UPPARI SIDDI RAMULU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ganga Rao representing Sri Bhooma Goud learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri T.Niranjan Reddy.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant had brought to the notice of this Court that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had totally erred in placing reliance on highly interested and uncorroborated, hearsay evidence of P.Ws.4 to 7 who are not eye-witnesses to the incident. The learned Counsel would also point out that except statement under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C") of the de facto-complainant, she was not examined since she is no more in this world and there is no medical evidence also available before the Court to prove the offences with which the appellant-accused had been charged with. Hence, the appellant-accused is entitled to an acquittal.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no doubt the de facto complainant died, but her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is available on record, which would narrate what actually had happened. The learned Counsel no doubt, in all fairness submitted that this would not constitute substantive evidence, but however, on the material available on record, the learned Judge had recorded certain findings. The learned Counsel also in all fairness submitted that the Doctor was also not examined.