THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 377 OF 2007 DATED: 28-07-2010 Between: Cherimamilla Giribabu …Appellant-A1 And State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. …Respondent-Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 377 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. is directed by the appellant-A1 against the judgment, dated 13-02-2007 in Sessions Case No.121 of 2006, on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, (II Fast Track Court), Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby A1 was convicted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal, may be stated as follows: P.Ws.1 and 3 are the parents, P.W.2 is the sister and P.W.4 is the wife of Sagar Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). The marriage of P.W.2 with A1 was performed about eight years prior to the incident and they were blessed with two children. P.W.1 made fixed deposits of Rs.40,000/- in the name of daughter of P.W.2, Rs.30,000/- each in the name of A1 and P.W.1. Subsequently, A1 started harassing and used to beat P.W.2. On that P.W.1 got filed a dowry harassment case against A1. Then A1 tried to compromise the case. P.W.1 promised to withdraw the case on a condition if they lived happily for one year. About three days prior to the incident, A1 visited the house of P.W.1 and stayed there. On 14-12-2004 the deceased, A1 and P.Ws. 1 to 4 went to the temple for Pooja and returned back home by 12 noon. Then A1 after taking lunch went to the hotel of P.W.11 and stayed there up to 12 mid night. He then went to the house of P.W.1 and knocked the doors. On that P.W.1 opened the doors and thereafter, the deceased, A1 and P.W.5 all slept in the hall and P.Ws. 1 to 4 slept in second hall. At about 3.30 hours on hearing a big sound, P.Ws. 1 to 4 rushed to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased lying on ground and noticed an injury to his left temple of head and saw A1 with one pestle and one knife in his hands. On seeing the same, P.W.1 fell unconscious and when P.W.2 tried to escape from the front hall to second hall, A2 who was behind the door attacked P.W.2 with a stick and beat her on forehead. On receiving the injury, P.W.2 fell unconscious. When P.W.3 tried to intervene, A1 also beat her with a pestle on her left shoulder. On hearing hue and cry, the neighbours P.Ws. 6 and 7 rushed to the scene. Then the injured were moved to the hospital. P.W.12 the then Civil Assistant Surgeon at C.H.C. Devarakonda examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 and issued Exs.P8 and P9 wound certificates. On 15-12-2004 on receiving the telephone information about the murder of the deceased, P.W.14 the then Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Ramannapet Police Station rushed to the scene of offence and on receipt of report from P.W.1, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.254 of 2004 and basing on it, Head Constable issued Ex.P11- F.I.R. Further investigation was taken over by P.W.17, who rushed to the scene of offence and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 7, 11 and 14. He then held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.9 under Ex.P5. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. P.W.13, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of death was due to head injury and he issued Ex.P10 post mortem report. On 29-12-2004, A1 was arrested and at the instance of A1, M.Os.4 and 5 were seized in the presence of P.W.10 under a cover of Ex.P7 panchanama. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, framed the following charges against the accused: “FIRSTLY: That A1 of you in the intervening night of 14-12-2004/15- 12-2004 at about 1.30 hours attacked the deceased Sagar Babu with a knife and stabbed him on his left side temporal head and on back side of his head with a pounder, with an intention to kill him, while he was in sound sleep at his residence in Devarakonda village and caused his death and that A2 of you guarded around the house and thereby facilitated A1 in killing the deceased and you A1 and A2 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. SECONDLY: That A1 of you on the same day, time and place as mentioned in Charge No.1 did an act to kill your wife Cherimamilla Sujatha @ Geetha while A2 of you guarded around the house with such intention and under such circumstances by that act if you had caused the death of Sujatha, you would have been guilty of murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC. THIRDLY: That A1 of you on the same day, time and place as mentioned in Charge No.1 voluntarily caused grievous injuries on left shoulder of your mother-in-law Bonthu Ramadevi by using the instrument of pounder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. FOURTHLY: That A2 of you on the same day, time and place as mentioned in Charge No.1 voluntarily caused grievous injuries on forehead of Cherimamilla Sujatha wife of A1 by using the instruments of knife and stick and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. When the above charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 17 and got marked Exs.P1 to 12 besides case properties, M.Os. 1 to 5. