PURANAM MADHUSUDHANA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in S.C.No.56 of 2001 who stands convicted under Section 436 I.P.C. was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Smt. A. Padma, learned counsel representing the appellant/accused provided by legal aid would submit that P.W.1 is none other than the father-in-law of the accused and P.W.2 is the wife of the accused. The learned counsel would contend that except the statements of P.Ws.1 and 3, deposing that they had seen the accused running away, there is no other evidence available on record, and no doubt, P.W.2 also deposed that she had seen the accused running away. Learned counsel would submit that P.W.2 deposed that after handing over the accused to the police, she came back to her house and on the same day at about 2.00 a.m., the accused came to the house and knocked the door. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.6, who had deposed that on the same day at about 17.00 hours, he arrested the accused at Ayyappa Swamy Temple at Gallapudi and taken him to the police station and sent him for remand. Learned counsel would submit that in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6, virtually it is impossible for the accused to be present at the scene of the offence at 2.00 a.m. on the same day and hence, due to misunderstandings, definitely, this case should have been foisted as against the appellant/accused.

(2.) Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.5, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and also P.W.6, Sub-Inspector of Police and would submit that in cross-examination. P.W.6 specifically deposed that the accused was sent away with a warning since it was a family dispute and hence, the possibility of the accused being present at the scene of offence at the relevant point of time on the fateful day cannot be doubted in any way. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 in this regard.

(3.) The appellant/accused was charged with Section 436 I.P.C. in Crime No.75 of 2001 of L & O, I Town Police Station, Vijayawada, which was registered as P.R.C.No.6 of 2001 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, which was committed to the Court of Session and the learned Sessions Judge after recording the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.5 and also M.O.1 convicted the accused under Section 436 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.