Gajula Surya Prakasarao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

2. In the nutshell, the prosecution version which led to the trial of the appellant is as under:

3. On the intervening night of 7th/8th April, 2002 appellant went to the house of the deceased in Venkatayapalem village with an intention to end the life of the deceased and knocked at the door of the deceased which was opened by the wife of the deceased, Cherukuri Srinukumari (PW-3) and the appellant-accused all of a sudden hacked and attempted to kill her by inflicting severe injuries on her body, as a result of which she fell down and then he rushed towards the deceased who was sleeping and hacked him by inflicting severe injuries. The appellant after committing the offence escaped from the place of occurrence by bolting the door from outside. The daughter of the deceased Sri Surekha (PW-4) aged about 9 years raised hue and cry upon which the neighbours opened the door from outside and informed Cherukuri Gangaraju (PW1) who is a close relation of the deceased who thereafter informed Gopalapuram Police Station and lodged first information report at about 4.00 a.m. on 8th April, 2002. A case was registered as Crime No. 30 of 2002 under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC against unknown persons.

4. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined altogether 14 witnesses. The trial court upon appreciation of the evidence found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, respectively. The trial court mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4. The High Court vide its judgment dated 20th August, 2007 dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant and accordingly confirmed the judgment of the trial court. The High Court too relied upon the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4. Both courts below found that the appellant attacked the deceased with sharp edged weapon resulting in his death. The courts below also found the appellant- accused attempted to kill PW-3 by inflicting severe injuries on her body.

5. In this appeal, Shri M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submitted that the evidence of the eye witnesses does not inspire any confidence as PW-3 made a lot of improvements in her version and implicated the appellant for the first time only while deposing before the Court and never before during the investigation or in the first information report. The injured witness (PW-3) and her minor daughter (PW-4) never mentioned the name of the appellant while narrating the incident to their neighbours, police or the Magistrate though the appellant was very well known to them. It was submitted that Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure statement (08.04.2002) of PW-3 was clearly ante- timed. The evidence of prime witness PW-3 is totally unreliable and could not be believed under any circumstances as in her cross- examination she went to the extent of denying having given any statement (Ex. P-21) to the Magistrate (CW-1).

11.CW-2 is Dr. G. Bhaskararao who stated in his evidence that PW-3 was sent for treatment of injuries by Gopalapuram Police Station. As her condition was serious, he immediately sent intimation to JFCM (CW-1) who came and recorded her statement. The doctor (CW-2) was present when CW-1 recorded her statement. He certified that the patient was conscious and coherent to give her statement. The Magistrate at the foot of her statement (Ex. P 21) certified that the declaration recorded by him was read over and she admitted it to be correct and complete. It is specifically observed that she has been conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to depose all throughout. He appeared as CW-1 and stated that he recorded the statement of PW-3 under Exhibit P-21. It has not been suggested to him that PW-3 was not in a fit and coherent condition at the time of recording her statement.

4. They went on making improvements from stage to stage which makes their evidence doubtful. It is under those circumstances, we are compelled to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

18.For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The conviction and sentences awarded against the appellant are set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith. The bail bonds earlier executied by him and the sureties, if any, shall stand discharged.

19.The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.