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, while acquitting A2 of the offences with which he was charged and A1 of the charges under Sections 307 r/w 34 IPC and 326 IPC, found him guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as above. Challenging the same, A1 preferred this appeal. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant-A1 of the charge under Section 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? 8. Mr.C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-A1 contended that F.I.R. was not given by P.W.1 and the entire case built up thereon has to be viewed with suspicion, that the prosecution has not come forward with true version of the incident, that there was absolutely no motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased, that P.W.2 is the first person who entered into the second hall of the hotel upon hearing the cries where the deceased, appellant and P.W.5 were sleeping, but she did not speak about any specific overt-acts against the appellant, that similarly she did not state about the weapons which were in the hands of the appellant, that when the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3 with regard to A2 causing injuries to P.Ws. 2 and 3, it ought to have rejected the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 in view of the fact that the statements of these witnesses are inter linked with each other, that there was no scope or possibility to separate the truth from falsehood, that as they were sleeping along with the appellant and the deceased, the possibility of causing injuries by third person cannot be ruled out, that medical evidence is completely ruled out the possibility of appellant causing injuries in the manner stated in the ocular testimony, that therefore, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that due to lapse of time, P.W.1 may not be in a position to know whether he gave report or not, that the evidence of P.W.14 would go to show that on telephonic information, he went to the scene of occurrence and received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and sent the same to Police Station for registration of the crime, that it is not a faction case so as to implicate as many number of accused as possible, that the presence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 at the scene of occurrence is quite probable and natural and they are the best persons to rush to the scene of occurrence on hearing the cries of the deceased, that when they entered into the room, they saw the appellant armed with knife and pestle, that it is possible for the appellant to cause injuries to the deceased, that A2 also attacked P.Ws. 2 and 3, who sustained some injuries during the course of same transaction, that there is no other reason to disbelieve their presence at the time of the incident, that simply because the trial Court has not accepted a part of the statement of P.Ws. 1,2 and 4, it need not necessarily follow that the remaining part of their testimony has to be rejected, that when such part of the testimony of a witness is found to be convincing and truthful, that part can be accepted, that simply because A2 was acquitted on the ground that he has not participated in the commission of offence in causing injuries to the deceased, that cannot be a ground to acquit the appellant, that the trial Court after elaborate consideration of evidence on record rightly found the appellant guilty and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. P.W.17 is the Investigating officer, who conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.9 and others under Ex.P5. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of head injury. 11. P.W.13 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, found the following injuries: 1. Injuries at chop wound 6 cm x 2 cms x 2 cms on the middle of the left temporal region of the head and communised fracture of the left temporal bone 6 cms x 1 cm caused by sharp heavy object, brownish red in colour. 2. A contusion 3 cms in diameter on the middle of the occipital region of the head, blue in colour, caused by blunt object. Internally laceration of the left temporal lobe of the vein 8 cms in length. All the organs are pale. He opined that the deceased died as a result of head injury and he issued Ex.P10-post mortem certificate. The cause of the death as spoken to by P.W.13 and as recited in Ex.P10 remained unchallenged. Therefore, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. 12. Now it has to be seen whether the appellant is the assailant of the deceased or not? 13. The scene of occurrence is in the front hall of P.W.1 where P.W.1 was running a hotel and the said hotel was taken on rent from P.W.7. The hotel was located by the side of the road leading from Nagarjuna Sagar to K.Mallepalli. P.W.17 observed the scene of occurrence in the presence of P.W.9 and others and scribed Ex.P3 report. He also drafted rough sketch of scene of occurrence. The accused has not seriously denied or disputed about the scene of occurrence. 