Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Korumelli Srinivasa Rao Srinu, E.G. ... vs State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 16 November, 2019
Author: J. Uma Devi
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, J. Uma Devi
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.140 OF 2015
JUDGMENT :(per Hon'ble Ms. Justice J. Uma Devi) This criminal appeal is filed challenging the judgment in S.C.No.139 of 2014, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry dated 05.01.2015, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution as has been narrated in the charge sheet is briefly stated as under:-
The deceased Korumelli Veeramani was the wife of the accused. They had a daughter out of their wedlock. The accused while agreeing for the marriage with the deceased made a proposal that she had to undergo birth control operation after giving birth to a child; but she did not agree for undergoing birth control operation after giving birth to a female child. As the deceased did not undergo birth control operation, the accused developed anger towards her and went to his village Navara and latter took her along with their daughter to 2 Navara village but some time later they returned back to Singavaram village and started living there as they could not get coolie work in Navara village and resided in the house of N. Janaki for some period by taking a portion of her house on rent.
3. While the things stood thus, the accused got suspicion over the deceased as she was moving closely with the persons who were visiting her house frequently. He requested his mother-in-law Vanguri Venkatalakshmi and his brother-in-law to admonish the deceased on this issue, but they kept silent. The issue was placed before Kumar Swamy and Anjaiah to whom he requested to show their indulgence and arrange for divorce. But his request made to them for divorce negatived. On that, the accused went back to his village Navara and stayed there for few days and some time later he again approached the deceased and asked her to come with him to his village Navara to stay with him. As the deceased did not agree for coming along with him to Navara village, he left Singavaram village along with his household articles and thereafter the deceased started living with her parents. As the deceased was reluctant to come along with him to his native place Narava, he vexed with her attitude and decided to kill her, and later to end his life. With that view, he purchased a knife from the shop of P.W.8 Veera Babu and also a pesticides bottle from the shop of Padarthi Konda Venkata Rama Krishna Suresh @ Suresh P.W.9 and went to Raghudevapuram village, and there he purchased one liter of petrol from Gara Venkata Ramana L.W.13 and went into the house of his mother-in-law at Singavaram village where the deceased was staying around 12.00 'O' clock midnight with a knife in his hand after concealing the petrol bottle besides the house of P.W.2, by keeping the poison bottle in his 3 pant pocket and searched for the deceased to assault her with the knife carried with him. On hearing the sound, the sister-in-law of the deceased Smt Vanguri Naga Lakshmi, P.W.1, the complainant came out of her room and switched on the light and found the accused hacking the deceased forcibly twice on her neck. On hearing the cries of the P.W.1, the mother of the deceased woke up and tried to stop him. Then, he hacked P.W.2 on her neck and cheek with an intention to kill her. Meanwhile, Vanguri Veera Venkata Rao, the cousin of the deceased, and Vanguri Rama Rao the brother of the deceased rushed there and tried to catch hold of him and that they were also assaulted by him with the same knife which carried with him.
4. On hearing the galata in the house of the P.W.2 her neighbour Nakkariganti Nageswara Rao P.W.5, his son and others rushed to her house and that P.W.5 hit the poison tin when the accused tried to consume the poison. When the accused tried to escape from the house of the P.W.2, P.W.5 neighbour of P.W.2 caught hold of him and tied to a road side tree and went to the injured. Meanwhile, the accused somehow escaped from the scene. By the time, P.W.5 and others approached the injured, the deceased was lying dead. The other injured viz., P.Ws.3 and 4 were taken to hospital in an ambulance.
