STATE OF A.P Vs. SHAIK RIYAZ BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State, assailing the judgment, dated 11.10.2011, in S.C. No. 158 of 2011 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Through the said judgment, the trial Court acquitted A1 and A2 therein i.e. the respondents. The case of the prosecution was that A2 obtained a loan of Rs. 500/- from the deceased, by name Rafi, by pledging a cell phone on 18.12.2010, imposing a condition that the monthly interest shall be paid promptly. Rafi is said to have cautioned A2 on that day itself in this behalf. A2 felt insulted and is said to have informed A1, his relative, about the same. On 20.12.2010, at about 8.30 p.m., Rafi and his brother P.W.1 were said to be proceeding to Rahath Cinema Theatre to see the picture 'Yogi' in second show. A1 and A2 are said to have waylaid them and it is stated that A1 accosted Rafi as to why he cautioned A2 in the context of payment of monthly interest. Thereupon, Rafi is said to have slapped A2 and A1 is said to have become wild at once and started stabbing Rafi and when he fell down, A2 is said to have held his hands. It was also alleged that A1 sat on the chest of the deceased and indiscriminately stabbed with M.O.1. On the cries of P.W.1, several persons including P.W.6 are said to have arrived there at and on seeing them, both the accused are said to have fled away.

(2.) P.W.1 submitted a complaint, Ex.P1, to Kadapa I Town Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No. 229 of 2010. On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer, P.W.10, prepared the scene of offence panchanama, caused inquest and sent the body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. He submitted a charge sheet, after conducting the investigation into the alleged offences under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. against the accused.

(3.) Before the trial Court, P.Ws. 1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were filed. M.Os.1 to 9 were also given the marking. The trial Court took the view that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 is not in consistent with the complaint, Ex.P1, and the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P14, and acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal.