NELAPATI LUKA BABU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Crl.P.C. against the judgment dated 12/07/1999 made in SC No:679 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur) A-1 in Sessions Case No.679 of 1998 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur preferred the present criminal appeal. The learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence of PWs.1 to 13. Exs.P1 to P16 and M.Os.1 to 3 recorded acquittal of A1 and A2 relating to the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and found A1 alone of an offence under Section 201 IPC and sentences him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Hence, the present criminal appeal by the appellant-A1.

(2.) Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing appellant-A1 would contend that having recorded acquittal as far as the charge under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, convicting A1 under Section 201 IPC, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would submit that Ex.P1 is the report, on the strength of which the criminal law set in motion. But, however PW.1 disowned Ex.P1 stating that she was asked to sign the same by the police. Apart from this aspect of the matter, none of the witnesses had supported the version of the prosecution. The learned counsel also would point out that just on the strength of the medical evidence to the effect that it is homicidal death and there were several external injuries on the face and head of the deceased, conviction was recorded as against A1. In a case of this nature based on circumstantial evidence, unless there is clear proof beyond reasonable doubt conviction imposed by the learned Judge cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the ingredients of Section 201 IPC are not satisfied in the present case.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Osman Shaheed, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the medical evidence would clearly show that it is a homicidal death and there are as many as seven external injuries on the head and face of the deceased and this would be sufficient to cause death. The death occurred in the house of A1 only. Despite the same, definitely it should be taken to be within the exclusive knowledge of A1 and A1 made a serious attempt to screen the same as revealed by his conduct. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would submit that mere fact that PW.1 disowned Ex.P1 or other witness were declared hostile would not definitely entitle the appellant/A1 to get acquittal in view of the medical evidence, in view of his conduct and in view of other circumstances which would definitely point out the guilt of the appellant/A1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also had taken this court through the evidence available on record in general and medical evidence in particular. Heard both the counsel.