5. On a complaint made by P.W.1 Vanguri Naga lakshmi (sinister-in-law of the deceased), in the police station at Seetanagaram in the early hours of 08.09.2013 at 6.00 a.m, case was registered against the accused in Crime No.120 of 2013 under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 506 IPC. The Sub Inspector of Police, Seetanagaram Police Station who registered the case based on the 4 complaint given by P.W.1 and gave the information about the crime to the Inspector of Police, Korukonda as the offences committed were grave in nature, and sent the complaint copies of F.I.R and the complaint to all the concerned. The Inspector of Police (P.W.17), to whom the information about the commission of offence was forwarded, went to the house of the deceased Door No.4-82 at Sithanagaram along with the Sub Inspector of Police and there he collected the copies of F.I.R and the report given by P.W.1. On securing the presence of the mediators Bandela Venkata Rama Rao and Nakka Vijaya Kumar L.W.17 and P.W.11, the Inspector of Police inspected the scene of offence and prepared a "Mahazarnama" mentioning the physical features of the scene of offence and seized an empty poison tin M.O2 and a plastic bottle M.O.8 which contained pesticide poison. The scene of offence was photographed by Muthina Vara Prasad (P.W.10) as per the instructions of Inspector of Police, inquest was held by the Inspector over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the very same mediators, P.W.11 and another and during the course of inquest, the other material objects M.Os.3 to 7 were seized. The dead body of the deceased was forwarded to the Government hospital, Rajahmundry and there P.W.15, Dr. M.V.D. Prasad, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital held autopsy over it and opined that the deceased died of the injuries caused to her about 12 to 18 hours prior to conducting postmortem examination by him, on 14.09.2013, the accused was discharged from the Government hospital, Rajahmundry. On getting information about the same, the C.I of Police secured the presence of the mediators M. Raja and Kolli Narayana Rao P.W.12 and another and in their presence interrogated him during which time, he confessed about commission of crime. Pursuant to his statement, P.W.16, the Inspector of Police seized the 5 M.O.1 knife, which was said to be used in the commission of offence in the presence of P.W.12 mediator under the cover of Ex.P.10 panchanama from the open place on eastern side of the community hall.
6. The material objects seized during the course of investigation were sent to the RFSL by the CI of police by addressing Ex.A.17 letter of advice to RFSL.
7. After receipt of Ex.P.19 report from RFSCL and the postmortem report of the deceased, and the wound certificates of the injured witnesses viz., Vanguri Rama Rao, Vanguri Veera Venkata Rao, Vanguri Venkatalakshmi, P.W.2 to P.4, PW.17 the successor of P.W.16 filed the Charge sheet against the accused before V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry against the accused.
8. The learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry, after complying with all the required formalities, committed the case to the Sessions Division as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge after numbering the case as S.C.No.139 of 2014, based on the material available in record, and on hearing the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and the defense counsel, framed the charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 506 IPC, read over and explained the charges to him in telugu, and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and accordingly he was called upon to face the trial.
9. During the course of trial, prosecution examined, seventeen witnesses and marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and MOs.1 to 10. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under 6 Section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material brought on record against him and that he denied the same and made an elaborate statement expelling him from the charges but did not choose to examine any witnesses in proof of the defence he pleaded.
10. The learned Sessions Judge, having found that the substantial material is placed on record by the prosecution for establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 326, 324 IPC found him guilty of the said offences while acquitting him of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 IPC and sentenced him as stated supra.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 326 and 324 IPC is against to the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. Though the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is interested, the Court below, instead of discarding their testimony placed reliance on the testimony which is untrustworthy. P.Ws.1 to 4 being the close relatives of the deceased, herein, have given the evidence supporting the prosecution case. The incident took place during night hours. The case of the accused is that the deceased used to talk with many male persons and the persons with whom she had the contacts might have killed her. Prior to the marriage of the deceased with the accused, she had two marriages and both the marriages were broken. The incident had not taken place in the manner narrated by the prosecution. In fact, there was assault on the accused by his brother-in-law. Though, this fact was stated by him during the course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the learned Sessions Judge had not taken it into consideration. 7 Though the prosecution failed to establish mens rea and the motive, placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 whose evidence was untrustworthy, the Sessions Court wrongly convicted the accused.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State while submitting his reply arguments contended that the accused with the intention of killing the deceased went into the house of the P.W.2 with whom the deceased was staying on the intervening night of 7.9.2013 around 0.30 a.m with a knife to kill her. He caused her death by inflicting blows with the knife carried with him due to which she died. The accused also assaulted P.W.2, who tried to prevent him while he was assaulting the deceased with a knife. Accused also assaulted P.Ws.3 and 4 who came there on hearing the 'galata'. The evidence given by P.W.1 the sister in law of the deceased as regard to the incident in which the deceased was assaulted was corroborated by the testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4 who also received the injuries in the said incident. The oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 was corroborated by the medical evidence, this would establish succinctly that they received injuries due to the blows inflicted on them by the accused with a knife when they intervened to prevent the accused from killing the deceased. All the injured were examined in the early hours of 08.09.2013 and there was no delay in shifting them to the hospital. Postmortem examination over dead body of the deceased was conducted on the same day in between 1.15 p.m to 4.00 p.m and that investigation of the case was taken up by the Circle Inspector of Police around 7.00 a.m. With the evidence brought on record by examining the prosecution witnesses particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 whose evidence was trustworthy, the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for killing his wife 8 by inflicting knife blows on her vital parts and also for causing injuries to P.Ws.2 to 4. His submission is that the evidence on record is thoroughly appreciated by the Court below and there is no infirmity as such in the judgment passed by the Court below convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 302, 326, 326 and 324 IPC and the same warrants no interference.
13. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions, it is to be noted that there is no dispute as regard to the relationship of the deceased with the accused. P.W.1 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. Vanaguri Nagalakshmi-P.W.2 is her mother. P.W.3 is her cousin. P.W.4 is her younger brother. It has been proved amply by the prosecution that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature by examining P.W.15 Dr. A.J.N. Prasad, the Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government Hospital, Rajahmundry to whom the dead body of the deceased was forwarded for the purpose of conducting postmortem examination to determine the cause of her death etc.
14. As per P.W.15-Dr.A.J.N.Prasad, he held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at about 1.05 p.m on 08.09.2013 and found incised wounds on left side of the neck and on right side back of the head etc. The deceased died "due to hemorrhage and shock due to injury to major blood vessels on left side of the neck."
15. In the light of the above mentioned rival contentions and the evidence placed before the court by the prosecution, the points which need to be answered are;
i) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326 and 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
9
ii) Whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside?
16. The prosecution though cited as many as 28 witnesses, it examined 17 witnesses. Out of them, PWs 2 to 4 were the injured witnesses. P.W.5 was the neighbour of P.W.2 who found the accused present at the scene i.e at the house of the P.W.2, and when he tried to consume poison to end his life after killing the deceased, he hit the poison tin and later along with his son and others prevented him from fleeing away from the scene of offence, and tied to a tree, however, he escaped somehow and left the scene of offence. PW 6 was an elder before whom the deceased and the accused attended for settlement of their disputes. PW 7 spoke to the fact of preparing written complaint as per the instructions furnished to him by PW 1 as she was an illiterate. As per his version, he was told by PW 1 about the differences between the accused and the deceased and also about the placing of their disputes before the elders for settlement and the elders before whom the accused demanded for grant of divorce rejected his demand and asked him to raise up such issue elsewhere. PW 8 spoke about the purchase of M.O.1 knife by the accused from his shop. PW 9 deposed about the purchase of pesticide tin by the accused from his shop. PW 10 was the photographer, who took Exs.P2 & P3 photos of the deceased. Through him, Exs.P4 & P5, the photos of the mother of the deceased and the accused were also marked.
17. PW 12 was the mediator for the confession said to be made by the accused admitting the crime. Through him Ex.P9, the statement of the accused, Ex.P10 the mediators report, under which the knife-MO.1, and MOs.9 and 10-the bloodstained shirt and pant, 10 said to be worn by the accused at the time of the alleged incident were seized, were marked.
18. As per the prosecution version, disputes arose between the accused and the deceased as she restrained to accompany him to his village Navara are that he always suspecting her character as she was talking to others. The witnesses examined by the prosecution, particularly, PWs 1 to 4 gave evidence about the same. The prosecution by examining PWs 1 to 4 could prove the motive and also the way in which deceased was assaulted while she was sleeping on a cot in the verandah of the house, where her mother-in-law also slept on a separate.
19. Though motive is totally irrelevant where there is direct evidence as regard to the murder, the prosecution by examining PWs 1 to 4 and has amply proved that the accused had sufficient motive to kill the deceased. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused examined eyewitnesses, elder for the panchayat, before whom the disputes between the accused and the deceased were placed for settlement, the scribe of the complaint, and the persons from whom M.Os.1 and 2 were purchased, and the persons before whom he made the confession about the crime etc., etc.
