ARYAPOGU RAGHAVENDRA Vs. STATE OF A.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the first accused in Sessions Case No.24 of 2011 on the file of Asst. Sessions Judge, Gadwal against his conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Sec. 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.).

(2.) As could be seen from the appeal grounds and other records available before this Court, the trial Court after conducting trial in SC.No.24 of 2011 against three accused persons for the offence under Sec. 307 r/w 34 of IPC, having found A2 and A3 not guilty for the offence and found the present appellant, who was shown as A1 guilty for the said offence, convicted him under Sec. 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 with default sentence.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/A1 has filed this Criminal Appeal and challenged his conviction on the following grounds: The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper way and on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, found him guilty for the offence under Sec. 307 of IPC. The trial Court was wrong in accepting the evidence of PW.1 in spite of the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint before police. There was no explanation from the prosecution as well as PW.1. The appellant has claimed that in the cross-examination, PW.1 has categorically admitted that he was completely recovered from the injuries on 21/11/2010 but still there was 2 days delay in lodging the complaint. The wife of the de-facto complainant, who was examined as PW.2 deposed before the Court that she came to know about the incident through her husband on 19/11/2010, but there was delay in lodging the complaint. According to the evidence of PW.6, the Medical Officer, who treated the de-facto complainant deposed before the Court that by the time PW.1 was admitted to hospital, he was informed that PW.1 suffered injuries due to fall from a motor-cycle i.e., on account of a road traffic accident. The mediators before whom PW.7 said to have recovered the weapon used by A1 in pursuance of the alleged confession turned hostile to the prosecution. But the Court below on the basis of the evidence of PW.1 found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sec. 307 of IPC, thereby, he is entitled to acquittal.