THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1228 of 2005 15-12-2014 BETWEEN:
The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
…..Appellant AND Gorantal Gangaiah And others …..Respondents/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1228 of 2005 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment of acquittal, dated 06.08.2004, in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2001 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) , Guntur, whereby the learned Judge reversed the Judgment passed in S.C.No.555 of 1999 passed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet. The learned trial Judge convicted A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and accordingly sentenced A.1 and A.3 to suffer rigorous imprisonment of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. The learned trial Judge also convicted A.2 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the same, A.1 to A.3 preferred Criminal Appeal before the lower appellate Court and the same was allowed.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That the accused and P.W.1 belong to same village. A dispute arose between P.W.1 and A.2 with regard to drawing water to their fields. P.W.1 chastised the accused, due to which the accused bore grudge against P.W.1. When P.W.1 and his son P.W.5 were returning from their field along with their cattle, the accused suddenly surrounded P.W.1, A.1 beat P.W.1 with a crow bar on his left leg below the knee and that he also instigated A.2 to A.4 to kill him. On that A.2 and A.3 beat P.W.1. Again A.1 beat P.W.1 with a sickle on his chest. P.W.5, on hearing the cries, came back and found the accused assaulting P.W.1 and ran away towards the village and informed P.W.4 and others. In the mean while, P.Ws.2 and 3, who were working in their fields, reached the scene of offence. On the basis of the complainant lodged by P.W.1 a case was registered against A.1 to A.4 for the offence under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced them as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, A.1 to A.3 preferred the appeal before the lower appellate Court.
The lower appellate Judge after evaluating the evidence and hearing arguments on both sides acquitted the accused on the following grounds:
The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of P.W.1, who is the injured person. Even though P.W.5 claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence, he admitted in his cross-examination that on seeing the accused, he ran away to the village and brought other persons to the place of occurrence, that too along with a cart to shift injured person, i.e. P.W.1. The learned lower appellate Judge further observed as follows.
One is discrepancy in the medical evidence and whether an uncorroborated evidence of P.W.1 can be relied upon to punish the appellants. Coming to the oral evidence as stated above even according to P.W.1 there are no persons along with him at the time of incident and his son was ahead of him by 20 yards and cattle are in between him and P.W.5. According to P.W.1 on seeing the accused P.W.5 ran to the village and informed the others. Though P.W.3 claimed that he saw A.1 to A.3 attacked P.W.1 his presence was not stated by P.W.1 or P.W.5. Therefore the lower court rightly rejected the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 as they are not eye witnesses to the incident. Regarding the evidence of P.W.2 he reached the scene after the incident and saw A.1 to A.3 going away and he found axe in the hand of A.1 and sickles in the hands of A.2 and A.3. If this evidence of P.W.2 is accepted the evidence of P.W.1 became false because P.W.1 claimed that all the appellants were having crowbars. If the evidence of P.W.1 is accepted the evidence of P.W.2 is false. Be it as it may according to P.W.1 he gave the statement to the police under Ex.P.1 on perusing the statement A.3 beat him with a crow bar twice on his head and he fell down and then on the left hand he hit with crow bar therefore as per Ex.P.1 three injuries were stated in Ex.P.1. In the oral evidence he claimed that A.3 beat him on the head once and then left upper arm and shoulder of right hand. When P.W.1 was specific in his statement to the police it shows that he was very much conscious and aware of the details but given oral evidence in the court adding one more injury to the shoulder from A.3. This was not supported by medical evidence. As per Ex.P.1, A.1 hit him on the leg with a crow bar and stated only one injury caused by A.1 and A.2 beat him on the right leg. According to Ex.P.1 used sickle and caused injury to the chest. If A.1 was having a crow bar in his hand and hit P.W.1 with a crow bar why he changed the instrument again caused injury with a sickle on the chest is unbelievable and it is illogical that in an attack the accused changed the instrument for committing the offence. Further P.W.1 in his oral evidence claimed that A.4 was also involved and he was ultimately found not present and he was acquitted. Therefore P.W.1 has falsely implicated A.4. Therefore oral evidence of P.W.1 is inconsistent with the Ex.P.1 and the material facts at the time of incident regarding P.W.5 going ahead and cattle passing in between and the weapons used were not properly stated and omitted in the statement to the police and these material omissions and discrepancies cast suspicion on the evidence of P.W.1. It is admitted in the oral evidence that there is political rivalry. It is also clear that there are previous disputes between P.W.1 and appellants. In these circumstances it would be totally unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of P.W.1 and these contradictions takes away the evidence of P.W.1 from the realm of trustworthiness.
To consider the evidence of P.W.5 his conduct is strange and when he saw the three persons attacking his father he ran away from the scene of offence and claimed that a cart was brought in the village to shift the P.W.1 to the hospital. This type of conduct clearly creates suspicion whether P.W.5 was present as claimed by P.W.1 or was planted by the prosecution, therefore as such the oral evidence by itself did not inspire confidences of the court and becomes suspicion.
In addition to the above circumstances, the injuries found by P.W.7 in Ex.P.3 cannot be caused by crow bar. Even according to the I.O., no weapons were recovered in this case. Under Ex.P.3 the injury Nos.1, 2, 3, 6, 7 are all incised injuries can be caused only by a sharp edged weapon. The crow bar is a cylindrical instrument and can produce only a punctured wound. The injury No.4, a contusion and injury No.5, a swelling and injury No.8 is also a contusion. No injury was found on the chest with a sickle. Therefore the medical evidence is not at all supporting the oral evidence of P.W.1.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
This Court is of the view that the lower appellate Court rightly acquitted the accused since the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire the confidence of the Court. Further, no material objects (weapons) were recovered and as such it clearly shows there is discrepancy with regard to usage of weapons by the accused concerned. Hence, the lower appellate Court has taken the view, which is in favour of the accused. If the lower appellate Court acquitted the accused on the ground of giving the benefit of doubt infavour of the accused, there is no need to interfere with the said Judgment. The Judgment of the lower appellate Court is in accordance with law and it does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the lower appellate Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 15.12.2014 pln