THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.A.No. 1343/2007 Dt. 9-6-2011 Shiramshetti Ravi …Appellant ..Appellants/A-1,A-2 & A-5 V. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. ..Respondent ..Respondent/complainant The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.A.No. 1343/2007 JUDGMENT (per the Honourable Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) The appellant, who is sole accused, was put to trial for the offences punishable under Section 307 and 302 IPC in SC No.954/2006 by IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimnagar. The learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dt. 21-6-2007 found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 IPC and convicted accordingly and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC for causing the death of Sammaiah and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 IPC for attempting to murder P.W.1- Anand. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The gravamen of the charges framed against the accused is that on 2-5-2006 in the Waddera Colony, Ramagundam, the accused with an intention to kill Bangeri Anand-P.W.1 stabbed him and at that time, when Sadu Sammaiah tried to intervene, the accused also stabbed him and Sadu Sammaiah succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The prosecution story, as unfolded during the trial, which led to the conviction of the appellant/sole accused is as follows: P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. On the date of incident, while P.W1 and the deceased were going to Odderagudu to consume gudumba, on the way the accused met them and he also accompanied them. They all consumed gudumba and played cards. The accused borrowed Rs.200/- from the deceased and played cards. He lost money in the game. Then he picked up a quarrel and all of them quarreled with each other. Later, the accused left for his house. The deceased and P.W.1 went to the house of the accused and brought him to the shop of P.W.7. Thereafter, they all went and sat in front of the house of P.W.8, who objected them for sitting in front of her house. Later, they all went and slept on the sand heap. In the early hours at about 4 AM, the accused stabbed P.W.1 on his right side chest, throat, nose, right and left hand wrists. On hearing the cries of P.W.1, the deceased woke up and tried to intervene. On intervention, the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife. P.Ws.2 and 6 witnessed the same. When P.W.2 raised cries “Ravi not to stab”, the accused fled away. P.W.2 informed the same to P.W.3, the brother of the deceased, and other relatives about the incident. The injured were taken to the police station by 5-45 AM. P.W.14-Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramagundam, recorded the statement of P.W.1 covered under Ex.P-1. Basing on Ex.P-1, P.W.14 registered a case in Cr.No.57/2006 under Sec. 324 IPC and issued FIR covered under Ex.P-19. He sent the injured to the Area Hospital, Godavarikhani for treatment. He also followed them to the Hospital. He examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 and the deceased. P.W.10, who is the Doctor working in Surya Hospital, Godavarikhani, examined P.W.1 and the deceased on 3-5-2006. On 3-5-2006, P.W.17-Doctor examined P.W. 1 and issued wound certificate covered under Ex.P- 25. On receiving information from the Surya Hospital, Godavaikhani, stating that P.W.1 and the deceased were serious condition, P.W.14 sent a requisition to Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, record the dying declaration of the deceased and P.W.1. The Magistrate could not record the statement of the deceased as he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The Magistrate recorded the statement of P.W.1 under expectation of death. On receiving the death information of the deceased, P.W.14 altered the section of law and issued FIR covered under Ex.P-20. P.W.15-Circle Inspector of Police, Godavarikhani I Town Police Station, after taking over investigation P.W.14 visited the Area Hospital, Godavarikhani, and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.9 and one Sanga Venkatesh. Ex.P-12 is the inquest report. At the time of inquest, he seized blood stained white colour pant (M.O.2). P.w.15 examined P.Ws.3,4, 10 and L.Ws.3,5,6 and recorded their statement. P.W.15 sent the dead body of the deceased to the Government Area Hospital, Godavarikhani for postmortem examination. P.W.13-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Govt., Area Hospital, Godavarikhani, held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report covered under Ex.P-18 opining that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to stab injury. During the course of investigation, P.W.15 conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.W.11 and Gade Komuraiah, and prepared an observation report and rough sketch of the scene covered under Exs.P-15 and 16 respectively. P.W.16 who took over investigation from P.W.15 arrested the accused on 25-5-2006 and in pursuance of his confessional statement, blood stained knife-M.O.1 and clothes-M.Os.3 and 4, were recovered in the presence of P.W.12 under a cover of panchanam under Ex.P-17. He forwarded the material objects to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Warangal. On receiving relevant reports and on completion of investigation, P.W.16 filed the charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Godavarikhani. Learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as PRC No.47/2006 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Karimnagar Division, as the offence, Sec. 302 IPC, is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as SC No.954/2006 and made over to IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimnagar, for disposal according to law. The learned Session Judge on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed two charges for the offences punishable under Section 307 and 302 IPC against the accused, read over and explained the same to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences for which he stood charged, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and proved 25 documents and exhibited 4 material objects. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined but relevant portion in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.7 was marked as D-1. The learned Sessions Judge after carefully scanning the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the prosecution as well as the accused, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sec. 302 and 307 IPC and convicted the accordingly and sentenced to imprisonment as aforementioned. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the sole accused preferred the present appeal. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused contends that the evidence of P.W.1 and the complaint-Ex.P-1 given by P.W.1 would clearly disclose that there was no intention on the part of the accused to attack either P.W.1 or the deceased and infact prior to the occurrence, the accused after quarrelling with the deceased and P.W.1 left for his home, thereafter, P.W.1 and the deceased went to the house of the accused and brought him to the shop of Ashok and all of them consumed gudumba and slept on the sand heap. He further contends that in the absence of any motive to attack P.W.1 or kill the deceased the appellant/accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC. By placing strong reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the accused was in a drunken state, he contended that there was no intention on the part of the appellant and he was out of his sense on account of intoxication, and therefore, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State while sustaining the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused contended that evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6 clearly established that the accused inflicted injuries to P.W.1 and also caused the death of the deceased by stabbing him when he tried to intervene and the trial court was right in convicting and sentencing the accused basing on the evidence made available on record In view of the submissions, as referred to above, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/sole accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant/sole accused are liable to be set-aside or modified? P.W.1, who is the injured witness and who sets the criminal law in motion by lodging Ex.P-1, deposed that while himself and the deceased were proceeding towards Odderagudem to consume gundma, on the way the accused met them and accompanied to Odderagudem, where they consumed gudumba and played cards. At that time, the accused borrowed Rs.200/- from the deceased. He lost money. Then, he picked up a quarrel and all of them were quarreled with each other. After quarrel, the accused left for his house. Thereafter, himself and the deceased went to the house of the accused and brought him back to the shop of P.W.7, where they bought cigarettes. Again all of them went to Odderagudem and sat in front of the house of P.W.8. On raising her objection for sitting in front of her house, the deceased, the accused and P.W.1 left the place and sat on the sand heap, where they consumed gudumba and slept on the sand heap. In the early hours at about 4 AM, the accused stabbed him on his right side chest, throat, nose, and on both wrists. When he raised cries, the deceased woke up and tried to interfere. Then the accused stabbed the deceased also with the same knife. In the meantime, P.W.2 who was washing his face near the bore well witnessed the incident and rushed towards them. On seeing P.W.2, the accused ran away from the place. His mother came and shifted him and the deceased to the police, where police examined and recorded his statement. He further deposed in his cross-examination that the distance between the sand heap and his house is about 100 to 150 metres and himself and the deceased went to police station and he went inside the police station and on examination by the police, he informed them that the accused stabbed him. P.W.2 deposed that on hearing cries from the scene of offence, he saw the accused stabbing the deceased and P.W.1, on seeing the same, he rushed to that place by uttering words “Ravi don’t stab him”. By the time he reached the place of incident, the accused ran away. He informed the incident to P.W.3, the brother of the deceased, and other relatives. He stated to the police that he saw the incident in the illumination of electric bulb and the sand heap is 10 yards away from his house, which is situated in front of the house of Ramesh. P.W.3, who is the brother of the deceased, deposed that they shifted P.W.1 and the deceased to the police station, where