BEESETTI MOOLADEMUDU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, representing the appellant-accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Mohd. Osman Shaheed.

(2.) Sri Praveen Kumar the learned counsel would submit that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report. The learned counsel also would submit that when the relationship between the accused and the P.W.1 had been a strained relationship, there is every reason for P.W.1 to foist a case. The learned counsel also would submit that the learned Judge should have placed reliance on the evidence of D.W.1 and discarding the evidence of D.W.1 on the ground that the same can not be believed, definitely cannot be sustained. The counsel also would submit that the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be believed since the same is artificial and the counsel also would contend that this witness is having illicit intimacy with P.W.1. The learned counsel ultimately would conclude that at any rate in view of the relationship between the parties and the nature of evidence available on record, the appellant-accused may be let off, inasmuch as he had suffered imprisonment for a period of about more than one month.

(3.) Percontra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 is well supported by the evidence of P.W.2 and further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4. The Investigation Officer had given the details of the investigation, who was examined as P.W.5. The learned Additional Public prosecutor also had taken this Court through the Ex.P-1 wound certificate, Ex.P-2 report given by P.W.1. Ex.P-4 observation Report and Ex.P-5 rough sketch.