14. A1 and A2 are brothers. P.Ws. 1 and 3 are the parents, P.W.2 is the sister and P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is the wife of A1. The marriage of A1 with P.W.2 was performed long back. For about four years, they lived happily. Thereafter, A1 started harassing P.W.2 to bring additional dowry. Unable to bear the harassment, she complained to her parents, who in turn placed the matter before the elders. In the panchayat, A1 allegedly executed a bond assuring the parents of P.W.2 that he would look after P.W.2 well. For sometime, they lived happily. Again A1 started harassing her to bring additional dowry. Three days prior to the incident, A1 and P.W.2 came to the house of P.W.1. On 14-12-2004, the deceased went to Ramalayam temple as he was in Hanuman Deeksha. P.W.5 and other family members also accompanied the deceased. All the family members of P.W.1 including the appellant returned to the house. After taking lunch, A1 went to the hotel of his sister-in-law. At about 12.30 mid night, A1 knocked the door. P.W.1 woke up and opened the door. Then A1 entered into the hotel and slept along with the deceased and P.W.5 in the first hall. In the second hall of the hotel, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were sleeping. At about 3.30 A.M., they heard a big sound from first hall. They woke up and entered into the hall and found the deceased lying with injuries on the head. They also found A1 near to the deceased with one pestle on one hand and one knife on another hand. He made hue and cry. When P.W.2 tried to escape from the second hall door, A2 beat her with a stick, as a result, she fell down. Then A2 beat P.W.3 with the pestle on her shoulder, which was fractured. Then A1 and A2 ran away from the scene of occurrence. At the early hours of 15-12-2004, P.W.14 received telephonic information about taking place of murder at Kanakadurga hotel of K.Mallepally village. He along with his staff rushed to the scene of occurrence at about 5.30 A.M. where he received Ex.P1 complaint from P.W.1. He sent Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.15, who was the Head Constable at the relevant point of time of the incident. P.W.15 registered a case under Sections 307 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. He sent the F.I.R. to all concerned including the copy of the same to P.W.17. On receipt of information through High Frequency Set, he rushed to the scene of occurrence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also observed the scene of occurrence and sent the material objects to Forensic Science Laboratory. P.Ws. 2 and 3 were referred to the hospital. 15. P.W.12 is the doctor, who examined P.W.3 on 15-12-2004 at 4.30 A.M. found the following injuries: 1) Abrasion over left shoulder size 4 x 2 cms. 2) On X ray report left lateral and of the clavicle fractured. 3) Abrasion over right forearm 2 x 2 cms He opined that injuries 1 and 3 are simple and injury No.3 is grievous in nature. He issued Ex.P8 wound certificate. On the same day, he also examined P.W.2 and found the following injuries: 1) Y shaped lacerated injury 6 x 2 x 4 cms forehead. 2) Swelling over left eye lid 4 x 2 cms and 3) Stab injury over chin 2 x 1 cm. He opined that the injuries are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P9 wound certificate. 16. It is not the case of the accused that P.Ws. 2 and 3 sustained those injuries at some other place in some other manner at the hands of some other persons. Sustaining of injuries by P.Ws. 2 and 3 cannot be doubted. But, the question is at what point of time, they sustained those injuries. P.W.12-doctor admitted that he had mentioned the date and time of examination as 15-12-2004 at 2.00 A.M. in Ex.P9 and he has corrected the time. At the top, he made corrections in both Exs.P8 and P9. If really, the doctor examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 at 2.00 A.M., the genesis of incident has to be viewed with suspicion. 17. According to P.W.1, when he entered into the hall, he found his son (deceased) lying on the ground. He noticed injury on the head of the deceased and found A1 near his son. His evidence does not indicate that A1 was causing any injuries to the deceased. P.W.2 did not state anything against A1. Insofar as P.W.4 is concerned, she stated that when herself and P.Ws. 1 to 3 went into the front hall, she fund that her husband died and when she was entering into the room, she saw A1 stabbing her husband with a knife. That aspect of the case has not been spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 3. Even as per P.W.13 (doctor), he did not find any stab injuries on the body of the deceased except a chop wound on the middle of the left temporal region. According to the doctor, that injury can be possible by axe and hatchet, which must be a sharp and heavy weapon. The knife as seized by the police is not shown to have been used in the commission of offence because the knife was not shown to the doctor to know whether injury No.1 in Ex.P10 would be possible by hacking or stabbing with a weapon like M.O.4. 18. The F.I.R. is the valuable piece of evidence, which will reveal about the incident at the earliest point of time. Therefore, the recitals in F.I.R. can be used to corroborate the evidence of the maker under Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. P.W.1 has categorically stated that he did not give Ex.P1, but he has given another complaint. He has not got drafted Ex.P1. The police for the purpose of this case, fabricated Ex.P1 and obtained his signature. According to him, he went to the police station at Devarakonda, which is at a distance of 2 K.Ms. from the scene of occurrence and lodged Ex.P1. But, P.W.2 stated that her father on seeing the incident fell unconscious and he regained consciousness after the arrival of the police. Therefore, on his own showing, giving of Ex.P1 report at the police station by P.W.1 is false. