DASARI ATCHIBABU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri C. Praveen Kumar, Counsel representing the appellants -A -1 and A -2 and Sri Mohd. Osman Shaheed, Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Sri C. Praveen Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellants -A -1 and A -2 had pointed out the evidence of P.W. 1 and suggestions to P.W. 1, the nature of the character and conduct of P.W. 1 the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, and also the inconsistencies in the said evidence. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to M.O. 1 (a) and M.O. 1 (b) ear studs, and its doubtful recovery. The learned Counsel also had pointed out the evidence of P.W. 12, and also would contend that in the light of the nature of the evidence, the version of the prosecution itself is doubtful since just adjacent to the path way on which normally, the public will be passing through, it is highly improbable that the incident would have happened at the alleged scene of offence. The learned Counsel would conclude that in the light of these inherent improbabilities in the version of the prosecution, an acquittal may have to be recorded.

(3.) On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken this court through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 15 and Exs.P -1 to P -14 and would contend that Exs.D -1 to D -3 -relevant portions in the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws. 3 to 5 respectively are not of such material contradictions so as to discredit their testimony and the evidence of P.W. 1 is clear and categorical and well supported by the other evidence and also corroborated by the medical evidence, and hence, the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the said findings are to be confirmed and the conviction and the sentence also may have to be confirmed.