HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1024 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence recorded in S.C.No.62 of 2003 by the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, vide judgment dated 13.04.2004, whereby and whereunder the appellant-accused was convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the charges under Sections 304 Part-II, 324 and 324 IPC and, accordingly, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the charge under Section 304 Part-II IPC for causing death of deceased and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for each count for the charges under Sections 324, 324 IPC for causing injuries to P.Ws.1 and 2. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased by name Chatla Venkataiah and the accused belong to same community i.e. Madiga and they are residents of Chitriyala Village. On 11.04.2002 at about 19.30 hours the deceased, his brother P.W.1-Chetla Yellaiah and his uncle P.W.2-Chinthala Maisaiah were chit chatting by standing in front of the house of Urimilla Sailu and at that time the accused came there armed with a lance (Barise) and stabbed the deceased stating that the deceased was informing the police and villagers that he (accused) was supplying food to Naxalites. Meanwhile, P.Ws.1 and 2 interfered to rescue the deceased, but the accused caused injury on right thumb of P.W.1 and also caused bleeding injury on the left arm of P.W.2 with the same Barise. The accused stabbed the deceased below the chest and on receiving the stab injury, the deceased fell on ground and died on the spot. Then the accused ran away from the scene. The incident was witnessed by the injured P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.W.3-Chinthala Balaiah. On the next day morning i.e. on 12.04.2002 at 10.15 hours P.W.1 lodged a written complaint. Thereupon, the police registered Crime No.38 of 2002 under Sections 302 and 324 IPC against the accused and took up investigation. After completion of investigation and receipt of necessary reports, P.W.11, the Circle Inspector of Police, Devarakonda, filed charge sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda. The plea of the accused was of total denial. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.O.1- Lancer (Barise). On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.D.1, portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3, was marked. 4. P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The evidence of P.W.1 is that the deceased is his elder brother and at 7.30 p.m. one or two days prior to Ugadi festival about two years back in front of the house of Urimalla Sailu the accused was scolding the deceased alleging that the deceased gave information to the police that he was supplying food to Naxalites and on hearing the exchange of words in between them, when he reached the deceased, the accused pocked with a dagger (Barise) on the chest of the deceased and thereby the deceased died on the spot. When himself and P.W.2 tried to intervene and apprehend the accused, he caused injuries to him and P.W.2 with the same dagger and he received a bleeding injury on his right thumb and P.W.2 received a bleeding injury on his left fore arm. P.Ws.2 and 3 also deposed in the same lines as deposed by P.W.1 with regard to the assault of accused on the deceased, P.W.1 and P.W.2. 5. P.W.4 is the wife and P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased. They saw the accused while he was running away with the weapon from the scene. P.W.6 is the panch witness to the scene of offence and inquest panchanamas and seizure of material from the scene of offence. P.Ws.7 and 8, panch witnesses to the confession of the accused and recovery of M.O.1 Lancer (Barise), turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem examination report and opined that the deceased died due to loss of blood from the stab injury. He also examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and opined that the injuries sustained by them might have been caused with a blunt object. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.11 is the Circle Inspector of Police and after verifying the investigation done by P.W.10 and collecting the material papers, he filed charge sheet. 6. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. Being aggrieved thereby, the accused filed this Criminal Appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging Ex.P.1 complaint, that the blood stained clothes were not recovered by the Investigating Agency, that P.W.2 is the person who caused injury to the deceased and P.W.1, and that without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective, learned Sessions judge convicted and sentenced the accused. Therefore, he prayed this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the accused. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 9. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the injured witnesses. Though they are related to the deceased, it is not a ground to reject the evidence of the said witnesses that too when they are also the injured witnesses. Further, the place where the occurrence took place being a remote village in a forest area, necessarily the relatives can be the witnesses to the occurrence and when the said witnesses are injured in the same incident, there is no necessity to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Though it is suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant- accused that P.W.2 is the person who caused the death of the deceased, but there is no discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.2 even though he was cross-examined at length. 10. The delay in lodging Ex.P.1 complaint was properly explained by P.W.1 stating that being it is a remote village, there is no transport facility and first bus from that village starts only at 8.00 a.m. and hence he lodged the complaint on the next day of the occurrence. Mere delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, unless it is established by the appellant-accused that the said delay caused prejudice to him. More over, in the present case, the delay in lodging the complaint was properly explained. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 11. The evidence of the doctor P.W.9, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and also examined the injured persons P.Ws.1 and 2, supported the ocular evidence adduced by the other witnesses. The evidence of P.W.9 runs as follows: External injuries :- Sphere shaped stab injury of 11 x 6 x 14 cms over the epigastriyal region (abdomen) by a sharp object, probably with a single edged weapon. Fracture over xiphisternean (over chest). It might have been caused with a sharp object. Internal injuries:- Lacerated wound of 18 x 2 cms over the right lobe of liver. The cause of death is due to heamorrhage and neurogenic shock due to stab injury No.1. Ex.P.8 is the P.M.E. report issued by me. Ex.P.9 is the cause of death of deceased mentioned in the P.M.E. report. Approximate time of death may be 20 to 24 hours prior to P.M.E. External injuries 1 and 2 are inter related with a single stab. The internal injury is inter related with external injuries. The injuries mentioned in the P.M.E. report are possible with M.O.1 dagger with its shown to me. The injuries mentioned in Exs.P.5 and P.7 are possible with the bottom side of M.O.1 weapon which is in blunt shape. 12. After perusal of the entire evidence and the record, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to reject the evidence of the eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of the doctor P.W.9 who treated the injured P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The learned Sessions judge after going through the entire evidence has given concurrent findings and rightly convicted the accused as stated above and the said findings cannot be interfered with. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused further submitted that the accused had wife and two female children and also old aged parents and he is the only bread winner of his family and his entire family depends on him. Therefore, he prayed this Court to take a lenient view in this matter. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel and taking into consideration that the occurrence took place in the year 2002 and the appellant is aged about 23 years at the time of occurrence, this Court is of the view that some leniency can be shown towards the accused. 14. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the appellant- accused by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II IPC and 324 IPC is confirmed, but however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC is reduced from seven years to two (2) years and the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 324 IPC is reduced from two years to one (1) year. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the period already undergone by the appellant- accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The appellant-accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court within eight (8) months from the date of receipt of the order to serve the remaining sentence. On his failure, the trial Court is at liberty to issue warrant to secure the appellant-accused. 15. In all other respects, the impugned judgment shall stand confirmed. 16. With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 29th December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1024 of 2004 29th December, 2010 cbs CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1024 of 2004 Dated: 29-12-2010 BETWEEN: Chatla Bala Ramulu … Appellant/ Accused AND The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: