HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARSIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Between:
Criminal Appeal No.333 of 2010 Dated: 17.04.2014 Kundala Sathibabu @ Gedela Sathibabu & two others.
… Appellants / A.1 to A.3.
And State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by PP. High Court, Hyderabad.
… Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARSIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.333 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal) The Appellants/A.1 to A.3 along with three others were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324, read with Sec.34 I.P.C., for having caused the death of Bondala @ Bondalapu Srinu @ Srinivasarao (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’); attempt to kill the de facto complainant–Yerra Ramu (PW.1), and causing injuries to Ialla Venkata Ramana @ Ramana-PW.2 on 13.12.2004 at about 8.45 p.m. The scene of offence is opposite to Laxmi Café, at 5-Cart Market Centre, Rajahmundry.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
PW.1 and the deceased are close relatives. PW.1 was driving an auto by taking it on hire. A.1 was owner-cum-driver of Auto bearing No. AP5V-1013. A week prior to 13.12.2004, at about 10.00 a.m. both PW.1 and A.1 parked their autos in front of the Railway Station, Rajahmundry and they were in queue for getting the passengers. At that time, A.1 is said to have tried to break the line and came ahead, and it was objected to, by PW.1. A.1 abused PW.1 and also gave a fist blow on his chest. Immediately, PW.1 went to the deceased, who was his brother-in- law and informed about the occurrence. The deceased and PW.1 came back to the Railway Station, Rajahmundry, and the deceased admonished A.1 for his highhanded behaviour towards PW.1. Though the matter subsided there, A.1 is alleged to have developed grudge against PW.1 and the deceased, and decided to take revenge. Accordingly on 13.12.2004 at 8.45 p.m. when PW.1 and the deceased were at the near Banana Cart of Illa Ramana- PW.2 i.e. the scene of offence, A.1 to A.3 came there in the auto of A.1 and attacked the deceased and the injured. It is alleged that A.3 beat the deceased with an iron rod on his left shoulder, A.1 stabbed him with knife twice in his chest; A.2 stabbed him with a knife, which he prevented with his left hand; when again A.2 stabbed, he prevented with his right hand. According to the prosecution, the deceased with bleeding injuries, tried to get up, but A.1 again stabbed him with knife, and when he ran towards the building of Dommeti Ramesh, he was chased by A.1 and A.2, and A.2 stabbed the deceased with knife on his buttocks. It is further alleged that the deceased ran into the kitchen room of one Ratnam-PW.3, and collapsed with injuries.
The further allegation is that A.3 beat PW.1 with an iron rod on his head, back, left thigh and knee. Out of fear PW.1 is said to have run into Sri Laxmi Café and collapsed on the ground, and the persons present at the Café closed the doors from behind, and when PW.2 tried to interfere, A.3 beat him on his shoulder with the iron rod.
After the accused went away from there, PWs.1 and 2 came to the place where the deceased was lying dead with injuries. PW.4 - Rayudu Ganganna took PW.1 to the Chaitanya Clinic, and after the first-aid he was advised to be taken to Government Hospital for treatment.
Wife of PW.1 is said to have taken PW.1 to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry for treatment. Intimation was sent from the Government Hospital to the jurisdictional police and the Head- Constable, PW.24 visited the Hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1, Ex.P.1. Crime No.327 of 2004 was registered and F.I.R.
- Ex.P.24 was issued. The Inspector of Police-PW.26 took up the investigation. Scene of offence was visited, statements of the witnesses were recorded, photographs of the scene were taken and the incriminating objects were seized between 5.00 a.m. and 6.00 a.m. on 14.12.2014. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer shifted the dead body to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry conducted inquest there, between 9.00 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.
When PW.1 was undergoing treatment, the jurisdictional Magistrate recorded his statement-Ex.P.2 on 15.12.2004. On 17.12.2004, A.1 to A.3 were arrested. They are said to have confessed commission of the crime, and the blood stained cloths on their person and the weapons – M.Os.3 and 4 were recovered. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
3. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.324 of 2006 by the Principal Sessions Judge and was made over to the I-Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry for trial. Charges under Sections 302, 307 and 324 read with Sec.34 IPC were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 26, and marked Exs.P.1 to P.29. M.Os.1 to 16 were taken on record. The accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., where they denied the evidence on record. Through judgment dt.15.02.2010, the trial Court acquitted A.4 to A.6 of all the charges. The Appellants /A.1 to A.3, however, were found guilty of the charges and sentenced as under:
(i) A.1 and A.2 were found guilty for the charge under Sec.302 IPC, and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to simple imprisonment for one year;
(ii) A.1 and A.2 were also found guilty of the charge under Sec.307 read with Sec.34 I.P.C., and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years, and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to simple imprisonment for one month each;
(iii) A.3 was found guilty for the charge under Sec.302 I.P.C., read with Sec.34 I.P.C., was and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
(iv) A.3 was also found guilty for the charge under Sec.307 I.P.C., read with Sec.34 I.P.C., and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four years, and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(v) All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
Aggrieved by the said Judgment and conviction, the Appellants/A.1 to A.3 preferred the appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Judgment of the trial Court cannot be sustained for the reason that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. It is submitted that the evidence of PW.1 is not consistent and the other eye-witness, PW.2 turned hostile. It is further submitted that the prosecution tried to introduce the persons, who were not the actual eye-witnesses as per the investigation. The learned counsel further submits that the story of the prosecution is unbelievable and even the scene of offence is not properly depicted. The learned counsel further submits that the falsehood of the case is evident from the fact that even though absolutely there was no evidence against A.3 to A.6, the investigating agency has roped in them and made them to suffer the consequences of facing the trial of a heinous crime, and the trial Court acquitted them.
It is argued that the so called arrest of the accused four days after the incident and the alleged recoveries cannot be believed for the reason that, according to the Investigating Officer when they were arrested, they were still putting on the blood stained clothes. The learned counsel further submits that it is highly improbable that the accused, if really have committed any crime, would have put on the same blood stained clothes for a period of four days, and the alleged recovery of the weapons said to have been used in the commission of crime cannot be believed for the reason that they are said to have been found in an open place, which is accessible to one and all. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the evidence of PW.1, who is only an eye-witness, is at variance with what is stated by him before the police under Ex.P.1 and also Ex.P.2, which is the statement recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate while he was undergoing treatment. In view of the above circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the incident took place as alleged and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly show that it is the accused, who have committed the crime. She submits that except for minor discrepancies, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is cogent and inspiring, and the same has rightly been believed by the trial Court and the said finding does not warrant any interference.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, so as to sustain the conviction and sentence or whether it needs to be modified, varied or set aside.
7. POINT: The fact that the deceased died a violent death and PWs.1 and 2 sustained injuries on 13.12.2004 is not denied. According to the prosecution, A.1 to A.3 are the persons, responsible for the death and the injuries, whereas, according to the accused, the people belonging to ‘Ketha’ family, with whom the deceased had enmity, have committed the crime and without properly investigating, they are accused of the crime by manipulating the witnesses and the complaint, Ex.P.1 said to have been lodged by PW.1.
8. A.1 and PW.1 have been plying autos in the Rajahmundry town and as per the practice, all the autos are to be in a row, waiting for passengers alighting from the trains at the railway station to board their autos. At that time, A.1, who was far behind in the queue, tried to surpass the other auto drivers, including PW.1, and PW.1 questioned the act of A.1. It is alleged that A.1 acted violently and gave a fist blow on the chest of PW.1. PW.1, in turn, immediately went to his deceased brother-in-law, who came there and chastised A.1 for having manhandled PW.1. With the intervention of people around, the matter is said to have been subsided, but it left behind a seedling of hatred and vengeance in the mind of A.1. He is alleged to have conspired with the other accused and in pursuance thereto, on 13.12.2004 at about 8.45 p.m., when the deceased and PW.1 were near the push cart of PW.2, the accused came there and beat the deceased, PW.1 and PW.2, resulting in the death of the deceased.
9. It is an admitted fact that the place, where the incident is alleged to have taken place, is a very busy commercial centre in the Rajahmundry town and the time was such that the area will be full of people moving around with several shops around and the railway station nearby. When PW.1 and the deceased were chitchatting near the push cart of PW.2, who is the son of maternal aunt of the deceased, the attack is said to have taken place. PWs.1 to 3 and several others around that area are said to have witnessed the incident. How far the evidence of eye-witnesses proved that it is the accused, who have committed the crime, is required to be seen.
10. The most crucial witness, is PW.2 at whose push cart, the incident took place. Since PW.2 is the son of maternal aunt of the deceased, he also happens to be a close relative of PW.1. PW.2 deposed that on the date of the incident, PW.1 and the deceased came to his shop and they were chitchatting, while he was doing his business. He further deposed that he heard the cries and suddenly he was beaten with a hard object on his back and due to the said injury he fell down, and he did not observe what happened thereafter. He further deposed that he does not know how the deceased and PW.1 sustained injuries. He categorically asserted that he did not witness the incident of the deceased being hacked or PW.1 being beaten. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination, he denied the entire case of the prosecution.
11. PW.3 is the woman, whose house is near the scene of offence. She is said to be working as a Nurse at Samatha Hospital, during that time. According to the prosecution, when the accused attacked the deceased, he ran into her house, which is on the first floor and, fell dead in the kitchen. She deposed that on 13.12.2004 at about 9.30 p.m. while she was viewing T.V., one person pushed the door and entered into the house with injuries, and when that person tried to close the doors, she herself bolted the door. She further deposed that the person with bleeding injuries was only wearing pant and immediately that person died. It was stated that when some shop keepers came, she opened the door and they informed her, and came to know that the name of the deceased was Bondalapu Sreenu. She denied knowledge of any other aspects. Even though the evidence of PW.3 is not with regard to the incident proper, it is significant for the reason that the deceased ran into her house and fell dead in the kitchen. The fact that the dead body of the deceased was found lying dead in the kitchen of PW.3 is not denied. However, little amount of suspicion arises about the conduct of PW.3. The deceased was an utter stranger to her, and he has virtually gate crashed into her house at a time when she was alone, and that person was having bleeding injuries and within minutes after entering into the house he died. When an utter stranger in that condition enters into her house, the immediate reaction of PW.3 would have been to raise hue and cry, so as to attract the residents of neighbouring portions. Instead, she bolted the door from inside, the moment the injured intruded into her house in that condition, which was horrifying. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW.3 does not connect the accused with the crime.
12. PW.4 is the person, who is running the hotel – Laxmi Café, in front of which the incident took place. He deposed that on the date of the incident at about 8.30 p.m. PW.1 entered his hotel with bleeding injuries and he applied coffee powder and got the wound bandaged and thereafter he took him to Chaitanya Nursing Home, where he was given first-aid and thereafter PW.1 was taken to Government Hospital. PW-4 admitted that he did not ascertain from PW.1 as to how he sustained the injuries. It is further in his evidence that immediately after PW.1 entered into his hotel with bleeding injuries, the shutter of the hotel was pulled down by himself, since PW.1 informed him that some people are chasing and beating him. He stated that at the time of incident, there were quite a good number of people around and there was heavy traffic.
13. PW.6 is the brother of the deceased and brother-in-law of PW.1. He claims to have come to know about the incident, and has no personal knowledge. PW.7 is said to be a woman, who is doing the business in flowers at the place of incident. She deposed that she did not witness any incident and has never seen the accused. She pleaded ignorance about the circumstances in which the deceased died. She is declared hostile by the prosecution and she denied having stated before the police as in Ex.P.5. Similarly, PW.8 is having a sweet shop and he also denied having seen the incident of attack on the deceased. He is also declared hostile by the prosecution and he denied having stated before the police as in Ex.P.6. PW.9 is having a pan-shop near the occurrence and he also turned hostile and denied having seen the incident.
14. Out of nine witnesses that are examined, except for PWs. 1 and 5, none of the witnesses have spoken anything, insofar as the attack on the deceased or PWs.1 and 2 is concerned. This brings us to the material evidence of PWs.1 and 5. Out of the two eye- witnesses, a serious doubt is cast upon the veracity of PW.5 with regard to his presence, leave alone witnessing the incident. Firstly, according to the Investigating Officer – PW.26, and as per the contents of inquest report, PW.2 is the only eye-witness to the incident. However, he has cropped up later as an eye-witness to the incident. It may be recalled that the specific defence of the accused is that the crime was committed by the people belonging to ‘Ketha’ family and significantly PW.5 is the brother-in-law of Ketha Musalaiah. The witness admitted that he is the brother-in- law of Ketha Musalaiah, but feigned ignorance as to whether the said Ketha Musalaiah came to the Court on the date when he was giving evidence. Immediately, it appears that the said Ketha Musalaiah was called by the trial Court and he entered inside the Court hall. There was no need whatsoever, if everything was fair for PW.5 to conduct himself in the manner in which he did. Further PW.5, who claims to have witnessed the entire incident, admitted that he has not informed anything about the incident to the police.
15. According to PW.5, after having witnessed the ghastly incident, he went home, slept through out the night, and only on the next day morning, the police called him and recorded his statement. However, PW.26 the Investigating Officer deposed that P.W.5 was very much present when he went to the spot. If really he is the eye-witness to the entire incident that would not have been the case. His presence would have been noted in the inquest panchanama as being the eye-witness to the incident. Coming to the material part of his testimony, it is found to be inconsistent with that of the other eye-witness PW.1. According to PW.5, A.3 beat the deceased with an iron rod, and A.2 tried to stab the deceased, but he warded off the blows with his right and left hands. According to PW.5, A.1 stabbed the deceased on his stomach. The post-mortem report, Ex.P.13 shows that there are as many as 13-incised wounds on the body of the deceased. PW.5 accounts only for three injuries with knife i.e., one on the abdomen, and one each on the left hand and right hand. That apart, according to PW.1, A.1 stabbed the deceased on chest thrice and also twice on buttocks. In view of the material discrepancies, the evidence of PW.5 cannot be believed when he says that he has witnessed the incident, wherein A.1 to A.3 have caused injuries on the deceased.
16. Adverting to the evidence of PW.1, it may be noted at the outset that he is not only the eye-witness to the incident but also the injured, and is closely associated with the ghastly incident. The incident is said to have taken place at 9.00 p.m. on 13.12.2004. Immediately, he was taken to the head-quarters hospital at Rajahmundry, and the Head Constable reached the hospital on being intimated by the hospital authorities. There, PW.1 is said to have given a statement, which was reduced into writing. This was at about 11.45 p.m. in the night i.e., nearly three hours after the incident, Ex.P.1 was recorded. A perusal of the original statement leaves no room for any doubt and gives credibility to the suggestion of the accused that the signature of the injured was obtained on blank papers and the contents therein were written subsequently. The entire statement of PW.1 runs into nearly two full pages and the spacing in between the lines is too narrow, whereas after the statement concluded, there is sufficient gap and then there is signature of PW.1 and this fact is also admitted by PW.1. This would not have been the case if the statement was recorded first and then the signature of PW.1 was obtained later. That apart such a detailed and comprehensive statement cannot be expected from a person, who was virtually on the death bed as is evident from the fact that his Dying Declaration was also recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate. As against and elaborate Ex.P.1, the Dying Declaration, Ex.P.2 recorded by the Magistrate hardly runs into ten lines and it is only on one side of the paper. The testimony of PW.1, does not inspire the confidence of the Court for the reason that it is inconsistent and there are material discrepancies.
17. After referring to the previous incident, PW.1 went on to depose that on the date of the incident, himself and the deceased were present near the push cart of PW.2, and at that time A.1 to A.3 along with some others came in an auto. He further deposed that A.1 to A.3 questioned the deceased about the propriety of the deceased in admonishing A.1, a week prior thereto. He further deposed that A.3 beat the deceased with an iron rod, A.1 stabbed the deceased with knife on chest thrice; when A.2 stabbed the deceased with knife, the deceased raised his hands and sustained injuries on both of his hands, the deceased fell down on the ground, and A.1 and A.2 again stabbed the deceased and chased him to the building of Dommeti Ramesh. When compared to his statement recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., the evidence in Court is substantially improved not on trivial aspects but on material aspects.
18. In Ex.P.1, PW.1 specifically gave the names of the assailants. He named Kundali Sathibabu @ Gedela Sathibabu, S/o. Ramu (A.1); Kundali Srinu @ Gedela Srinu, and Kukkala Ramesh s/o. Appa Rao(A.3). It is admitted by PW.1 that A.1 had another brother by name Kundali Srinu @ Gedela Sreenu. He is named by PW.1 in Ex.P.1 but he is not shown in the charge- sheet. However, the name of A.2 is Vanumu Srinu @ Bujji, S/o.Venkat Rao. Therefore, out of three persons named by PW.1 as assailants, only A.1 and A.3 are charge sheeted and in the place of Gedela Sreenu, brother of A.1, one Vanumu Srinu (A.2) has been charge sheeted. One can understand if the injured witness does not give the full description of the incident or assailant, but when he describes the full names of the assailants with their surnames, alias names and fathers’ names also, the mistake of not naming A.2 cannot be ignored as being natural. It may also be noted that the specific names with entire description are given by PW.1 in Ex.P.1 not once, but twice.
19. PW.1 did not state in Ex.P.1 that A.1 to A.3 were accompanied by any other persons. However, in his evidence he deposed that they were attacked by A.1 to A.3 and three other persons whom he did not name. He admitted that in his statement before the police, he stated that in all four persons came and attacked them. Thus three different versions are coming out. In Ex.P.1, while A.1; A.3 and one Kundali Srinu (brother of A.1) were the assailants, according to Ex.P.2, the statement recorded by the Magistrate, PW.1 mentioned that there are four assailants and in the evidence before the Court, he says that in all six people came and attacked them. As per the evidence, A.1 was armed with knife and A.3 was armed with an iron rod. However in Ex.P.1, PW.1 categorically stated that A.1 was armed with knife and his brother Sreenu (non-accused) and A.3 are armed with iron rods. In Ex.P.1, PW.1 further stated that Gedela Sreenu (non-accused) and A.3 beat him with iron rod on his left hand, right hand, left leg, left thigh and on back indiscriminately. However, in his evidence PW.1 stated that it is only A.3, who beat him with iron rod.
20. If what is mentioned in Ex.P.1 is true, there are bound to be several serious injuries on the person of PW.1, since two persons beat him indiscriminately with iron rod on different of his body. Ex.P.20 and P.21 are the medical records in respect of PW.1. The Medical Officer found six injuries and the nature of injuries are such that when two persons beat indiscriminately with iron rods, the injuries other than that that are found by the Doctor would have occurred. The Doctor found a lacerated injury; a contused injury; a superficial abrasion; a lacerated injury on finger; and tenderness on thigh and left fore-arm. However, no bony injuries were noticed. It is also noticed in the evidence of PW.1 that only the members of the Auto Rickshaw Union at Railway Station are allowed to keep their autos at the railway station. But he admits that he has nothing to show that he is the Member of the said Union for believing him that the incident, as alleged, a week prior to the incident proper, has taken place. PW.1 claims that he was initially taken to Chaitanya clinic, where first-aid was given to him, but no medical record to that effect has been produced.
21. In addition to the above, there is no corroboration to the version of PW.1 from his own relative PW.2, who is said to be other eye-witness. As earlier stated, PW.2 has specifically asserted that till the date of his evidence in the Court, he do not know as to how the deceased and PW.1 sustained injuries. He further claims that in view of his relationship he also attended the obsequies and ceremonies of the deceased and even at that time also nobody informed him as to who caused the death of the deceased.
22. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not feel it safe to rely upon the testimony of PW.1 for holding that the accused committed the crime.
23. The other aspect of the matter is about the investigation that took place subsequent to lodging of the complaint. According to the prosecution, PW.26 took up the investigation, visited the scene of offence in the same night and prepared panchanama, drawn the sketch and took the photographs. At that time, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the kitchen of PW.3. After preparing the scene of offence panchanama, the dead body was shifted to mortuary of the Government Hospital for conducting post-mortem examination and thereafter the inquest panchanama was conducted at the mortuary, but not at the place where the dead body was found lying. The death of the deceased took place nearly eight hours prior to the scene of offence panchanama being prepared. By then, the dead body was found lying at the spot. When the injured person was already dead before shifting the body to the hospital, it was incumbent on the part of the Investigating Officer to conduct inquest panchanama, since the deceased was already dead long prior thereto.
24. Proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be initiated by a Police Officer on receipt of information of death. The Investigating Officer shall proceed to the place of occurrence and hold an enquiry into the matter in the presence of the men of the locality. He is required to take all reasonable steps to investigate the case and write a report describing the appearance of the body, wounds, how they were caused and with what kind of weapon. All the proceedings are required to be held in the presence of panch- witnesses, whose signatures are required to be obtained. The witnesses are preferably expected to be the respectable persons of the locality. The report so prepared is known as inquest report and the inquest panchanama. The Investigating Officer is required to handover the dead body to the relatives of the deceased, if no foul play is suspected and in the case of there being any suspicion the body is required to be sent for post-mortem examination. Emphasis is laid on preparing inquest panchanama at the spot before shifting the dead body.
[1]
25. I n K.P. Rao v. Public Prosecutor, A.P. , the Supreme Court made the following observations in Para-39:
“Section 174 Cr.P.C. peremptorily requires that the officer holding an inquest on a dead body should do so at the spot. This mandate is conveyed by the word ‘there’ occurring in Section 174(1). Sub-section (3) of the section further requires the officer holding the inquest to forward the body with a view to its being examined, by the medical man appointed by the State Government in this behalf, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless. The sub-section gives a discretion to the police officer not to send the body for post-mortem examination by the medical officer only in one case, namely, where there can be no doubt as to the cause of the death. This discretion however is to be exercised prudently and honestly.”
26. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer did not deny knowledge as to what is required to be done by him. However, he has shifted the dead body to the mortuary and at that place conducted the inquest. The object underlying the principle of the inquest panchanama being conducted at the spot to the extent possible is obvious. The Investigating Agency is required to place the entire material graphically before the Court for effectively adjudicating the question about either the cause of death or the assailants.
27. In the instant case, the attack on the deceased took place in front of a hotel i.e., Laxmi Café. Ex.P.26 is the sketch of the scene of offence. It shows that in between place where the deceased was attacked and the hotel and other shops, there is a 5 feet wide foot path. The deceased is said to have ran towards the southern side of the push cart. The sketch shows that after Laxmi Café towards southern side there is one small lane and thereafter there are three shops, by name Ammaji Medical Store, Sreedevi Santosh Milk Centre and Laxmi General Stores. Thereafter towards further south, there is a narrow lane and there are shops in continuity thereafter. In that lane, behind the shops, there is the house of Ramesh in which PW.3 – Nurse was the tenant. It is a two storied building. The Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he did not find any blood stains either at the push cart where the attack took place on the five feet footpath, or the entire stretch of the road, cutting across three shops and 2 feet lane and the house of PW.3. He found blood stains only at the stair-case of PW.3. This raises doubt as to whether the assault took place at the push cart where it is alleged to have taken place, or whether it was near the stair case of the house of PW.3. It may be recalled that, according to PW.1, as many as, three stab injuries were inflicted on the chest of the deceased at the push cart itself. It is difficult to believe that a person with such injuries on a vital part of the body, would have run that far and even climbed the stair case, leading to the house of PW.3 and ran into the kitchen before falling dead.
28. From the above discussion, what is manifest is that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record is neither consistent, cogent, nor it inspires the confidence of the Court. Excepting for the evidence of PWs.1 and 5, who are the partisan witnesses and whose evidence do not seen to be trustworthy; there is absolutely no evidence on record connecting the accused with the crime. The trial Court has not appreciated the material in proper perspective. Therefore, the Judgment of the trial Court cannot be sustained. The point is answered accordingly.
29. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.324 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, dated 15.02.2009, against the appellants-accused Nos.1 to 3, are set aside. The appellants-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is needed in any other criminal case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants-accused shall be refunded to them.
L.Narsimha Reddy,J.
M.S.K. Jaiswal,J.
Dt.17.04.2014
Kv
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARSIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2010 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal) Dated: 17.04.2014
Kv
[1] (1975) 2 SCC 570