Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gali Hari Babu Dancer Hari, Another, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 27 July, 2020
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy, Ninala Jayasurya
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.35 and 189 OF 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy) These two appeals are filed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in Sessions Case No.343 of 2010 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore, preferred these criminal appeals under Section 374 (2) Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C."), challenging the conviction and sentence passed in calendar and judgment dated 28.12.2012, whereby accused were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
Accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C.No.343 of 2010 are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2013 and accused No.1 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.189 of 2013.
Since both the appeals are preferred against the calendar and judgment dated 28.12.2012 in S.C.No.343 of 2010, we deem it appropriate to decide both the appeals by common judgment.
The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that Ravi Srikanth and accused No.1 are rebellious persons and rowdy sheets were also opened against them for their criminal background. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are also rowdy elements and close associates of accused No.1. Ravi Srikanth, P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar and accused No.1 moved closely as friends for sometime. Later, ill-feelings were MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 2 developed between Ravi Srikanth and accused No.1 in exhibiting their supremacy in the acts of violence and on other flimsy grounds. Due to ill-feelings, accused No.1 beat P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar about eight months prior to the occurrence of the incident. Subsequently, on 29.03.2010 Ravi Srikanth quarrelled with accused No.1 and others at Madras bus-stand centre, Nellore and Ravi Srikanth filed a case against accused No.1 and his associates in No.4 Town Poilce station, Nellore vide Crime No.86 of 2010 under Section 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. As a result of which, accused No.1 and associates decided to kill Ravi Srikanth and were waiting for an opportunity to execute their plan.
On 25.04.2010 at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar went to the current office (electricity office), Nellore. Ravi Srikanth also went there and telephoned to P.W.2 - T.Venkata Srikamal, secured his presence at about 12.15 p.m. Ravi Srikanth, P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar and P.W.2 - T.Venkata Srikamal were talking with each other on the road in front of Sai Chandana Fast foods. Accused Nos.1 to 3, who came to know about the presence of the deceased Srikanth at Current Office (electricity office), took the same as an opportunity to execute their plan, went there. Accused Nos.1 to 3 while talking with Ravi Srikanth, P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar and P.W.2 - T.Venkata Srikamal, all of sudden, took out knives from their waists, attacked Ravi Srikanth and stabbed him with knives indiscriminately all over his body. As a result, Ravi Srikanth sustained injuries on the back side of the neck, below the right ear, on right ear, over throat, on right color bone, two cut injuries below the throat, over right side of chest, below arm pit, over left wrist and over his back. P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, who witnessed the same, raised MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 3 cries. Accused No.3 chased P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar with knife, out of fear, he ran away from the scene of offence. P.W.2 - T.Venkata Srikamal, who witnessed the incident, also ran away from the scene of offence out of fear. After some time, P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar and P.W.2 - T.Venkata Srikamal returned to the scene of offence and found Ravi Srikanth died in pool of blood due to bleeding injuries. P.W.4 - B.Bala Subramanyam, P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy, P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna, P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma and P.W.9 - K.Sekhar witnessed the incident. P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar went to 5th Town Police Station, Nellore, lodged Ex.P.1 - report. P.W.14 - P.Srinivasa Reddy - Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the same as a case in Crime No.82 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C., issued Ex.P.12 - F.I.R. and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers. P.W.15 - P.Veeranjaneyulu, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation, visited scene of offence in the presence of P.W.8 - P.Ramu and L.W.9 - B.Uma Maheswar Rao, observed the same, prepared Ex.P.5
- Observation report, seized M.O.6 - one pair of chappeal, M.O.7 - bloodstained earth, M.O.8 - controlled earth. He also prepared Ex.P.13 - rough sketch and got photographed the scene of offence. Ex.P.8 is the photos (9 in number) along with one CD. Later, P.W.15
- P.Veeranjaneyulu - Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the dead body of Ravi Srikanth in the presence of P.W.8 - P.Ramu and L.W.9 - B.Uma Maheswar Rao and L.W.11 - A.Siva Krishna; Ex.P.6 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, P.W.2 - P.Venkata Sri Kamal, P.W.3 - R.Ranganayakulu, P.W.4 - B.Balasubrahmanyam, P.W.5 - K.Ravi Kumar Reddy and recorded their statements, seized bloodstained clothes of Ravi MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 4 Srikanth and M.O.4 - One ash colour pant with blood stains, M.O.5
