THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.669 of 2007 Dated : 27.10.2010 Between : Shaik Galib Basha …. Appellant-Accused a n d The State of A.P. … Respondent-Prosecution THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.669 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (per The Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is preferred by the appellant- accused challenging the conviction and sentence rendered in Sessions Case No.186 of 2006 by the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, by judgment dated 30.03.2007, wherein the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. 2) The case of the Prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the deceased Yadla Ramana developed illegal intimacy with the wife of the accused, who happens to be the close friend of the deceased. On coming to know the same, the accused decided to kill the deceased. On 01.05.2006 accused purchased a knife from LW.7, a goldsmith on the pretext of using the same for coconut bolls. Further, at 1715 hours he went to the shop of one Bodagam Lakshmanarao where the deceased was sitting and hacked the deceased with knife on his vital parts. When the deceased ran away, accused chased him and again hacked him indiscriminately and caused severe cut injuries, due to which the deceased collapsed at Narthaki Wines. In the meantime, the cashier of the Wine shop by name Ch.Venkata Subba Rao snatched the knife from the hands of the accused and in the meantime, LWs 10 and 11, Police Constables, reached the spot and shifted the deceased to hospital. L.W.1 Ch.V.Subba Rao handed over the accused to the S.I. of Police along with knife and lodged a report. 3) Basing the above complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in crime No.77/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, issued FIR. Subsequently, the Circle Inspector of Police took up further investigation, examined the witnesses, observed scene of offence, seized the blood stained earth, control earth, etc. under cover of observation report. He also got photographed the scene, prepared rough sketch. The doctors, who examined the deceased, declared him died at 2000 hours. On receiving death information, the Section of law was changed to 302 IPC. After completion of entire investigation and receiving necessary certificates, Police filed charge sheet against the accused, which was numbered as P.R.C. No.13 of 2006 by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Gannavaram. 4) On committal, the learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and framed charge under Section 302 IPC, in which, the accused denied the charge and claimed for trial. 5) In order to prove the guilt of the accused, Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.20 apart from marking MOs 1 to 5. After closure of Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating evidence put to him available in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses. The accused did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Session Judge rendered the impugned judgment as stated above. 6) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution. 7) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that P.W.1 is not an eyewitness to the incident. There is contradiction in the evidence of PWs 1 and 6 with regard to the incident occurred. P.W.6 stated that himself and P.W.1 handed over the accused to the Police whereas P.W.1 has not stated the said fact. He further contended that the manner in which the FIR has been drafted clearly shows that a false case has been foisted against him. Hence, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 8) The learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment in all respects. He has taken us to the entire evidence available on record. 9) PWs 1 and 6 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. PW.1 stated that the deceased was the driver of his vehicle and on the date of incident at about 5 or 5.30 p.m. the deceased came to the pan shop near to his shop. While he was in the cash counter, he heard the cries and came out of the shop and found the deceased lying in front of the shop with bleeding injuries and he also saw the accused armed with a knife coming nearer to the deceased. Then he caught hold the accused anticipating that he will further stab the deceased and intimated the incident to the Police by telephone. Two constables known as Blue Colts came there and shifted the deceased to hospital. Himself and some of surrounding people went to the Police Station and handed over the accused to Police and then he presented report Ex.P.1 before Police. 10) During his cross examination, PW.1 deposed that he drafted Ex.P.1 and one or two points might have been dictated by the Police, but he do not know as to what are the contents in the report to be given to Police. He denied the suggestion that the deceased outraged the modesty of a girl in the bus stand and then men chased him, beat him and caused injuries to him. 11) PWs 2 to 5 were declared hostile by the Prosecution. PW.6 deposed that while he was talking with P.W.1 in his shop, he heard the cries of the deceased. Then, himself and P.W.1 came out of the shop and saw the deceased fell in front of the shop of P.W.1. They also saw the accused hacking the deceased with a penknife abusing him ‘chaavara na koduka na samsaram nasanam chesavu’. When himself and P.W.1 caught hold of the accused, he pushed them aside stating that he can even remove the head of the deceased. Then, himself and P.W.1 took the accused in an auto to Police Station and handed over him along with knife. 12) P.W.13 also corroborated to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 stating that while he was working as Police constable at Vuyyuru Police Station, on 01.05.2006 himself and P.W.12 were on patrolling duty in blue colts. At about 5.15 p.m. when they were near RTC bus stand, they were informed of a galata at Narthaki Wines. On that, they went there and found one person lying in a pool of blood in front of Narthaki Wines. On enquiry, they came to know that the accused stabbed the deceased. Then, he shifted the injured to Government Hospital in an auto. 13) PWs 8 and 9, who are the parents of the deceased, are not the eye witnesses to the incident and they only speak about the accused being a friend of the deceased. P.W.14 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.13 P.M.E. certificate. He states that he noticed 9 external injuries and cause of death is due to the injuries might be caused with sharp edged heavy weight weapon. In his cross examination, he stated that injury Nos.2 to 7 causes profess bleeding. P.W.15 is the S.I. of Police, who registered the crime on basis of Ex.P.1 submitted by P.W.1. He also stated that P.W.1 drafted Ex.P.1. 14) With the above evidence, the Prosecution has clearly established that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him, which are said to have been inflicted by the accused. PWs 1 and 6 are the eyewitnesses to the incident and they caught hold the accused red handedly at the time of offence and they handed over the accused to Police along with MO-1 knife. MO.1 recovered from the possession of accused was also forwarded to RFSL and Ex.P.20 RFSL report also discloses that the knife and other objects forwarded contain human blood. 15) Thus, the Prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. After carefully going through the entire evidence also we are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge is right in accepting the evidence of prosecution. This Court is not able to see any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment to entertain the present appeal. Hence, the criminal appeal has to fail. 16) Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J Dated : 27.10.2010. sur