20. The testimony of PW 1 is that on the intervening night of 7/8.09.2013 at 12.30 a.m while the deceased was sleeping on a cot in the verandah of her house, where her mother-in-law was sleeping on a separate cot, she heard some noise and woke up and switched on the light in the room and verandah and saw the accused with a knife in his hand. By the time she came out, the accused was trying to wake up the deceased, after she woke up, he hacked her with the 11 knife on her neck, on that the deceased and herself raised the voice stating that he was killing; then her mother-in-law (P.W.2) woke up and tried to stop him, but the accused hit her (P.W.2) with knife on her cheek and also on left side of her head. When her husband P.W.4 and Veera Venkata Rao P.W.3 intervened, the accused hit P.W.4 on his left palm, head and left side of back with the knife and hit Veera Venkata Rao P.W.3, on the left knee with the knife. Meanwhile, her neighbours Nakkiriganti Satish and Nakkariganti Nageswara Rao came there intervened and that the accused threatened them with dire consequences.
21. The presence of P.W.1 at the scene of offence and the material point of time has not been denied by the accused. No material contradictions are elicited in her cross examination. P.W.2, the mother of the deceased is also another eye witness to the incident. She has deposed that on the date of incident while she was sleeping on a cot by the side of the cot of her daughter (deceased herein) in the verandah of the house, she heard the cries of her deceased daughter and her daughter-in-law, immediately she woke up and noticed the accused striking a blow on the neck of the deceased with a knife; when she tried to prevent the accused from giving a knife blow on the deceased, she was given knife blows on her left cheek and the left side of the head; meanwhile, her son Vanguri Ramarao (PW 4) came there runningly by raising hue and cry and he was given knife blows on left palm, head and on left back; she further stated that Vanguri Veera Venkatarao (PW 3) who rushed to her house along with others was also hit by the knife by the accused on his left knee, and her neighbours Sathish and Nageswararao (PW 5) who came there, were prevented from intervening by the accused by 12 threatening them with dire consequences. The poisonous tin in the hands of the accused was hit by Nakkiriganti Nageswararao (PW 5) when he tried to consume poison, and that he nabbed him and tied to a tree when tried to flee away.
22. The relationship between the deceased and PW 3 has not been denied. He is the son of senior paternal uncle of the deceased. He is residing along with his father in the neighbouring house of PW. 2. The knife carried by the accused to the house of the deceased is identified by PW 3 and also by PW 1. Receipt of injuries by PW 3 in the aforementioned incident is spoken to by PW 1 and PW 2. Their evidence in so far as the incident in which the deceased is assaulted, and the assault on P.Ws.2 to P.W.4 by the accused appears to be cogent and that no material to doubt their presence at the time of the incident is brought on record.
23. P.W.4, the brother of the deceased is another eyewitness to the incident. His presence at the time of the incident appears to be quite natural, and in the said incident he is given knife blows on left palm, left side of back and on left side of head. Presence of injuries on PWs 2, 3 and 4 clinchingly proves their presence at the scene of offence at the relevant point of time. We find credibility in their testimony. The testimony of PWs 2 to 4 is fully supported by PW 1, the complainant, who as per the prosecution, alerted the others on seeing the accused coming to the deceased with a knife in his hand.
24. As per the version of PW 5, when he rushed to the house of Veeramani (deceased herein), the accused and his brother-in-law Rama Rao (P.W.4) were scuffling, and that he separated them. The accused who had a knife in his hand threatened them not to come 13 close to him; he saw Vanguri Ramarao (PW 4) and Vanguri Veera Venkata Rao (PW 3) who were present there, and that he found Vanguri Veera Venkata Rao (PW 3) with injuries to his left knee, but did not see the accused causing injuries to Vanguri Ramarao (PW 4). But his version was that within short time after the alleged assault he saw them with injuries; when he saw them, Vanguri Ramarao (PW
4) had injuries on his left palm, left head and left back, and while the accused was fleeing away, he along with others nabbed him and tied to a tree.
25. It is as per the testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4, they received injuries when they were assaulted by the accused. They deposed that accused by entering into the house of PW 2 with whom the deceased was residing inflicted injuries on her body with a knife and due to which she died within a short time after inflicting of knife blows on her.
