THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2007 Date: 22-4-2010 Between Sade Bullaiah … Appellant/Accused and The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor … Respondent/State THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2007 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri T.Bal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri K.Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 2. The sole accused is the appellant. Appeal is against the order of conviction dated 16-10-2006 in Sessions Case No.205 of 2003 imposed by the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Eluru, West Godavari district against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is thus: (a) That one Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was the wife of the accused. The accused had doubt about the fidelity of the deceased. In fact, the counter allegation was that the accused himself had a mistress and he used to get his mistress to the house also, which was not being relished by the deceased. The dispute had been brought to the notice of the elders and the elders pacified the accused and as a result, the deceased and the accused were started living together. (b) Be that as it may, P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, invited the accused and the deceased daughter to his house on the eve of Sankranthi festival. After a few days of Sankranthi festival, one night i.e., intervening night of 23/24-02-2002, the accused and the deceased were sleeping in one room and the other inmates of the house i.e., the father, mother and brother of the deceased were seeping in the verandah. At about 3 a.m., P.W.1 the father heard cries and immediately he tried to rush into the room of his daughter. At that point of time, the accused was rushing out of the room and in that process his body came into contact with P.W.1, as a result P.W.1 was pushed away and the accused left the place. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed into the room and found his daughter i.e., the deceased in a pool of blood and eventually found her dead. Hearing the cries, the neighbours and other relatives of P.W.1 rushed to the place of occurrence. Among them are P.W.2, P.W.4 etc. P.W.2 is the sister and P.W.4 is an independent witness, who just lives behind the house of P.W.1. (c) Immediately after a few hours after sunrise, the intimation was given to the Police and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.23 of 2002 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The Police have completed all other formalities and filed the charge-sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and also M.Os.1 to 5. 5. After appreciation of the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 6. As against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed. 7. Shorn of the other evidence on record, we find only the evidence of two witnesses which is very relevant in order to fix the liability on the accused. They are P.Ws.1 and 4. The testimony of other witnesses is not useful, inasmuch as, the same would not throw any light on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the same is not being referred to. 8. The learned Senior Counsel Sri T.Bal Reddy contended that it is not possible for P.W.1 to identify the accused in the dark- night, particularly when he woke up all of a sudden after hearing the alleged cries of the deceased. 9. Therefore, it is his contention that the presence of P.W.1 itself is a serious doubt, therefore that evidence cannot be taken into account and further that, if the evidence of P.W.1 is eschewed from consideration, there is no other evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused. 10. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor supports the judgment of the trial court in all fours. 11. P.W.1 had stated before the trial court, as stated above, in verbatim. Regarding the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, we are of the view that it is not difficult for the father-in- law to identify the son-in-law even during the nighttime. There is nothing unnatural and impossibility in such identification. After all, the person who was coming out of the room of the deceased was no other than his own son-in-law. Therefore, we do not find any force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel. 12. Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.1 had been effectively supported by the testimony of P.W.4, who stated that after hearing the commotion from the house of P.W.1, he rushed to the house of P.W.1 and at that point of time, he had seen the accused running away and after verifying from P.W.1 and others he came to know that the deceased was hacked. 13. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 who is almost an eyewitness virtually had been corroborated by P.W.4 and therefore, the person who was coming out of the room of the deceased at 3 a.m., on 08-3-2002 after slashing the neck of the deceased as identified by P.W.1, cannot be any other person except the accused, which fact had been corroborated by P.W.4. The medical evidence also is corroborating the case of prosecution. Therefore, though the testimony of P.W.1 is the solitary testimony on record in order to establish the guilt of the accused, we are of the view that since there is nothing unnatural and the evidence of P.W.1 is highly probable and trustworthy, we cannot take a different stand than the one taken by the trial court. 14. For the foregoing, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment under appeal. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 22nd April, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2007 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by DSRV, J.) 22nd April, 2010. (Ak)