CHITARI LAKSHMAN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chitari Lakshman, appellant-accused in Sessions case No. 576 of 1996 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 17-10-1997, had preferred the present criminal appeal.

(2.) The appellant is the sole accused and he was charged with Section 302 IPC. But however, the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 10, Exs. P-l to P-20, Ex. D-l and M.Os 1 to 11, had arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution was not successful in making out a case under Section 302 IPC. But however, the learned Judge convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 304-II IPC instead of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) Sri Veera Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant-accused made the following submissions: The learned Counsel in all fairness would contend that there cannot be any serious dispute abut the happening of the incident on the fateful day. But however, he would contend that in the light of the evidence available on record, there is serious doubt as to how the incident happened and who in fact had perpetrated the crime on the fateful day. Hence, the learned Counsel would contend that in the light of the material discrepancies, the appellant-accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and also Exs. P-1 to P-20 and M.Os 1 to 11. The learned Counsel also would point out that the evidence of P.W. 6 in relation to disclosure statement and recovery of M.O. knife had been, disbelieved by the learned Judge and having held so, convicting the accused is totally unjustified. The learned Counsel also had pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 and 3 and the First Information Report. The learned Counsel had also drawn the attention of this Court to the inquest report, post-mortem examination report and the direct evidence, which had been let in by the prosecution and the absence of the corresponding injuries as deposed by P.Ws. and as reflected in the medical evidence. The learned Counsel also had explained Ex. P-17 wound certificate of the accused. The learned Counsel pointed out that the stabbing of the right side of the buttock was not specified either in the FIR or in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W. 2 and this is an important deviation and definitely, it is an improvement, and the medical evidence would reflect that the injury is on the left side of the buttock. The learned Counsel also would point out that P.W. 3 would depose in relation to the injury on the left side of the buttock, which is in deviation of what had been deposed by P.W. 2. The learned Counsel would contend that P.W. 2 is no doubt the brother of the deceased. The learned Counsel had pointed out the sketch in relation to the scene of offence and would contend that the area is Ramleela ground which is an extent of about Ac. 500 and there were no lights on the fateful day. The purpose for which these people are said to have assembled at the spot also may have to be taken into consideration from the nature of evidence let in by examining P.W. 4. The evidence of P.W. 4 is definitely doubtful and at the best, he can be said to be a chance witness. The learned Counsel also had explained the evidence of P.W. 5 and would contend that the evidence of P.W. 5 also cannot be believed. However, the evidence of P.W. 6 already had been disbelieved by the learned Judge by recording certain reasons. The learned Counsel also pointed out that P.W. 5 specifically deposed that he noticed one injury on the left side of the chest. P.W. 7 is the photographer and P.W. 9 is the doctor who had identified the signature of the doctor who issued Ex. P-18 certificate. The learned Counsel also explained about the ante mortem injuries and would submit that in view of the non-examination of the doctor who issued Ex. P-18 certificate, the very cause of death was not established. Hence, this is definitely fatal to the version of the prosecution. The learned Counsel also had further explained about the seizure panchanama Ex. P-6 and the inquest report Ex. P-4 and would contend that the finger prints on M.O. 1 had not been identified and this would assume importance on the specific stand in the light of the suggestions put by the defence Counsel whether the accused was the person who actually stabbed on the fateful day or it was Puli Raju who had perpetrated the offence on the said date. The finger prints on M.O.1 had not been identified and this is a serious infirmity in the version of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W. 10 Investigating Officer also had been referred to in detail and the defects in the investigation had been highlighted by the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. Ultimately, the learned Counsel would conclude that here is a case where there is material discrepancy relating to the place where the injury was caused, in what way the injury had been caused, even in between the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3 and in view of the matter, in view of the nature of the scene of offence, the possibility of other persons stabbing on the fateful day instead of the accused, definitely cannot beruled out and hence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.