IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.361 of 2006 DATE: 16.11.2011 Between: Muthyala Ilaiah @ Nakka Ilaiah …… Appellant And The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through S.H.O, Uppal P.S. Cyberabad …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.361 of 2006 JUDGMENT : The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court under Section 307 I.P.C and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs.100/-. It is alleged that the accused was having goats and that several times he used to commit theft of grass from the field of P.W-6 for his goats and that Koduri Yadaiah who was worker under P.W-6 informed the same to his master and that therefore, the accused hatched a plan to do away Yadaiah and that on 06.07.2004 at about 15.30 hours when P.W-1 and Yadaiah were talking to each other at Mysamma temple, the accused went to them and picked up quarrel with Yadaiah and pulled sickle from hands of Yadaiah and beat Yadaiah and that when P.W-1 went to rescue of Yadaiah, he was also beaten by the accused with the same sickle causing brutal injuries to both of them. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty and is of total denial. After trial, the lower Court found him guilty of the above charge. 2) By the time of trial of the case in the lower Court, Koduri Yadaiah was no more. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that since Yadaiah was not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution was not able to make out a case under Section 307 I.P.C against the accused for the alleged attempt to kill him and that evidence on record does not disclose any motive for the offence and that there is no acceptable evidence on behalf of the prosecution in this case. 3) Yadaiah died natural death some time after this offence. Therefore, the prosecution was not able to produce evidence of Yadaiah in the trial Court. That does not mean that the accused is entitled for acquittal straightaway. It has to be seen whether there is any evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the offence. P.W-1 is the first informant to the police as per Ex.P-1 report. P.W-9 who was the then Sub Inspector of Police, Uppal police station, on receipt of telephonic message went to Gandhi Hospital and recorded Ex.P-1 statement from P.W-1. P.W-1 is also one of the injured in this transaction. According to P.W-9, he could not record statement of Koduri Yadaiah as he was not in conscious condition by the time he went to the hospital. After registering Ex.P-1 as case and issuing Ex.P-7 F.I.R, P.W- 9 took up further investigation in this case, during when he recorded statement of Yadaiah after he regained consciousness in the hospital. P.W-2 is son and P.W-3 is wife of Yadaiah. They came to know about the offence on information from others and when they are stated to have enquired Yadaiah as to what happened, Yadaiah is stated to have narrated the incident to them. Their evidence is based on hearsay. P.W-4 is wife of P.W-1. She was also not an eye witness to the occurrence. She turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W-5 also turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W-6 deposed that he does not know the accused, but he knows his father and that he came to know about the accused beating Yadaiah and P.W-1. He did not state the events which preceeded the offence muchless motive for the offence. When there is direct evidence of P.W-1 with regard to commission of the offence, motive loses its relevance. When the case is based on evidence of eye witness, the Court has to assess credibility of the said eye witness and need not search for motive for the offence. 4) In this case, apart from oral evidence of P.W-1, there is medical evidence of P.W-8 who worked as casualty medical officer, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad who examined P.W-1 and Yadaiah on 06.07.2004 and gave Exs.P-4 and P-5 wound certificates respectively. It is evidence of P.W-1 that he purchased green grass in the field of P.W-6 for getting his she buffaloes grazed and that Yadaiah was attending to watering of land of P.W-6 and that by about 12.00 noon or 1.00 P.M he and Yadaiah were talking to each other at Mysamma temple and that at that time, the accused came and picked up quarrel with Yadaiah, beat with his hands and thereafter hacked him with sickle on head, neck and fingers of hand and that when he questioned the accused, the accused also beat him (P.W-1) with sickle on hand and left wrist. In cross- examination he deposed that the incident occurred at about 2.00 P.M and that he does not know why the accused beat Yadaiah and that he did not observe clearly whether the accused brought the sickle or took the sickle from Yadaiah and that after the incident, the accused left the place with sickle. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the offence took place in the midst of a quarrel spontaneously and that there was no premeditation on the part of the accused to attack Yadaiah. Evidence of PW8 and Ex.P5 wound certificate relating to Yadaiah reveal the following injuries on Yadaiah: 1. A laceration of 3 x 3cms bone depth under posterior aspect of the left forearm. 2. A laceration about 4 x 3 cms x skin deep under posterior aspect of left forearm. 3. A laceration of extending from left writst joing about 12cms x 4cms x bone deep. 4. A laceration of 5cms x 2cms. X skin deep of left hand. 5. A laceration about 5cms x 4cms bone deep with tendous exposed on medial aspect of left forearm. 6. A cut injury over the right pinna and 2 lacertions over the left pinna of both ears. 7. A laceration about 8cms x 3cms muscle deep with strnoclcide mastoid muscle exposed. 8. A laceration of 7cms x 1cms x scalp deep posterior aspect of left ear. 9. A laceration of 6cms x 2cms x scalp deep and left parietal region of skull. 10. A laceration of 12cms x 8cms x bone deep below the occiput on it. 11. A laceration of 4cms x 1/2cms x 1/2cms in the left parietal region of skull. 12. Multiple and minor laceration under left shoulder joint. 13. A laceration by 4cms x 2cms x1cms beyond the right ear. 14. A laceration of 4cms x 2cms on the right thumb. 5) If the incident was spontaneous and not pre- meditated, there was no necessity for the accused to inflict so many blows on Yadaiah. A look at the said injuries reveal that the accused aimed Yadaiah against his neck and head. The weapon used by the accused is a sickle. There was no provocation for the accused to inflict fourteen injuries with sickle on Yadaiah. Having regard to number of injuries inflicted by the accused on Yadaiah, seat of those injuries and weapon with which they were inflicted, undoubtedly indicate intention of the accused to do away Yadaiah. When PW1 intervened, the accused attacked PW1 also and beat him with sickle and caused the following injuries as per Ex.P4- Wound Certificate: - Laceration 5cm x 1cm x 1cm over parietal region. - 2cm x 1cm x 1/2cm over left hand. Having regard to all the above cumulative circumstances, I am of the opinion that the case squarely falls under Section 307 I.P.C. and there are no circumstances to water down the case to Section 324 I.P.C. or 326 I.P.C. 6) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that since PWs 7 and 11 turned hostile to the prosecution, recovery of MO.1 sickle from possession of the accused in pursuance of Ex.P8- confessional statement under the cover of Ex.P9- seizure report, is not proved. Even though PW11 came forward with theory of signing on blank paper, he did not explain as to what prompted him to sign on blank paper. It is not his version that he had any prior connections with the Police or with PW9 or that he was involved in any crimes so that he has fear for the Police. Evidence of PW9 reveals that after the accused was arrested by him on 15.07.2004, the accused was interrogated and in pursuance of his statement, the accused lead them to his house and produced MO.1- sickle which was seized by him under the cover of Ex.P9- mediators report. Evidence of PW9 is corroborated by Ex.P9-mediators report which contains admitted signature-Ex.P10 of PW11. 7) Having regard to above unimpeachable evidence let in by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that the lower Court rightly found the accused guilty under Section 307 I.P.C. There are no circumstances or grounds to come to a different conclusion in this appeal either on finding as to conviction or the quantum of sentence awarded by the lower Court. 8) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 16, 2011 ksh