26. Five incised ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased by the doctor to whom her dead body was forwarded for conducting autopsy to know cause of her death, and it was stated by the doctor in his postmortem report Ex.P15 that approximate time of death of the deceased in his opinion was 12-18 hours prior to postmortem examination and that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased are possible by a sharp edged weapon, and according to him there is possibility of causing such injuries by a weapon like M.O.1 knife showed to him, and cause for the death of the deceased in his opinion is due to shock and hemorrhage due to injury to major blood vessels on left side of the neck.
14
27. PW 1 the complainant deposed about striking on the neck of the deceased by the accused with a knife. PW 3 the other injured witness also stated that the accused hit his wife with a knife on her neck. The testimony of the other injured also speaks about receiving of stab injuries by the deceased.
28. P.W.2 was examined by P.W.13 Dr. M.V.D. Prasad in the early hours of very same day when the incident took place, and an obliquely placed injury, measuring 15 x 3 x 3 cm was found on her neck, apart from a semi circular lacerated injury measuring 14 x 1 x 1 cm on her head, and a small stab injury over the chin measuring 1 x 2 cm in size.
29. The other two injured witnesses PWs 3 and 4 too were examined on the same day by PW 13 at 4.00 a.m and 3.15 a.m respectively and Exs.P12 & P13 were their wound certificates. As per Ex.P12, a cut lacerated wound, measuring 10 x 2 x 2 cm was found on left palm of PW 4 starting from left index and middle finger cutting through muscles and blood vessels, and another lacerated wound measuring 5 x 4 x 1 cm was found over left fronto parietal region. As per Ex.P13, a curvilinear lacerated wound was found on anterior aspect of left thigh of PW 3, measuring 6 x 4 cm.
30. The medical evidence brought into record by the prosecution through P.W.13, who examined P.W.2 and issued her wound certificate Ex.A.11 would lend support to her testimony insofar as receiving of injuries in the attack made of her by her son- in-law (the accused herein) whom she tried to stop on seeing him striking blows on her deceased daughter. Similarly, the evidence given by P.W.3 as regards to the manner in which he received injuries 15 in the attack made on him by the accused also was supported by the medical evidence which the prosecution placed on record in the form of Ex.P13 wound certificate.
31. P.W.3 was the person who nabbed the accused while he was escaping from the scene had seen his aunt Venkata Lakshmi with injuries on her head, cheek and below the jaw on left side. He also found the accused hitting his younger brother Rama Rao on his head back and in the said incident, and that he too received injuries to left knee when he was hit with the knife.
32. The accused has not disputed his presence in the house of P.W.2 at the time of the alleged incident. His version is that when his brother-in-law P.W.4 tried to strike him with a knife, the knife blow fell on his wife accidentally, and that his mother-in-law (P.W.2) who intervened in the meanwhile also received the knife blows. An endeavour was made to defend him from the charges leveled against him by making such a statement during the course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not deny going to the house of PW 2 in midnight where his wife was residing and also the other allegations that he went there with a pesticide tin, and also did not dispute going there with a knife. From this material, it could be said without any doubt that he had been to the house of PW 2 with predetermined mind of killing his wife and later to end his life.
33. P.Ws.1 to 3 were related to the deceased and that P.W.5 was the neighbour of PW 2, and they were the crucial witnesses from whose testimony the prosecution could prove that the accused with the intention of killing his wife went to the house of her mother (PW
2) as she refused to follow him to his native village despite the efforts 16 made by him to take her with him by placing such issue before the elders who did not agree for severance of his marital relationship with her by granting divorce etc. If really the accused had no intention to kill the deceased, there was no need for him to go to her during odd hours after midnight along with a knife.
34. As per the testimony of the P.W.5, he with the help of others nabbed the accused and tied him to a tree, after that they went to the injured, in the meantime, the accused fled away. The accused was arrested on 14.09.2013 by the police. As per the prosecution version, he made the statement in the presence of the mediator P.W.12 and another admitting that he committed the crime, and in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him, the crime weapon M.O.1 was seized by the police in the presence of PW 2 under a mahazar report Ex.P10 after it was brought by him from the open place on eastern side of community hall where he took PW 12 and the police by stating that he would show the place where he had hidden the crime weapon.
35. The prosecution also examined PW 8-Sammangi Veerababu, from who's shop M.O.1 knife was purchased. His evidence also appeared to be unambiguous in so far as purchase of crime weapon though he could not collect his memory as regard to date of purchase of knife. The evidence given by him in this regard was not controverted much except putting a suggestion to him that a knife like M.O.1 can easily be available in the market, and that he is giving false evidence at the instance of police and such suggestion put to him is denied.
