RAGHAVAENDRAM PAI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K. Anoop Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Md. Osman Saheed. This appeal is filed by the sole accused as against the judgment in S.C.No.346 of 1997 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, holding the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of two years.

(2.) Learned counsel submitted that though the investigating officer says that the scene of offence is a busy locality, except the interesting testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 no other witness had been examined and absolutely there is no motive attributed while the accused had perpetrated the alleged crime as against the injured. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to several discrepancies in between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the medical evidence and would submit that there is possibility of these injuries being sustained by a fall from the scooter cannot be ruled out and hence, the appellant had been falsely implicated in the present case.

(3.) Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would be more than sufficient coupled with evidence of doctor and in view of the fact that the guilt had been well established by the prosecution, the conviction and sentence imposed are well justified.