THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 852 of 2004 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 11.03.2004 in Sessions Case No.77 of 2003 on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby the appellant/ accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment or a period of five years. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Criminal Appeal may be stated as follows. Father of Nindi Dangada Majji (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased) and the accused are brothers, and there were land disputes between their families since long time. On 19.2.1999, the accused and the deceased along with P.Ws. 1, 2 and others, came to Marriputtu village for reaping mango tree of P.W.5, and while so, on 27.2.1999, the deceased threw the accused on ground and the accused sustained injuries on face. The accused grew wild and picked up a knife and stabbed the deceased on left side of chest, which caused instantaneous death of deceased. On 1.3.1999, P.W.3, after coming to know about the incident, sent a written report through P.W.4 to P.W.9, who registered the case, and laid charge sheet after completion of investigation. 3. The trial Court framed the following charge against the appellant. ‘That you on or about 27th day of February, 1999 in Marriputtu village, Pedabayalu Mandal, did commit murder by intentionally (or knowingly) causing the death of Nindi Dangada Majji by stabbing with knife and that you thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and within my cognizance.’ When the charge was read over and explained to the appellant, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13, besides case properties M.Os. 1 to 5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. 5. The trial court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, found the appellant/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C., accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the trial court is correct, legal and proper? 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that except the interested testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2, there is no other evidence to show that the appellant is the assailant of the deceased; that there was a delay of 3 days in lodging the report. He further contended that there was no prior enmity between the accused and the deceased, and because the deceased pushed the accused in the first instance, the accused grew wild and caused only one stab injury to deceased, which resulted in his death. Hence, he prayed to take a lenient view with regard to sentence. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is very clear that the accused hacked the deceased with knife; that, because there was no proper conveyance from the place of the incident to the police, naturally it would take 2 to 3 days in reaching the police station by walk, and in those circumstances, the delay is not a ground to disbelieve the entire case of prosecution; that the trial court, after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, she prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 9. P.W.6 acted as mediator when the investigating officer conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that, the inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of stab injury. 10. P.W.8 is the Doctor who examined the deceased and found the following injuries. An elliptically shaped stab injury of 4 x 2 ½ x 8 cms present on left front mid chest region, 1 cm below the left nipple, 8 cms left to mid-line and 6 cms right to left anterior axillary line cutting the skin subcutaneous tissue, intercostals miscles and anterior chest wall muscles on left front mid-chest passing inwards, upwards, backwards cutting the lower border of 5th rib and upper border of 6th rib passing inwards cutting the left pleura. Pericardium and left ventricle and left atria-ventricular junction at mitral value region of 1 x 1 cm present with 500 ml. of blood in pericardial sac and about 1000 ml of blood in left chest cavity edges of wound are clear cut. He opined that the deceased died as a result of injury to the heart due to stab injury on chest. 11. The entire case rests upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W.1 is the father and P.W.2 is relative, of the deceased. Even the appellant is none other than brother’s son of P.W.1. Admittedly, there was no dispute between the appellant and the deceased prior to the incident. They were living happily. On the date of the incident, P.W.1 along with several persons went to Marriputtu village for cutting mango trees. P.W.1 deposed that, at about 6.00 PM, the appellant stabbed the deceased with knife on the chest. Similarly, P.W.2 categorically stated that the appellant killed the deceased by stabbing with knife on the left side of chest. The presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the time of the incident cannot be doubted. Their presence is quite natural and probable. There is no other reason for them to implicate the appellant as the assailant of the deceased. Normally, relatives of the deceased are the last persons to implicate innocent persons that too close relatives. P.W.3 lodged Ex.P2-complaint through P.W.4-Village Servant, who handed over the same to police. The recitals in Ex.P2 are completely in corroboration with the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.5 is not an eye-witness to the incident. There is no dispute with regard to the scene of occurrence. As seen from Ex.P4, scene of occurrence is in the village Marriput. Police seized blood stained earth and control earth. After an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court rightly placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and convicted the appellant, and there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial court. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, there was no prior enmity between the appellant and the deceased, and because the deceased pushed the deceased in the first instance, the accused grew wild and caused only one stab injury, which resulted in his death, and that, the accused is having 3 children, who are dependent on him, and so prayed to take a lenient view with regard to sentence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances submitted by the learned counsel, a lenient view can be taken with regard to sentence. 13. In the result, the conviction of the appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. recorded in the judgment dated 11.03.2004 in Sessions Case No.77 of 2003 on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, is confirmed, and the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. 14. With the modification in sentence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ----------------------- (K.C.BHANU, J.) 26.11.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 852 of 2004 DATED: 26.11.2009 Between: Loyathan Dangada Majji @ Loyachan …Appellant/accused and State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 852 of 2004 26.11.2009