GANNU UMAMAHESWARA RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. P.Parameswara Rao, counsel representing appellant-accused by way of legal aid and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mohd. Osman Shaheed. The appellant-sole accused Gannu Uma Maheswara Rao preferred this criminal appeal aggrieved by the conviction and sentence made by Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in S.C.No.122 of 2002, dated 01.11.2002, whereunder the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 448 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, and was also convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Sri. B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel representing the appellant-accused would submit that there is no independent evidence available on record and this is a dispute between close relatives and there is some doubt or suspicion about the weapon used. The learned counsel would also submit that except examination by a private Doctor though a case of serious nature has been registered by the police, the Investigating Officer had not chosen to get the injured examined through Government Doctors. The learned counsel would submit that this would throw some suspicion relating to the case of prosecution. The learned counsel also would submit that the Investigating Officer admitted that he had sent the accused to hospital, as he was having abrasion on his ankle and this would show that there was some quarrel between the relatives and nothing more and nothing beyond.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence available on record and would submit that the evidence is clear and categorical and the very fact that the injured were not examined by Government Doctor may not alter the situation in any way. Heard both the counsel. The accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 307 IPC and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7, Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.Os.1 and 2, found him guilty of the offence under Sections 448 and 307 IPC and sentenced him as already referred to supra.