A.RAMBABU @ RAMU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.45 of 2009 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. He was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. No fine was imposed.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 30.04.2008, at about 11.00 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 2, two Constables attached to Marredpally Police Station, were on patrolling duty and they received VHF message from the control room to the effect that a quarrel is taking place on a road leading from Cantonment Check Post to Patny and immediately, they reached the place. They are said to have noticed that one person i.e. the accused, was indiscriminately beating a rag picker in the process of snatching away the bag from him and he started beating whoever has intervened to separate them. One Sri Hemla Naik, who tried to intervene, was said to have received injuries in the hands of the accused. P.Ws.1 and 2 are said to have overpowered the accused, handed over him to P.Ws.5 and 6, the Constables at Begumpet Police Station, and took the injured to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad at about 12.00 in the midnight. The Doctor, who examined the injured is said to have declared him as dead. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 are said to have submitted a complaint to Begumpet Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.153 of 2008. P.W.12, the Inspector of the Police Station, caused the inquest, sent the body for post -mortem examination, and has undertaken investigation. He examined L.Ws.1 to 17 and submitted a charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. stating inter alia that the accused asked the deceased to give a beedi and when the latter refused, the accused has become wild and beaten him to death. Offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was alleged.

(3.) LEARNED counsel further submits that a serious lapse has taken place before the trial Court in the form of failure on the part of the prosecution to examine Hemla Naik. He contends that in the charge sheet, Hemla Naik, L.W.4, was described not only as an eye -witness, but also a victim, since he is said to have received injuries in the hands of the appellant, and failure to examine such a person is fatal to the entire version of the prosecution. Other grounds are also urged. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has established a perfect link between the incident relating to the death of the deceased on the one hand and the appellant on the other. He contends that this is a rare case in which the police constables reached the spot even when the quarrel was going on and the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be doubted at all. He submits that the sequence of events is such that hardly any scope was there for anybody to mediate. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that soon after the message was received by them, P.Ws.1 and 2 have rushed to the spot, apprehended the appellant, shifted the injured to the hospital and submitted complaint. He further submits that when there is cogent and consistent evidence on record, failure to examine one person, who too witnessed the incident, cannot be treated as fatal.