- One black colour full hand shirt, sent the dead body for post- mortem examination. On 28.04.2010 P.W.15 - Inspector of Police arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 at Vanamthopu centre in the presence of P.W.11 - A.Srinivasulu and P.W.12 - K.Prasad under Ex.P.15 - Mediators report. The accused confessed about the offence, and led P.W.15 -Inspector of Police, P.W.11 - A.Srinivasulu and P.W.12 - K.Prasad to Vahabpet at the bund of the canal, shown M.Os.1 to 3 - knives. P.W.15 - Inspector of police seized M.Os.1 to 3 - Knives, M.O.9 - one red and blue shirt belongs to accused No.1, M.O.10 - Blue Colour jeans pant belongs to accused No.1, M.O.11 - One black colour half sleeves shirt, M.O.12 - One cream white colour jeans pant belongs to accused No.2, M.O.13 - One coffee colour full sleeves shirt, M.O.14 - One ash colour pant belongs to accused No.3 under Ex.P.16 - Seizure Report, sent accused No.1 to Government Hospital, Nellore for treatment as he sustained injury at the time of commission of offence. Subsequently, he sent accused Nos.1 to 3 to judicial custody. Later, P.W.15 - Inspector police sent the seized materials through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore to RFSL, Guntur for analysis. After receipt of Ex.P.11 - Postmortem report and Ex.P.17 - R.F.S.L. Report, P.W.15 - Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. before the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, who in turn registered the same as P.R.C.No.23 of 2010 and after complying with Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Sessions Division under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. as the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. On committal, MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 5 learned Principal Sessions Judge registered the same as S.C.No.343 of 2010 and made over to the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore, to try and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
Upon hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the Sessions Court framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C., read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
During trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 and M.Os.1 to 14 to substantiate its case. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explained the incriminating material that appeared against them in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, but they denied the same and reported no defence.
Upon hearing argument of learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Defence Counsel, the Court below found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below in Sessions Case No.343 of 2010, the present appeals are preferred raising almost common grounds. The grounds urged in both the appeals are identical except one ground in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2013. Therefore, it is appropriate to note the common grounds and additional grounds urged in both the appeals, they are as follows:
The main contention of the appellants/accused before this Court is that the evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar is silent as to the specific overt acts against each individual accused, in the absence MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 6 of any specific overt acts, based on testimony of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, the Court cannot record conviction against all the accused Nos.1 to 3 - appellants. P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar also did not specifically state about the weapon used in the commission of offence by the accused.
It is also contended that P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar is related witness, thereby much credence cannot be attached to such evidence, more particularly in view of the admission in the examination in chief of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar that he went to Ballari about 10 days prior to the incident. If the evidence of P.W.1 is brushed aside, there is absolutely no other evidence to find the accused guilty.
It is further contended that the evidence of P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma, whose statements were recorded on the next date of occurrence cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no possibility for them to identify the accused, but the trial Court believed their uncorroborated testimony and recorded conviction erroneously. P.W.2 - T.Venkata Srikamal, P.W.4
- B.Bala Subramanyam, P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy and P.W.9 - K.Sekhar did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Consequently, their evidence cannot be taken into consideration, thereby the confession made by accused leading to discovery and recovery of knives M.Os.1 to 3 under the cover of mediators report as the witnesses to the recovery and confessional statement did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, when the prosecution failed to establish the recovery of weapons under the cover of mediators report based on the confessional statement leading to discovery, the recovery itself fails and consequently, the case of the MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 7 prosecution cannot be believed based on the oral testimony and requested to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused and allow the appeal.
During hearing, Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 3 (appellants in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2013) contended that the evidence of P.W.1 appears to be quite unnatural for the reason that when he was present at the time when the accused were causing injuries on the body of Ravi Srikanth, who is no other than the brother of P.W.1, he ought not to have ran away from the scene of offence, such improbable conduct of P.W.1 is sufficient to disbelieve his evidence as to witnessing the incident.
It is further contended that the oral evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar is discrepant, more particularly sentence in first paragraph of his examination-in-chief directly disprove his presence at the time of incident, thereby his evidence cannot be accepted.
Similarly, the evidence of P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma is also highly doubtful as there was any amount of delay in examination of said witnesses and recording their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the evidence of P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma inspires no confidence, thereby finding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is a grave illegality committed by the Sessions Court. Finally, it is contended that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 on the confession allegedly made by the accused and when the recovery of weapons is not proved, there is absolutely no evidence to connect the accused with the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 8 requested to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.
