(1.) A charge-sheet has been laid against the accused-appellant alleging that on the 25th day of August, 1986, at about 2 p m in the class room of the Special Municipal Audi Andhra Elementary School, Koritipadu in Guntur District, he stabbed the deceased Kakumanu Job alies Job with a knife on the right side of his stomach which resulted in his death in the hospital on 30th August 1986. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge that has been framed against him under Sec 302 IPC by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur. In support of the charge, the prosecution has examined in all 20 witnesses and got marked Exs P-1 to P-28 and M Os 1 to 3 PW-1 the Headmaster and PW-2 a Second Grade Teacher have not supported the prosecution case, even though they are cited as direct witnesses PW-3 who took the deceased to the hospital and before whom the deceased made an oral dying declaration, also has not supported the prosecution case. PW-13 the Head Constable recorded Ex P-4 statement of the deceased at the hospital. PW-15 is the VI Addl Munsif Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration Ex P-19. The Addl Sessions judge found that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature and the dying declarations made on the first and second occasions have not yet been proved and ultimately found that the dying declaration Ex P-19 made by the deceased received corroboration from the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 and found that the accused was the .. person that was responsible for the cause of the death of the deceased and convicted him for the offence under Sec 304 Part-1 IPC as aganist the charge under Sec 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It is against that conviction and sentence, the accused preferred the present appeal.
(2.) Sri Bali Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the identity of the accused has not properly been established by the prosecution and the accused-appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. It is also contended that on a mere suspicion without any legal proof on record, the accused was convicted.
(3.) The plea of the accused is one Of denial The evidence of PWs 1 to 3, 5 and 6 and the medical evidence that has been produced through PWs 16 and 17 and 9 and the wound certificate Ex. P-20, Ex. P-11 post-mortem certificate and the opinion of the panchayatdars is clear on the aspect that the deceased died due to the receipt of the stab injury with M 0 1 knife at the class room at about 2pm. on 25-8-86. The scene of occurrence and the cause of the death have been properly established by the prosecution. The question now falls for consideration is whether the accused is the person that was responsible for the cause of the death of the deceased. The Addl Sessions Judge, on an appreciation of the evidence, found that the accused is the person that was responsible for the cause of death. The accused's name is Korita- pati Prakasa Rao. According to defence there are many persons by name Korita- pati Prakash Rao and under a mistaken impression, the accused was falsely imlicated in this case. Leaving all the dying declarations alone, we have to consider the dying declaration recorded by the competent Magistrate PW-15. It is not a case where, after due tutoring, the deceased made a statement, implicating the accused. In Ex P- 19 dying declaration the deceased mentioned that Koritapati Prakash Rao came on his back side and stabbed him To question No 7, he stated that on 23-7-86 Prakash Rao, Dodda Shankar Ananda Rao Prabhakara Rao and Prabhudas came and cut the thatties at his house and threatened to kill him. The motive for the commission of the offeree by that Prakash Rao along with his associates was already mentioned in his dying declaration. The only omission that has been made by the Magistrate is that he has not elicited the name of the father of that Koritapati Prakash Rao. The witnesses that were exemined during investigation have mentioned that the accused is the person who is the son of Mastan that was responsible for the cause of the death. We cannot take into account the statements made before the police under Sec 162 Cr P C. The identification tests are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the Investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the case is proceeding on right lines. The accused being a resident of the same place of PWs 5 and 6 is known to the other witness also. In the case of a known person, the question of identification parade or identification tests being conducted does not arise. When the investigating agency was proceeding with the investigation, it is the accused alone that surrendered before court on 29-8-86. The incident took Place on 25-8-1986 and the deceased died on 30-8-86. No doubt PWs 5 and 6 have not mentioned in the earlier statements the name of the father of the accused, but they being the inmates of the house, have narrated the prior incident properly. PWs 5 and 6 are natural and competent witnesses to speak about the prior incident. The mere fact that there were laches on the part of the investigating agency in not eliciting that information will not render the truthful nature of the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 doubtful What all the court has to see is whether there is an assurance or eor- 'roboration forthcoming to the dying de- claration recorded by the competent Magistrate. It is easy for PWs 5 and 6 to recollect the previous incidents as the head of their family was stabbed which ultimately resulted in death. The evidence of PWs 5 and 6 corroborated the version in Ex P-19 about the name of the assailant and about the motive aspect that has been mentioned by the deceased. It is true that the father's name of the accused was not mentioned. It is in the case of persons who are not acquainted with the court proceedings, that they may not state the particulars which are required in a court of law. But the fact that emerged from the dying decoration or the oral dying declarations or from the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 is that Koritapati Prakasa Rao who is in the dock is the person that was responsible for the cause of the death. There is no infirmity in accepting the evidence of PWs. 5 and 6. Simply because some improvements have been made we cannot say that their evidence has to be eschewed from the record. It is the duty of the court to make every attempt to find out the truth from the material that is available on record. The Addl Sessions Judge took pains in assessing the evidence to arrive at the right conclusion. Following are the circumstances that are established from the evidence (1) It is in the evidence of PW-3 that there is one more Koritapati Prakasa Rao who is employed in the office of the Superintendent of Police. That Prakasa Rao was examined as PW-18 In the court, though he was not examined by the police The necessity for examining PW-18 arose during trial as it was brought to the notice that one more Koritapati Prakasa Rao was there. That Prakasa Rao even according to him, left the village 10 years back, and there is no other Prakasa Rao excepting the accused. PW-18 stated that he cannot say whether any Prakasa Rao came to his village subsequent to his leaving the place. When PW-18 specifically stated that himself and the accused are the only persons by name Prakasa Rao in the village, the accused ought to have either suggested or elicited directly that some more Koritapati Prakasa Rao's are available in the village That attempt has not been made by 'the accused. The voters' list Exs. P-22 and 28 also disclose that the accused and PW-18 are the only Prakasa Raos that were available on record. The voters list also can be taken into consideration in -a case where a dispute arose with regard to the identity of the person. In a case where persons bear the same name with the same surname and the father's name is not there, it is incumbent on the investigating agency to examine those, persons also during investigation so that the real accused may not escape on a imaginary ground of reasonable benefit of doubt. The evidence of PWs. Sand 18 and the voters list completely eliminates the possibility ofanother Prakasa Rao available in Koritapadu village When that possibility has been excluded, we have to point out that the accused is the person who has been identified in court by the witnesses as Koritapati Prakasa Rao. (2) The accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. Even in that. he has not stated that apart from himself and PW-18, there are some persons by name Koritapati Prakasa Rao in the village. Not eliciting in the cross- examination of any one of the witnesses that apart from PW-18, some more Prakasa Rao's were available and not stating in 313 Cr. P. C. statement when an opportunity has been given, we have to construe that the plea of another Prakasa Rao committing the offence is only a myth.