RAMESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these appeals were accused 2 and 3 before the 2nd Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S. C. No. 178/99. The said Sessions Judge found the appellants and A-1 guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence, all the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad which having been dismissed, the two appellants who were accused 2 and 3 have challenged the said judgment of the High Court, while accused No. 1 has not challenged the said judment and conviction.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are follows :

(3.) As stated above, the High Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and affirmed the said conviction and sentence. Shri K. V. Viswanathan, learned Advocate and Ms. K. Amreshwari, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the Courts below committed serious error in accepting the interested testimony of PWs-1 to 3 and basing a conviction on the said evidence. It is pointed out to us that the investigating agency itself was not sure that the evidence of these witnesses was truthful or not, therefore, it took the precaution of recording their statements before a Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. Therefore, apart from the fact that these witnesses were interested witnesses, the fact that their statements were recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. also ought to have been taken as a ground to reject their evidence as unreliable. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Charan and Ors. v. State of U. P. (1968 (3) SCR 354) to point out that it is not safe to rely on such evidence. The learned counsel also contended from the evidence of these witnesses that is clear that none of these witnesses had actually witnessed the incident and because of existing rivalry and out of suspicion these witnesses have falsely deposed that they had witnessed the incident. The further argument of the learned counsel was that the motive suggested by the prosecution even according to itself was non-existent. It was pointed out to us from the evidence of PW-4 who was the President of the Mandali that after the accused persons returned back from the first visit to the house of the deceased and having come to know the need of the 2nd accused, he sent the keys of the Bhajana Mandali to A-2 with instructions to take such "samagri" as is necessary for him. Therefore, having received the keys of the Mandali, it is highly improbable that the accused persons would then come back and attack the deceased. The learned counsel then contended that at least so far as these appellants are concerned, the prosecution has failed to establish any case and reliance placed on Section 34, IPC to convict these appellants on the basis of common intention was wholly erroneous. It was argued that there was no material on record to show that these appellants had any knowledge as to the carrying of the knife by A-I. It is further argued that assuming for argument sake that the prosecution has established that these appellants did hold the hands of the deceased, there was no material to indicate that these appellants had the knowledge that A-1 would stab the deceased or he entertained an intention to kill the deceased. It was pointed out that even according to the prosecution case these appellants were unarmed and they did not exhort A-1 to stab. Therefore, a conviction for offence of murder under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34, IPC as against the appellant was unsustainable.