PATHAN MASTHAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are A-1 to A-6 in Sessions Case No. 353 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that Al is the son of A-2, while A-3 and A-4 are the brothers of A-1. A-5 is paternal uncle of A-1, and A-6 is the cousin of A-1. It is also the version of the prosecution that A-1 was the accused in Crime No. 120 of 1992 under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for outraging the modesty of one Pakalapati Savitree of Garlaoddu. Alia Pitchamma is the eye-witness in the said case and she was willing to depose in the Court against A-1, and hence, A-1 bore grudge and decided to take revenge on her by killing her husband and sought the assistance of his relatives A-2 to A-6 in the plan of killing the husband of the said Alia Pitchamma by narrating his case and the consequences of deposition of Alia Pitchamma. It is also the version of the prosecution that all of them planned to do away with the life of the husband of the said Alia Pitchamma at an appropriate time. On 07-03-1993 at about 6.00 p.m. in pursuance of their common intention of killing the Alia Satyanarayana @ Satyam (hereinafter referred to in short as the deceased), A-1 armed with an axe and A-2 to A-6 armed with sticks (cart pegs) and attacked the deceased when he was passing in front of the shop of Anantharamaiah of Garlaoddu. A-1 beat on the head of the deceased with blunt side of the axe and caused fatal bleeding injury, while A-2 beat on his stomach with a stick causing injury, A-3 beat with a stick on the back side of the deceased, while A-4 beat on his side body, A-5 beat him on the right ear while A-6 beat him on the middle of the head with the stick, and caused injuries, and the same was witnessed by P.Ws. 1 to 4 and that during the course of investigation, the injured was referred to the Government Hospital, Kothagudem and since the Medical Officer of the said Hospital was not available, the injured was taken to Government, Hospital, Palvancha, where the Medical Officer examined him and declared him as dead. Hence, the accused were charged with Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam to whom the case was made over by the Court of Session, recorded the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 12 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 and Exs. D-1 to D-3 and M.Os 1 to 10 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as such had not been established, but however, convicted A-1 under Section 304-1 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and toCriminal Appeal No.691 of 1997 pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for four months, and convicted A-2 to A-5 under Section 304-1 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, and convicted A6 under Section 304-1 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

(3.) Sri Ella Reddy, Counsel representing the appellants/accused would submit that the motive part had not been established and the episode that all the accused planned to do away with the life of the deceased inasmuch as A-l apprehended that Alia Pitchamma, the wife of the deceased may depose in a case registered against him for the offence under Section 354 IPC. This episode itself is unbelievable. The learned Counsel further would contend that even otherwise in the light of the clear evidence of P.W.4, the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 at the scene of offence, itself is highly doubtful. The learned Counsel would further contend, that Ex.P-1 is devoid of particulars and even the overt acts, which had been attributed to the accused specifically had not been consistent and the medical evidence does not corroborate with the so called direct evidence available on record. The learned Counsel also would contend that no blood stains were found on the weapons and when it is the version of the prosecution that the axe had been used, it should be taken that the sharp edge alone had been used by A-1 and not the blunt side and if the prosecution intended to establish otherwise, it is for the prosecution to prove the same, in view of the fact that there is no incised injury as spoken to by doctor-P.W. 12, and it creates grave doubt in relation to the participation of A-1 in the commission of the offence. The learned Counsel also would submit that the distribution of overt acts to several accused had not been done by the prosecution witnesses, which had not been narrated in Ex.P-1 and also in Ex.P-3 and the same had been spoken to before the Court. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on Hallu v. State of M.P.At any rate, the learned Counsel would submit that in view of the political rivalry between the parties, the foisting of the case against the accused cannot be totally ruled out and hence, benefit of doubt to be given to the accused.