused in Telugu. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and proved 15 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.15 and exhibited the case properties-M.Os.1 to 8. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same, but not led any evidence. 6. The Trial Court upon consideration of evidence on record found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and accordingly sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as aforementioned. 7. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants-accused strenuously contended that there are innumerable discrepancies about the sprinkling of chilli powder by the accused; according to P.W.1, A.3 sprinkled the chilli powder, and whereas, according to P.W.5, it is A.2 who sprinkled the chilli powder in the eyes of the deceased. Further P.W.1 herself admitted that the accused came from the back and in that case, it is impossible for the accused to sprinkle the chilli powder in the eyes of the deceased. Similarly, there is a discrepancy in the manner of attack and inflicting the injuries on the deceased. P.W.1 stated that A.1 stabbed the deceased on the stomach, but P.W.5 changed the version and stated that A.1 tried to stab the deceased. P.W.8, the doctor who issued Ex.P.9 post-mortem certificate found no stab injury in the stomach of the deceased, and that as per Ex.P.9 the wounds are not stab injuries but are cut injuries. P.W.1 stated that all the accused pelted stones on the head of the deceased, and whereas P.W.5 deposed that A.1 and A.3 took boulders of big and small size and threw them on the head of the deceased, which is nothing but an improvement as only two stones-M.Os.1 and 2 were found at the scene of offence. Further in the earliest version under Ex.P.1, it is only A.1 who threw the stone over the head of the deceased and after the deceased fell down, A.1 stabbed on the stomach, but there is no mention about A.2 and A.3 stabbing the deceased. Further no motive is attributed to A.2 and A.3 to do away with the life of the deceased. In view of the said discrepancies, it is highly unsafe to convict the appellants-accused and therefore, they are entitled for acquittal. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while sustaining the conviction and sentence would contend that P.Ws.1 and 5 are natural eyewitnesses to the occurrence and merely because there is slight improvement in their version, that itself cannot be a ground to discredit their testimony. When the deceased was released on bail, P.W.1 and also P.W.5, who stood as surety were present with the deceased and both of them stated categorically that A.1 to A.3 attacked the deceased. Since the witnesses are rustic villagers and innocent people, the minute discrepancies occurred in their evidence will not destroy the case of the prosecution and therefore, the conviction and sentence needs no interference by this Court. 9. P.W.1, who is none other than the wife of the deceased deposed that the deceased was lodged in sub-jail, Jogipet on the charge of his kidnapping and murdering the son of A.1. After three months of the said offence i.e. on the date of occurrence she got released the deceased on bail. Herself, deceased and P.W.5 were coming to the village. After passing a distance of 100 metres, all the accused attacked the deceased. A.3 sprinkled chilli powder in the eyes of the deceased; A.1 stabbed the deceased in his stomach with a knife; A.2 and A.3 stabbed the deceased from back side with knives, and then all the accused threw stones on the head of the deceased. The deceased died on the spot. Due to fear, P.W.5 escaped and hide himself somewhere. She got prepared the complaint-Ex.P.1 and lodged it before the police. In the cross-examination, she stated that at about 6.00 p.m., on bail, the deceased came out of the jail. At the time of offence, it was not completely dark. She stated to the scribe of Ex.P.1 that the accused came from backside. A.3 threw the chilli powder in the eyes of the deceased. P.W.2 is a photographer who identified the photographs and negatives covered by Exs.P.2 and P.3. P.Ws.3 and 4 were declared as hostile witnesses. P.W.5 is the brother of P.W.1 who accompanied P.W.1 to the jail. He supported the version of P.W.1 stating that after releasing the deceased from the jail, himself, P.W.1 and deceased were proceeding to bus-stand. When they reached near Panchayat office, the accused came behind. A.2 sprinkled chilli powder in the eyes of the deceased; A.1 tried to stab the deceased in his stomach, but the deceased narrowly escaped by moving aside. A.2 and A.3 stabbed the deceased on his back with knives and when the deceased fell on the ground due to stab injuries, A.1 and A.3 took boulders of big and small sizes and threw them on the head of the deceased. Due to fear, he (P.W.5) escaped from the scene of offence and at the bus-stand, his sister (P.W.1) contacted one person to prepare the complaint and thereafter she lodged the said complaint in the police station. 10. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found the following ante- mortem injuries: “1. An incised wound on the left loin region of the back of the obdomen. 5 x 2 x 1 cm. 2. An incised wound on the left infrascapular region of the chest. 5 x ½ x ½ cm. 3. An incised wound on the medial size of the left arm 6 x 2 x 1 cm. 4. An incised wound on the dorsem of the right hand 6 x ½ x ½ cm. 5. An incised wound on the left cheek 2 x ½ x ½. 6. An incised wound on the right mandibular region in front and below ear lobe. 5 x 1 x ½ cm. 7. Lacerated wound on the left side of the scalp over the parietal region of the head, brain matter escaped out. 4 x 2 x 1 cm. 8. Lacerated wound on the left mastirel process of the head 6 x 2 x 1 cm. 9. Lacerated wound on the back of the scalp over the occipital region of the head. 6 x 2 x 1 cm. Brain matter escaped out. 10. Lacerated wound on the left temporal region of head 4 x 2 x 1 cm.” He found the following internal injuries: “1. Left parieto temporal bone is fractured into pieces. 3 Nos. 2. Occipital bone is also fractured into pieces, 3 Nos. 3. Frontal bone is fractured. 4. Fracture of right side mandibular bone. 5. Fracture of right masillary bone.” He issued Ex.P.9 post-mortem certificate. In his opinion, the cause of death of the deceased was shock due to head injury. On 15.3.2005 he examined A.2 and A.1 and issued wound certificates-Exs.P.10 and P.11 respectively. He stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased are possible with M.Os.1 & 2-stones and three knives. P.W.9 is a witness to speak about the confession made by the accused and the recovery of M.Os.5 to 7-knives. He deposed that the accused stated that they murdered the deceased near the Court of Jogipet due to previous grudges and enmity. They led them to gutta (hill) and the accused showed them the concealed knives-M.Os.5 to 7 within the bushes and they were seized by police. P.W.11 is the Circle Inspector of Police and he deposed about his seizure of the stones-M.Os.1 and 2; knives-M.Os.5 to 7 that were used in the commission of offence. He stated that from the scene of offence he seized M.O.8-chilli powder pocket. He arrested the accused on 15.3.2005. 11. No-doubt, P.W.8-the doctor admitted that there was no stab injury on the stomach of the deceased and also did not find any substance in the eyes of the deceased i.e. chilli powder as stated to be sprinkled by the accused. Post-mortem examination was conducted 16 to 22 hours after the death of the deceased. Therefore, unless the chilli powder is of much quantity that was sprinkled in the eyes of the deceased, it cannot be found in the eyes. Suppose if a wrapper containing the chilli powder was sprinkled into the eyes of the deceased, there is every possibility of the deceased closing the eyes before it came into contact. It is not disputed that the deceased was an accused for the kidnapping and causing the death of a boy, namely, Naresh, son of the first accused. When he obtained a bail and within half-an-hour after release from the jail, he was attacked by the accused. Therefore, there is a strong motive for A.1 to attack the deceased to take revenge. P.Ws.1 and 5 are the natural eyewitnesses to the incident as they got the deceased released from the jail and were accompanying the deceased to the village. P.W.5 is one of the persons who stood as surety for the release of deceased from the jail. Therefore, P.Ws.1 and 5 are the natural eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Their evidence is consistent with regard to the attack made by the accused on the deceased. Further Forensic Science Laboratory report-Ex.P.15 clearly shows that bloodstains of human being were detected on the stones-M.Os.1 and 2 and also on knives- M.Os.5 to 7, which were recovered at the instance of the accused as per their confessional statement. The prosecution is able to establish that the death of the deceased was due to the shock due to head injury. P.W.8 deposed that left cerebral hemisphere was crushed and escaped out and found as many as 10 ante-mortem injuries and five internal injuries. Therefore, the medical evidence establishes that the deceased died due to the injuries caused by the stones that were hurled by the accused. The prosecution has also established the motive for A.1 to kill the deceased. Further A.2 and A.3 throwing the stones on the deceased also establishes their common intention to do away with the life of the deceased. In view of the same, the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is the accused and none else who have killed the deceased. Hence, the lower Court after considering the entire evidence in proper perspective rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence with they were charged beyond all reasonable doubt. We cannot come to a different conclusion than the one reached by the learned Sessions Judge. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY. J _________________ K.C.BHANU.J JUNE 30, 2010 Tsr.