THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Appeal No.1374 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment, dated 21.10.2008, passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur, in Sessions Case No.264 of 2007, whereunder and whereby the sole accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Appellant is the accused and the respondent is the State, in the Sessions Case, before the trial Court. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W-1 is the wife, P.Ws.2, 3 and the accused are the brothers of one Yerredu Koti Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased’); that the accused resides in the upstairs portion and the deceased resides in the down portion of the same house in Ramulavari veedi; that there were petty quarrels between both the families and there was also a dispute between them with regard to laying of bore-well in front of the house of the deceased; that on 21.09.2006, at about 8 pm., P.W-13 went to the house of the deceased for watching T.V and at that time, the accused came and started to quarrel with the deceased with regard to water pipes and as such, verbal altercation took place between them; that thereafter, the accused went to his portion, came back and then stabbed the deceased on his chest; that on hearing the cries from the house of the deceased, P.W-3 rushed to the scene and noticed the deceased with a bleeding injury on his chest and further saw the accused running away; that P.Ws.2, 5 and 6 also rushed to the scene of offence; that thereafter, they shifted the deceased in the auto of P.W-7 to the hospital, where he was declared dead; that on 21.09.2006, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rentachinthala Police Station received a report from P.W-1 under Ex.P-2, basing on which crime was registered; and that after completion of the necessary formalities, the charge sheet was filed. 4. When a charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P.16 and Ex.P-1(A), besides M.Os.1 to 3, on its behalf. On behalf of defence, none was examined and Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. 6. The trial Court, after considering the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra. 7. The only point that arises for consideration, in this Criminal Appeal, is as to whether the trial Court had appreciated the evidence on record in a right perspective in order to convict the accused. 8.P.W-1 is the wife and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the brothers of the deceased and the accused himself is also the brother of the deceased. There used to be some squabbles with regard to settlement of the property between the families of the accused and the deceased. After receiving the report from P.W-1, the Crime was registered and the case was investigated into. 9. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, but, however, the statement of P.W-13 was recorded, admittedly, after eight days from the date of the occurrence. 10. P.W-13 is the only eye-witness who supported the case of the prosecution. All other witnesses including the wife, children and the brothers of the deceased turned hostile. 11. Two important witnesses-P.Ws.10 and 11, who were examined for the purpose of establishing the seizure of M.O-3-blood stained knife from the accused, pursuant to his confession, also turned hostile. Eventually, what remains on record is the solitary testimony of P.W-13, who stated that on the fateful day when she came from the upstairs, she saw the accused stabbing the deceased. 12. P.W-3 had stated that he only saw the accused running away from the place of occurrence. 13. P.W-3 in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement before the Police stated that after coming to know about the incident, through somebody, he came to the scene of offence. This portion of statement of P.W-3 is marked as Ex.D-1. But, in his evidence before the Court he deposed that on hearing the cries from the house of the deceased, he rushed to the scene of offence. So, from this discrepancy, which was marked as Ex.D-1, what appears is that the prosecution failed to establish satisfactorily the presence of P.W-3 and his deposition to the effect that he saw the accused running away from the scene of offence. 14. Therefore, the only testimony that remains on record is that of P.W-13. But, unfortunately, she was examined after a considerable length of time from the date of offence i.e., after eight days, as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer. But, as per P.W-13 herself, she was examined after 20 days from the date of offence. This is another discrepancy, which creates a doubt in the mind of the Court. Furthermore, there was no mention about the presence of P.W-13 at the scene of offence in Ex.P-1- complaint or at the time of inquest. In other words, only at the instance of Police, P.W-13 gave the statement that too, after a considerable length of time, if it were true. Otherwise, as an ordinary prudent person, she is expected to report to the police about the occurrence immediately, if really she was present at the scene of offence and noticed that no one was around when the offence was allegedly committed by the accused. The cumulative effect of the evidence of all these witnesses, particularly P.W-13 is that the solitary testimony of P.W-13 is highly doubtful and in such doubtful circumstances, we are of the view that it is not safe to convict the accused. Therefore, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment, dated 21.10.2008, in Sessions Case No.264 of 2007, passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, and the appellant-accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC and he shall be set at liberty, forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 27th April 2010 DR