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that it was a stray admission, but we are unable to accept the same because it is not a stray admission. It is categorically stated by the witness that police fabricated Ex.P1 and he has not given any report like Ex.P1. When the case of the prosecution is shrouded or doubtful, the structure built thereon has to be viewed with suspicion. 19. No doubt, the trial Court has not placed any reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 with regard to A2 causing injuries to P.Ws. 2 and 3 and rejected a part of the statement and relied upon the other part of their statements. No doubt, the Latin maxim falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus (false in one thing and false in everything) has no application to the Criminal Law in India, but at the same time, the Court is empowered to separate the truth from falsehood. When the truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up and it is not possible to disengage the truth from falsehood, the only course left open to the Court is to reject the testimony in toto. When P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 went to the hall where the deceased was sleeping, they found the deceased lying on the ground with head injury. P.Ws. 1 and 3 did not specifically attribute any overt-act against the appellant, whereas P.W.4 stated that it is the appellant who caused stab injury on the deceased. Immediately thereafter, A2 beat P.Ws. 2 and 3 with wooden rafter. A2 attacking P.Ws. 2 and 3 is in continuation of attack made by the appellant on the deceased as it forms part of same transaction. Therefore, when the facts form part of same transaction, it is desirable that all the facts have to be accepted as true or rejected as false. Therefore, the trial Court having disbelieved a part of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 must have also disbelieved their evidence with regard to remaining part. Even assuming for a moment that a part of statement of P.Ws. 1,2 ad 4 is to be accepted as true and correct, that would not lead to an irresistible conclusion that it is the appellant who caused the chop wound on the head of the deceased because the police did not seize any heavy sharp weapon from the scene of occurrence. Furthermore, there is possibility for another person like P.W.5 to cause injuries to the deceased who was admittedly sleeping along with the appellant and the deceased at the time of the incident. It is not the case of the prosecution that there is a scope or possibility for the appellant alone to commit the murder of the deceased. Furthermore, P.W.5 opened the door at about 1 A.M. to answer calls of nature and the incident is allegedly taken place at about 3.00 A.M. The possibility of third person entering into the room where the deceased and the appellant were sleeping cannot be ruled out. 20. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that the origin and genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution. Though P.W.1 lodged complaint with the police, the same was suppressed for the reasons best known to the Investigating Agency. The prosecution has not come forward with true version of the incident that at what point of time, the deceased was attacked. When the origin and genesis is shrouded in mystery, it is unsafe to believe the prosecution version so as to convict the appellant. Furthermore, the presence of P.W.4 who is no other than the wife of the deceased at the time of incident is very much doubtful because by the date of incident, she already filed a complaint against her husband (deceased) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC. When they were on loggerheads, it is highly improbable to believe that she was present in her in-laws house. Therefore, her presence at the time of incident at the scene of occurrence is very much doubtful and no reliance can be placed on her evidence. In view of the fact that earliest complaint lodged by P.W.1 was suppressed and admittedly, he is not the author of Ex.P1 complaint, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 who is no other than the wife of the appellant and whose presence was not doubted even by the appellant, did not attribute any specific overt- acts against the appellant. She also did not state that the appellant was armed with any weapon except stating that he was sleeping along with the deceased and P.W.5 in the first hall where the hotel was being run. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 21. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.5 is concerned, he also did not speak about causing any injuries to the deceased. His evidence, at best would go to show that at about 12 mid night, A1 came and slept on one table and while P.Ws. 2 and 3 trying to catch hold of A1, A2 stabbed P.W.2 with a knife and A1 and A2 fled away from the scene of occurrence. For the first time, he saw A1 and A2 on the date of incident. Admittedly, there was no electric connection to the house and this was admitted by the Investigating Officer (P.W.17) to the effect that there was no semblance of light at the time of occurrence on the date of incident or prior or later. When P.W.5 is a stranger