Sri Akurathi Rama Krishna, learned counsel for accused No.1
- appellant in Criminal Appeal No.189 of 2013 reiterated the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2013 while highlighting the unexplained delay in lodging report with the police by P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, which is fatal to the prosecution case as there is every possibility of consultation to implicate the accused in the grave crime and requested to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant - accused No.1.
Sri Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, supported the calendar and judgment of trial Court in all respects, while, contending that the evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma is sufficient as they directly witnessed the incident. P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, though related by blood i.e. brother of Ravi Srikanth, when his conduct is quite natural as he apprehended danger to his life in case of interference when accused are 3 in number holding deadly weapons. Therefore, P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar fleeing away from the scene of offence when he was chased by accused No.3 is not a ground to disbelieve his presence at the time of causing injuries on the body of Ravi Srikanth. The stray sentence in examination-in-chief of P.W.1 pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, cannot be taken into consideration for the reason that P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar himself lodged report within one hour and the question of his coming over to Nellore from Ballari within one hour does not arise in normal MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 9 course of events. Based on the stray sentence in examination-in- chief of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, his presence cannot be doubted and his evidence as to witnessing the incident cannot be brushed aside on the ground that he is related witness, at best, may be scrutinised cautiously and cannot be rejected. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1
- Ravi Sridhar, the evidence of P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma, who are unrelated to P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar and totally independent witnesses is to be accepted in toto. Therefore, the trial Court accepted the evidence of P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma, and recovery of M.O.7 - bloodstained earth and M.O.8 - Controlled earth during observation of scene of offence and recorded finding, rightly. Mere failure to prove recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 is not a ground to reject the prosecution case as a whole and it is only one of the circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused. When the prosecution is able to prove its case by direct evidence, circumstances relied on by the prosecution are more or less remains academic and the evidence, whatever adduced to prove the circumstances is insignificant and requested to dismiss both the appeals confirming conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellants - accused No.1 to 3.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is:
1) Whether accused Nos.1 to 3 - appellants in both the appeals caused injuries on the body of Ravi Srikanth with an intention to kill him knowing that those injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of events? If not, whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against accused MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 10 Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. is liable to be set aside?
Before deciding the point, it is appropriate to advert to the scope and jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., which enables the Court to re-appraise the entire evidence.
Section 374 Cr.P.C conferred a substantive right of appeal on the accused who is convicted by the Trial Court and this Court while exercising power under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C is bound to re-appraise entire evidence to come to an independent conclusion, uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the Court below and decide the legality of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court. Therefore, it is the duty of this Court to re-appraise entire evidence recorded by the Court below after giving an opportunity to both the parties, i.e accused and the respondent, unless the Court finds manifest perversity in the calendar and judgment or such findings were recorded without evidence, normally, this Court cannot interfere with such fact findings in appeal, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. It is the sacrosanct duty of the appellate court, while sitting in appeal against the judgment of the trial Judge, to be satisfied that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt after proper re-assessment, re-appreciation and re-scrutiny of the material on record. Appreciation of evidence and proper re- assessment to arrive at the conclusion is imperative in a criminal appeal. That is the quality of exercise which is expected of the appellate court to be undertaken and when that is not done, the cause of justice is not sub-served, for neither an innocent person should be sent to prison without his fault nor a guilty person MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 11 should be let off despite evidence on record to assure his guilt (vide:
Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna & Anr v. State Of Gujarat1). Keeping the scope of Section 374(2) Cr.P.C we would like to re- appreciate entire evidence on record to come to an independent conclusion, uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the Court below.
