ANGU PEDDABBAI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/accused preferred the present Criminal Appeal as against the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in S.C.No. 101/97 dated 7-8-1998. The learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 12 and Exs.P-1 to P-15 and M.Os. 1 to 9 came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for another one month.

(2.) Sri Praveen Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant would contend that there is no direct evidence available on record and P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 do not speak about having witnessed the incident. The evidence of P.W. 8 also is doubtful since the name of P.W. 8 had not been mentioned in the FIR and subsequently P.W. 8 was thought of just for the purpose of having a witness as though he had witnessed the actual incident and therefore this witness is just a chance witness. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that there are several discrepancies in the version of the prosecution and hence the learned Judge totally erred in placing reliance on the discrepant evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 and convicting the accused and sentencing him for a period of six years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for another one month. Reliance also had been placed on Patel Chela Viram v. State of Gujarat, Bahal Singh v. State of Haryana, Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan, Kailash Potlia v. State of A.P., Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab, State of Rajasthan v. Taran Singh, State of Haryana v. Prabhu and Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand would contend that on the mere fact that the name of P.W. 8 was not mentioned in the FIR, the evidence of P.W. 8 cannot be disbelieved. The evidence of P.W. 8 is natural and convincing and well supported by other evidence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and would submit that in the facts and circumstances the learned Judge had recorded reasons in detail which need not be disturbed by the appellate Court. Reliance had been placed on Pammi v. Government of Madhya Pradesh.