SHAIK IBRAHIM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Appellant No.1 (A-1) and Sri B.Vijayasen Reddy, learned Counsel representing Appellants 2 and 3 (A-2 and A-3) and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri T.Niranjan Reddy.

(2.) Appellants-Accused 1 to 3 aggrieved by the judgment made in S.C. No. 542 of 1993 dated 27.3.1997 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Warangal, had preferred the present Criminal Appeal. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing first appellant-A 1 would contend that the ingredients of Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") are not attracted. The learned Counsel would submit that for the purpose of constituting abetment of offence within the meaning of Section 107 IPC, instigation, intentional aiding and engaging in conspiracy are definitely essential and none of the ingredients are satisfied. The learned Counsel also had drawn attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 and pointed out the omissions and other inherent improbabilities. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through Ex.P.5 and had explained the averments made in Ex.P.l. Ultimately, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that even though the evidence on record is to be believed, so far as it relates to the first appellant-Al, at the best Section 506 IPC alone will be attracted and definitely the offence would not fall under Section 305 IPC. The learned Counsel placed reliance on several decisions and would submit that the test of proximity may be available while deciding the case based on a particular piece of evidence and not beyond that and definitely this cannot be extended for the purpose of satisfying the Court whether the ingredients of offence had been satisfied or not.

(3.) Sri B. Vijayasen Reddy, learned Counsel representing Appellants 2 and 3 A2 and A3 would contend that as far as the incident is concerned, except hearsay evidence, there is no legally acceptable evidence and hence it cannot be said that there is any conspiracy in between A2, A3 and A 1 since it is the case of prosecution that Al alone had entered into the house of the deceased and that his mother was present. The learned Counsel would also submit that, no doubt, P.W.2 deposed that A2 and A3 were outside the house, but that by itself will not amount to an offence within the meaning of Section 305 IPC unless the other ingredients are satisfied. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the allegations made by P.W.I in Ex. P.1 are also very specific and they are against Al and Al alone and in the light of these circumstances and also in view of several inherent improbabilities in the prosecution version, Appellants 2 and 3 are entitled for acquittal.