P O I N T:
The case of the prosecution, as narrated above, is totally depending upon the direct evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, P.W.4 - B.Balasubrahmanyam, P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy, P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma. But, P.W.2 - T.Venkata Srikamal, P.W.4 - B.Bala Subramanyam, P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy turned hostile. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.2 - T.Venkata Srikamal, P.W.4 - B.Bala Subramanyam, P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy cannot be taken into consideration since their evidence is silent as to who caused injuries on the body of Ravi Srikanth, which lead to instantaneous death, but the evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma is to be re-appreciated by this Court in view of the specific grounds urged in the grounds of appeal and during arguments by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Homicidal death of Ravi Srikanth during broad daylight in a busy centre which is known as current office (electricity office) centre at Nellore is not in dispute. However, the evidence available on record, more particularly the oral evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, P.W.2 - P.Venkata Sri Kamal, P.W.3 - P.Ranganayakulu, P.W.4 - B.Balasubrahmanyam, P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy, P.W.6 1 (2013) 15 SCC 263 MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 12
- K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma coupled with Ex.P.5 - Observation report, Ex.P.6 - Inquest report, photographs marked as Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.11 - Post-mortem certification coupled with the evidence of P.W.13 - Dr.J.Paran Jyothi established that the cause of death of Ravi Srikanth was due to injuries found on his body, thereby the death of Ravi Srikanth is homicidal death. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals did not dispute the homicidal death of Ravi Srikanth, but denied causing injuries by accused Nos.1 to 3, which lead to death of Ravi Srikanth. Hence, keeping in view the specific grounds urged in the appeals, we would like to re-appreciate the evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma to come to an independent conclusion, uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the trial Court.
P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar is the elder brother of deceased Ravi Srikanth, who was working as supervisor in the hotel at Ballari. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals. But the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.189 of 2013 is that P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar went to Ballari from Nellore about 10 days prior to the commission of offence. A stray admission is found in the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 at 7th line and it was corrected by the officer, who recorded the statement as if P.W.1 went to Ballari from Nellore about 10 days prior to the offence. This piece of evidence is not sufficient to disbelieve the presence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar at the scene of offence for the simple reason that Ex.P.1 - Report was lodged by P.W.1 on 25.04.2010 i.e. on the date of offence at about 14.00 hours i.e. 02.00 p.m. If really, P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar was not MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 13 in Nellore and went to Ballari, it is impossible for any ordinary person to travel from Ballari to Nellore and reach the police station within one hour, by any means. Ex.P.12 - F.I.R. was issued at 14.00 hours i.e. 02.00 p.m. on 25.04.2010. The very lodging of Ex.P.1 - report and issue of Ex.P.12 - F.I.R. is sufficient to conclude that P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar was readily available in Nellore Town and lodged Ex.P.1 - Report, which set the criminal law into motion. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants about the absence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar in Nellore on the date of incident is improbable to the natural circumstances and the same is hereby rejected.
Undoubtedly, P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar is the elder brother of Ravi Srikanth. According to the evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, on 25.04.2010 at about 11.30 a.m. he went to current office (electricity office) centre, Nellore, after 10 minutes i.e. 11.40 a.m., his brother Ravi Srikanth came to the current office (electricity office) centre, then himself and his brother Ravi Srikanth had a tea in Om Sai Hot Food Centre at Current office centre, Nellore. Then, his brother Ravi Srikanth telephoned to P.W.2 - P.Venkata Sri Kamal, requested him to come to current office centre. They waited for 10 minutes, again his brother Ravi Srikanth rang up to P.W.2 - P.Venkata Sri Kamal. After half-an-hour, P.W.2 - P.Venkata Sri Kamal came to current office centre i.e. 12.30 p.m., then all the three were talking with each other in front of Sai Chandana Hotel at Current Office (electricity office) centre. While they were talking, accused Nos.1 to 3 also came to the same place and had a talk with P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, suddenly all the accused took knives and stabbed his brother Ravi Srikanth. On witnessing the same, P.W.2 - P.Venkata MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 14 Sri Kamal ran away and P.W.1 raised cries loudly. Accused No.3 chased P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar; due to fear, he ran away from the scene of offence, but he came back to the scene of offence after few minutes and found his brother Ravi Srikanth in a pool of blood with injuries all over his body.
Thus, it is clear from the testimony of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar that he was present at the time of causing injuries on the body of Ravi Srikanth, his younger brother, but due to fear he ran away when accused No.3 chased him. No doubt, when three persons holding knives, causing grave injuries on the body of Ravi Srikanth, though P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar is natural brother, normal conduct is to make an attempt to save his life from the hands of assailants. Therefore, running away from the scene of offence by P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, when accused No.3 chased him is normal conduct of an ordinary unarmed man in such a situation. Merely because, he failed to intervene to save the life of his brother Ravi Srikanth is not a ground to disbelieve his evidence in view of the circumstances prevailing at that time. P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, his brother Ravi Srikanth and P.W.2 - P.Venkata Sri Kamal unarmed, whereas all the accused armed with deadly weapons like knives, M.Os.1 to 3. In such a situation, normal conduct of any person is to flee away from the scene of offence to save his life. Therefore, the conduct of P.W.1
- Ravi Sridhar is not uncommon; on the other hand, it is the probable conduct of prudent unarmed man. Hence, on the ground that he did not intervene to save the life of his brother Ravi Srikanth in the murderous assault is not sufficient to disbelieve his presence at the scene of offence.
MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 15 In the cross-examination of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, the learned counsel for the accused could elicit the criminal background of both the accused and Ravi Srikanth. The accused, Ravi Srikanth and P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar are known persons to each other. Accused No.1 and deceased Ravi Srikanth are rowdy sheeters by the date of incident, but they moved closely for sometime. Thereafter, there were disputes in maintaining supremacy in the centre one against other. P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar narrated the earlier disputes, but there is no evidence to prove those earlier incidents. P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar admitted that his brother Ravi Srikanth was figured as accused No.3 in S.C.No.273 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Nellore. Ravi Srikanth was a rowdy sheeter in Indukurpet police station, but pleaded ignorance about the differences between his brother Ravi Srikanth with several persons in Nellore Town.
For one reason or the other, learned counsel for the accused could elicit criminal background of accused Nos.1 and 2 also in the cross-examination of P.W.1.
P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar admitted that he was not present when there was a galata that took place at Madras bus stand centre, Nellore between accused No.1, his younger brother Ravi Srikanth. Except eliciting criminal background of accused and Ravi Srikanth, nothing was elicited to disprove the presence of P.W.1 at the scene of offence. The deceased Ravi Srikanth had criminal background and a rowdy sheeter, accused No.1 is also placed on the same footing. However, the conduct of Ravi Srikanth prior to the incident is not relevant. Good conduct of a person in a criminal case is relevant and the bad conduct is not relevant as per Section 53 and MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 16 54 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the criminal background of Ravi Srikanth or the accused is irrelevant and the same cannot be a ground to acquit the accused.
One of the major contentions of learned counsel for the appellants is that P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar is related witness and his evidence cannot be accepted as it is, that too he did not disclose specific overt acts of individual accused in his evidence, thereby his evidence cannot be accepted. This contention is devoid of any merit in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in "Dani Singh v. State of Bihar2", wherein the Apex Court held that when the witnesses related or friendly with deceased, evidence of such witnesses cannot be discarded on that ground. Court is required to carefully scrutinise evidence and find out if there is scope for taking view about false implication.
No doubt, P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar did not disclose the specific role played by each accused in his evidence and also in Ex.P.1 - Report. The incident occurred suddenly when they were talking together and the accused suddenly assaulted Ravi Srikanth with knives and caused death by causing injuries indiscriminately on the body of Ravi Srikanth. When three persons suddenly attacked Ravi Srikanth, it is difficult for any person, who witnessed the incident, to state specific role played by each accused. In those circumstances, failure to state about the specific role of each accused to attribute overt acts to individual accused is not a ground to disbelieve the presence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar and this view is supported by the judgment of Apex Court reported in "Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh3", wherein Apex 2 (2004) 13 SCC 203 3 (2009) 12 SCC 546 MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 17 Court held that when large number of persons attacked the deceased and injured witness, it would not be possible for injured witness to attribute specific injury individually to each accused. Testimony of such witness cannot be discarded on the ground of non-mentioning of specific overt acts.
The other contention of learned counsel for the appellants, as stated above, is that when the accused allegedly stabbed or hacked Ravi Srikanth indiscriminately, the natural conduct of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar is to interfere and save the life of his brother Ravi Srikanth, but he ran away from the scene of offence and it is highly improbable.
The consistent evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar clearly establish that he witnessed the incident directly and to save his life when accused No.3 chased him with knife, he ran away from the scene of offence and returned after 10 minutes, found his younger brother Ravi Srikanth in a pool of blood with grave injuries. Therefore, the probable conduct of P.W.1 is sufficient to believe that he witnessed the incident directly.
As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, he was chased by accused No.3 to kill him. Therefore, he ran away from the scene of offence at least to save his life. In those circumstances, the act of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar fleeing away from the scene of offence without making any attempt to save the life of his brother Ravi Srikanth is natural and probable to the circumstances.
Criminal Courts should not expect a set reaction from any eye witness on seeing an incident like murder. If five persons witness one incident there could be five different types of reactions from each of them. It is neither a tutored impact nor a structured MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 18 reaction which the eye witness can make. It is fallacious to suggest that PW-11 would have done this or that on seeing the incident. Unless the reaction demonstrated by an eye witness is so improbable or so inconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation it is unfair to dub his reactions as unnatural. (Vide: Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana4 and Appabhai v. State of Gujarat5) .
