SHAIK SADIK Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHAIK Adam Shafi of Pedakurapadu Village, Guntur District, was initially working as a cleaner, and thereafter as driver on a lorry. He was married to PW.2, by name, Shaik Johny Mukthyar. On 08.01.2009, PW.1, the Village Revenue Officer, submitted a complainant, Ex.P1, before the Station House Officer, Pedakurapadu P.S., stating that at about 4.00 p.m., a villager, PW.3 informed him that he has seen the dead body of a male person in the field of one Perecherla Nageswara Rao, and on receipt of the information, he went to the spot. Other people are said to have gathered at that place. Some of them are said to have recognized the dead body as that of Shaik Adam Shafi. The people are also said to have expressed suspicion that A3 herein, by name, Shaik Saida, was having illicit intimacy with PW.2, and that may have led to death of the deceased.

(2.) THE complaint was received by the Station House Officer, and Crime No.4 of 2009 was registered by alleging offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, against A3. The police visited the scene of occurrence, prepared scene of offence panchanama, caused inquest, and sent the body for postmortem examination. The postmortem report revealed, serious injuries, around the neck of the deceased. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy, on 09.01.2009 in the noon, opined that the death of the deceased may have taken place about 36 to 48 hours, prior to the examination. During the course of investigation, the police examined PW.6, by name, Shaik Mohammad Rafi, who is said to have informed that on 06.01.2008, he was returning from Patibandla Tiranala, and when he reached Podapadu Bus stop, he noticed A1, the deceased, Adam Shafi, and four others, and on enquiry, they informed that they were discussing about family matters. PW.7, by name, Shaik Irfan, is said to have noticed A1 to A5, near a Brandi shop, and that he over heard them, when they were discussing plans to liquidate the deceased. A1 is said to have cautioned him, not to reveal the information, to anyone. On completion of the investigation, PW.13 filed charge sheet, and relevant charges were framed against the accused, and on pleading not guilty, the trial was conducted, PWs.1 to 13 were examined, and Exs.P1 to P11 were filed. Mos.1 to 15 were also taken on record. Through its judgment, dated 12.11.2010, the trial Court convicted A1 to A5 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC, and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ - each, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. A6 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC and Section 120 -B IPC, and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - each, indefault, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the death of the deceased, no doubt was not witnessed by any person, but at the same time, the circumstantial evidence is so strong that the offence can be proved to have been committed by A1 to A6. She contends that the discrepancy in Ex.P1, and the evidence of PW.3, as to name of the person, who had illicit intimacy with PW.2, is on account of similarity of the names, and the same cannot be factor to discredit the version of the witnesses. She further contends that PWs.5 and 6 are the independent witnesses, and they had to reveal the information about what is noticed by them, only when the police examined them, and not otherwise. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court has examined the matter from proper perspective, and the judgment under appeal does not warrant any inference.