17
36. The other crucial material placed on record by the prosecution was Ex.P7 report prepared by the then Inspector of Police, PW 16, who rushed to the scene of offence which was the verandah of the house of PW 2 on the next day of the offence at 7.00 a.m. This Ex.P7 report was prepared in the early hours of 08.09.2013, at 8.30 a.m, in the house bearing D.No.4-82 belonged to PW 2. When the scene was visited by him, dead body of the deceased was found lying in supine position on a cot with injuries on left side of neck beneath the jaw and on back of head on right side and that the pillow and the bed sheet below the head were found drenched with blood and there was pool of blood under the cot where her head was lying; the blood stains spread to a distance of 22 feet from the dead body. The Inspector of Police collected bloodstained earth, control earth and a plastic pesticide bottle, and also the bloodstained pillow and bontha (bed spread) M.Os.2 to 7 and M.O.8-plastic kenlay bottle containing petrol from the scene of offence under the cover of Ex.P7. All these would suggest happening of the crime in the verandah of the house of PW 2 where the deceased was sleeping along with PW 2 on a separate cot on the night of the alleged incident as was stated by the prosecution. Exs.P2 and P3 were the photos of the deceased, and Ex.P4 was the photo of PW 2. Ex.P5 was the photo of the accused taken after his arrest by the police, as per the version given by PW 10.
37. Looking into entire evidence presented by the prosecution, we find that there is ample evidence against the accused to hold the charge of causing murder of his own wife by inflicting knife blows on vital parts of her body is proved. The evidence given by eyewitnesses in this regard is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. There is 18 also substantial material as regard to recovery of crime weapon at the instance of the accused. The evidence given by PW 12 is so far as recovery of crime weapon M.O.1 at the instance of the accused is corroborated by the evidence of Investigating Officer on all material particulars. Recovery of crime weapon in the presence of PW 12 though has been proved, the same has not been believed by the court below. We are not convinced with the reason recorded by the learned Sessions Judge to disbelieve the recovery of M.O.1. It has been proved by the prosecution that M.O.1 is recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused by examining PW 12 whose testimony made in this regard is fully corroborated by the Investigating Officer who does not have any animosity against him. This is the area where the learned Sessions Judge committed error in our considered view.
38. Material on record suggests that PWs.3 and 4 have received simple injuries in the incident and therefore, it has been rightly opined by the court below that the offence under Section 324 IPC is made out against the accused, but not the offence under Section 307 as substantial material is absent to hold that he caused injuries to PW 2 who tried to stop him while he was inflicting knife blows on the deceased with the intention to kill her. As per Ex.P11 wound certificate of PW 2 received a lacerated wound over face on left side and it was found extending from alaenasi towards neck measuring 15 x 3 x 3 cm and a semi circular wound measuring 14 x 1 x 1 cm over the head apart from a stab injury measuring 1 x 2 cm below the chin. From Ex.P11 wound certificate, it is clear the injury No.1 received on face by PW 2 is grievous as it may result in permanent disfigurement. Hence, in our opinion offence under Section 326 IPC is made out but 19 not the offence under Section 307 IPC, as no evidence is there to say such injury is caused with the intention of killing her. In our considered view, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC but not for the offence under Section 307 IPC looking into the evidence of PW 2 vis-a-vis the evidence of P.W.13, Ex.P11 wound certificate.
39. As no evidence is placed on record in so far as the actual words uttered against the P.Ws.2 to 4 by the accused and have stated only that the accused threatened them with dire consequences, which act per se may not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 506 IPC, he has been rightly found not guilty for the said offence by the trial court.
40. In our considered opinion, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the prosecution proved its case against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 326 and 324 IPC.
41. In the light of discussion held above and the reasons set out above, we are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment of conviction does not call for any interference.
42. As we find no merits in the appeal filed by the accused, we dismiss it accordingly confirming the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him by the learned Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in S.C.No.139 of 2014 vide judgment dated 05.01.2015.
_______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,J __________________ J.UMA DEVI,J Date:16.11.2019 Gk 20 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE Ms JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.140 OF 2015 Date:16.11.2019 Gk.