Evidence of witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground that they were related to the deceased rather relatives of the deceased would be reluctant to spare real assailants. (Vide: "Barati v. State of U.P.6") In "Bhagaloo Lodh v. State of U.P.7" the Apex Court held that the evidence of a close relation can be relied upon provided it is trustworthy. Such evidence is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before resting of conclusion to convict the accused in a given case. The evidence of witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are inter-related to each other or to the deceased.
When the victim attacked by many assailants armed with deadly weapons, if the unarmed eyewitnesses not coming forward to rescue victim, the same is not a ground to discard their evidence (Vide: Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab8) Thus, even after applying the principles laid down in the above judgments to the present facts of the case, this Court again carefully scrutinised the evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar and found that he is wholly reliable witness and his evidence is corroborated 4 1983CriLJ1272 5 1988CriLJ848 6 AIR 1974 SC 839 7 AIR 2011 SC 2292 8 (2003) 7 SCC 643 MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 19 by independent witnesses P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishand and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma. Hence, recording of conviction based on such independent evidence of related witness is not an error.
Apart from the evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, P.W.2 - P.Venkata Sri Kamal, P.W.4 - B.Balasubrahmanyam, P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy are also direct witnesses, but they did not support the case of the prosecution.
P.W.2 - P.Venkata Sri Kamal, who was allegedly present ast the scene of offence while talking with deceased Ravi Srikanth and P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, but ran away on seeing the incident. But for one reason or the other, P.W.2 turned hostile and the Additional Public Prosecution through obtained permission for cross- examination, could elicit nothing to prove the witnessing the incident by P.W.2. Therefore, his testimony needs no further consideration.
P.W.3 - R.Ranganayakulu, father of the deceased Ravi Srikanth. He supported the case of the prosecution in all respects, but he was not direct witness to the incident.
P.W.4 - B.Balasubrahmanyam is the owner of Sai Priya Hotel at C.V.C. Park Road, Gudur Town and his maternal uncle is having Om Sri Sai Fast Food Centre at Current Office centre, Nellore. He testified that he was present in Om Sri Sai Fast Food Centre at Current Office centre, Nellore about 2 years prior to his examination witnessed the murderous assault in front of Sai Chandana Hot Foods Centre, while sitting in the cash counter. He admitted that there is another Fast Food Centre by name Sai Chandana adjacent to Om Sri Sai Fast Food Centre in the same centre and that a galata took place in front of Sai Chandana Hot Food Centre. He came to MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 20 know about the murder in front of Sai Chandana Hot Food Centre. After the incident, he went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of Ravi Srikanth, but he does not know who killed Ravi Srikanth. Therefore, his evidence confirms the murderous assault on Ravi Srikanth in front of Sai Chandana Hot Food Centre. When P.W.4 - B.Balasubrahmanyam did not speak about the persons, who caused injuries on the body, learned Additional Public Prosecutor obtained permission of the Court and cross-examined him, but could elicit nothing in support of the prosecution case with regard to identity of the assailants.
Similarly, P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy, who is running Om Sai Fast Food Centre at Current Office (electricity office) Nellore, testified that the incident had happened about 2 years prior to his examination. At the time of incident, he was in his hotel and one of his workers informed him that there was a galata at Sai Chandana Hot Food Centre, he went there and found the dead body of Ravi Srikanth in pool of blood with bleeding injuries. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 is sufficient to establish the homicidal death of Ravi Srikanth and not to establish the identity of assailants, who caused injuries on the body of Ravi Srikanth. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 - B.Balasubrahmanyam and P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy can be considered to the extent of establishing homicidal death of Ravi Srikanth due to murderous assault.
Turning to the evidence of P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma, who are direct witnesses, running Shanti cool drink shop near current office (electricity office) centre and Sai Chandana Hot Foods centre respectively opposite to the scene of offence.
MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 21 P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna specifically stated that he know accused Nos.1 to 3 and that the incident took place two years prior to his examination at 12.00 or 12.30 p.m. At the time of incident, he was in his cool drink shop and there were six persons in front of Sai Chandana Hot Food Centre and they were making galata at the scene of offence and he witnessed the incident from his shop that accused Nos.1 to 3 hacked Ravi Srikanth indiscriminately. One person ran away towards Ayyappa Temple centre due to fear, when he came outside of his shop, the deceased Ravi Srikanth was found dead in a pool of blood.
Learned counsel for the accused before the trial Court cross- examined P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna at length, but could elicit nothing. The defence counsel tried to improbablise the presence of P.W.6 at the scene of offence on the ground that the incident took place on Sunday, which is a labour holiday. As seen from the facts elicited in the cross-examination, P.W.6 has registered his shop under the Shops and Establishments Act and obtained license to run cool drink shop from Labour department. Only one person by name Mohan Rao is working under him admitted that Sunday is a public holiday and his shop has to be closed. But witness volunteered that since his shop is cool drink shop, there is no need to close his shop even on Sundays and Public holidays. Therefore, the attempt made by defence counsel to improbablise his presence at the scene of offence, proved futile. On the other hand, P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna specifically stated that his shop and shops of P.W.4 - B.Balasubrahmanyam, P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma are in one row, total shops are 12 in number. Thus, the facts elicited in the cross-examination, at best, MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 22 helpful to the prosecution to establish that the shop of P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna is just by the side of Sai Chandana Hot Food Centre being run by P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma and the scene of offence is situated opposite to Sai Chandana Hot Food Centre. Therefore, the possibility of P.W.6 witnessing the incident directly from his shop is highly probable. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Sai Chandana Hotel is encroached 5 feet on the road margin at the scene of offence. But that by itself is not a ground to disbelieve directly witnessing the incident by P.W.6 from his shop. 5 feet encroachment, whether it is by raising permanent construction or otherwise was not elicited, but the facts elicited in the cross-examination are sufficient to prove that there is possibility of directly witnessing the incident by P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna from his shop.
P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma, owner of Sai Chandana Hot Foods Centre asserted that she know all the 3 accused and that she was in the hotel at 12.00 noon on the date of incident; 5 or 6 persons were talking with each other in front of her hotel. Three persons stabbed one man indiscriminately. By that time, she was in cash counter and witnessed the incident directly. She also witnessed P.W.1 running away from the scene of offence. Thus, accused Nos.1 to 3 are persons, who caused death of Ravi Srikanth by indiscriminately causing injuries on the body of Ravi Srikanth.
In the cross-examination of P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma also, nothing was elicited to disprove witnessing the incident by P.W.7. Learned counsel for accused on her recalling, elicited that her hotel is providing meals and accused never visited hotel for lunch. The same is not sufficient to disprove the presence of P.W.7 -
MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 23 V.Rajeswaramma at the time of incident and witnessing the murderous assault on Ravi Srikanth by all the 3 accused.
At this stage, it is relevant to advert to observation report, which is marked as Ex.P.5, Ex.P.13 - Rough sketch of scene of offence, Ex.P.8 - Photographs of scene of offence.
The contents of Ex.P.5 - Observation report would show that the scene of offence is situated in front of Sai Chandana Fast Foods and the same is on the eastern side of the GNT Road, current office (electricity office) centre. Similarly, Ex.P.13 - Rough sketch of the scene of offence also would disclose that the scene of offence is just in front of Sai Chandana Hot Foods. As per index, shops of P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma and P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna are marked as serial Nos.2 and 3 in the rough sketch of scene of offence on the eastern side of GNT Road. Ex.P.5 - Observation report, Ex.P.13 - Rough sketch of scene of offence and Ex.P.8 - Photos are not disputed by the learned counsel for the accused in the entire cross- examination of investigating officer. Therefore, the prosecution could establish that the scene of offence is situated opposite to Sai Chandana Hot Foods of P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma, which is adjacent to Shanthi Cool Drink shop of P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and the shops are in one row. Though, P.W.4 -
B.Balasubrahmanyam and P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy turned hostile, did not dispute the scene of offence. On the other hand, their testimony clinchingly proved that the scene of offence is situated in front of Sai Chandana Hot Foods being run by P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma. Therefore, there is every possibility of witnessing the incident by P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma when the ghastly murder took place in the broad MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 24 daylight in front of their shops and their evidence is not improbable to the natural circumstances. The probative value of evidence of P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma, who are independent witnesses is higher than the conduct of P.W.1, as they are wholly reliable witnesses. Therefore, their testimony regarding witnessing the incident cannot be brushed aside on the simple ground that the incident took place on Sunday and that the shop of P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma is extended for 5 feet towards the road by way of encroachment, but whether the encroachment is permanent construction or temporary encroachment is not clear. Hence, we find that P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma are wholly reliable independent witnesses and they have no interest in the prosecution case.