P.W.1 gave his statement to P.W.14. They went to Government Hospital where they were asked to go to Surya Hospital, Godavarikhani. They shifted the injured and the deceased to Surya Hospital. The deceased succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at Surya Hospital. P.W.5 stated that on the night of the date of incident, P.W.1, the deceased and the accused met him on the road near his house and asked him to come along with them to consume gudumba. P.W.6, who is the husband of P.W.2, deposed that while she was sweeping in front of the court yard and P.W.2 was washing his face near the bore well, saw the accused stabbing P.W.1 and the deceased and her husband, P.W.2, also saw the incident. P.W.2 raised cries saying that “don’t stab don’t stab”. On hearing the cries, the accused ran way from the place of incident. Thereafter, P.W.2 informed the same to the relatives and parents of P.W.1 and the deceased. P.W.7, who is running a kirana shop, corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 about purchasing of cigarettes by the accused and deceased. P.W.10 is the Doctor who treated the deceased and P.W.1 in their hospital, Surya Hospital, Godavarikhani, on 3-5-2006. He examined the deceased and found a stab injury on middle of the chest part and injury on the neck. The deceased was in gasping condition and his condition was critical and he died at 12.45 PM while undergoing treatment. On examination of P.W.1, P.W.10 found one lacerated wound on the face measuring 2 x 2 x 2 cms; one lacerated wound on the neck 2 x 4 cms and lacerated wound on the chest 2 x 2 cms. P.W.1 was discharged on 14-5-2006. Exs.A-13 and P-14 are the case sheets of the deceased and P.W.1 respectively. P.W.13 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 3-5-2006. He found the following external injuries: 1 . Lacerated wound of ½ x ½” into bone deep over the occipital region in the mid line. 2. Stab wound of ½” x ¼” x 1” on the back, left side near the base of the neck. 3. Stab wound over the supra clavicular region near the medial end of the clavicle right side ½ x 1 x 1”. 4. A stab wound of 1 “ x ½” x4” on the right side of the chest between 5th and 6th inter costal space in front. Corresponding internal injury, the apical lobe of the right lung ruptured, arteries and vein (major) ruptured in the apical lobe. Pleura both partial and visaral ruptured. 5. Stab wound over the left hypocondrium 1” x 1 ½” x 1 ½” the sharp object entered the abdomen cavity not injuring the underlying structures. 6. Stab wound over the back and upper part of the left thigh 1 “ x 1 ¼” x 1”. P.W.13 issued postmortem report covered under Ex.P-18 opining that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage and as a result of stab injury. P.W.11 who is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama stated that in his presence police prepared a rough sketch covered under Ex.P-16 and seized blood stained earth and controlled earth. P.W.12 who is the panch witness for the confession and recovery panchanama stated that in his presence police interrogated the accused and at his instance M.O-1 knife and M.O.3- bloodstained pant and M.O.4-bloodstained full shirt were seized by the police under a cover of seizure panchanama. From the above evidence, it is clear that P.W.1 is an injured person at the hands of the accused, and he saw the accused stabbing the deceased while he tried to interfere. P.W.1 categorically deposed that the accused stabbed him and while the deceased tried to interfere the accused also stabbed the deceased. The testimony of an injured witness ie., P.W.1, has its own efficacy and relevancy. The fact that P.W.1 sustained injuries on his body would show that he was present at the place of occurrence and has seen the occurrence by himself. Convincing evidence would be required to discredit an injured witness. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 would clearly show that the accused stabbed P.W.1 and when the deceased tried to interfere, the accused stabbed the deceased also. When P.Ws.1,2 and 6 were cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited from them to discredit their testimonies. The evidence of P.W.1 about his consuming gudumba along with the deceased and the accused and purchasing cigarettes from the shop of P.W.7 was corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 7. So also, the evidence of P.W.1 about his receiving injuries is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.10, who examined P.W.1 and found the injuries as mentioned in his evidence. The Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence made available on record came to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused of the offences punishable under Sec. 307 and 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. On analyzing the entire evidence, we are satisfied that the prosecution has successfully demonstrated that it is the appellant/accused who committed the murder of the deceased and also caused injuries to P.W.1 and none else. Further, there are no compelling reasons to differ with the eventual conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the appellant was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 IPC. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial court dt. 21-6-2007 in all respects. --------------------- A.GOPAL REDDY,J ------------------ RAJA ELANGO,J DT. 9-6-2011 Kmr