When the evidence of eyewitnesses is consistent, the same is corroborated by evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, who is elder brother of deceased Ravi Srikanth and other evidence of P.W.4 - B.Balasubrahmanyam and P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy as to the scene of offence and occurrence of murder in front of the shop of P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma, their evidence can be accepted in toto even without insisting for any other corroboration for the simple reason that they are independent direct witnesses.
The trial Court based on the oral evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma and part of evidence of P.W.4 - B.Balasubrahmanyam and P.W.5 - K.Ravikumar Reddy recorded conviction of the accused believing that accused Nos.1 to 3 caused death of Ravi Srikanth by causing injuries on his body.
MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 25 To record conviction of the accused based on the evidence of eyewitnesses, the Court has to find out whether such eyewitnesses testimony is credible or truthful.
Evidence of a witness cannot be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching core of the case. It is well settled law that minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case or not going to the root of the matter could not result in rejection of the evidence as a whole. It is also well accepted principle that no true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details, but the Court should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that it would justified in jettisoning his evidence. It is expected of the Courts to ignore the discrepancies which do not shed the basic version of the prosecution for the Court has to call into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases to evaluate the entire material on record.
In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful the witnesses may be and these discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and the like. (Vide: Babu v. State. Represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai9) Applying the said principle to the present facts of the case, the minor discrepancies pointed out in the evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma 9 (2013) 4 SCC 448 MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 26 are insignificant as those discrepancies on the trivial issues, which will not go to the core of the prosecution case or root of the case. Therefore, based on such minor discrepancies, the Court cannot reject the testimony of direct independent witnesses, who are unrelated and more particularly when no rivalry is attributed to P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma in the entire cross-examination. In the absence of any rivalry between the accused, P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma, there is no interest for P.W.6 and P.W.7 to speak false against the accused. Hence, the evidence of P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma was rightly accepted by the trial Court and recorded conviction against the accused and the same cannot be interfered in the appeal even after reappraisal of evidence of witnesses afresh as they are credible and truthful witnesses.
One of the major contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is delay in lodging report with the police, which creates any amount of doubt. No doubt, D.S.P. office is at a short distance from the scene of offence, whereas police station is at a distance of 2 Kms from the scene of offence.
P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, brother of Ravi Srikanth, on seeing the incident, when accused No.3 chased to kill him, he ran away from the scene of offence, but returned within 10 minutes to the scene of offence. The incident was occurred approximately at 12.30 p.m. on 25.04.2010 and the report was lodged at 02.00 p.m. on the same day, as such there is delay of one and half hour. In normal course of events, when his brother was found in a pool of blood, P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar is supposed to take precautions to guard the body and his disturbed mental condition may not permit him to report the MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 27 incident to the police station. It is not the case of the accused that they were falsely implicated in the case due to consultations. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, no specific suggestion was put to him that the accused were falsely implicated due to consultations. A suggestion was put to P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar that he was not present at the scene of offence and accused No.3 never chased him and that he is deposing false, the said suggestion was denied by him. P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar denied another suggestion put to him that accused Nos.1 to 3 never came to the scene of offence and they did not stab Ravi Srikanth and that he is deposing falsely because of relationship with Ravi Srikanth.
In the entire cross-examination, no suggestion was put to P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar that appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 were falsely implicated due to disputes between P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar and accused. In fact, the evidence of P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar itself disclosed that there were no disputes between them and at the time of incident, Ravi Srikanth, P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar and accused were talking with each other, but suddenly the accused caused injuries on the body of Ravi Srikanth and killed him. Even after return to the scene of offence after 10 minutes, he must make preparation to lodge a report in Nellore V Town Police Station, which is situated at a short distance and one can reach the police station within 10 minutes as admitted by P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar in his cross- examination. P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar admitted that he went to the police station, drafted Ex.P.1 - Report, but at that time none were present along with him and within half an hour after death of his brother Ravi Srikanth, he lodged Ex.P.1 - Report in the police station. Therefore, the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 - Report was MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 28 explained by P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar is sufficient and such delay is not fatal to the prosecution case.
In "Ravi v. Badrinarayan10" the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the aspect as to whether mere delay in registration of FIR could be a sufficient ground to doubt the prosecution case and observed as follows:
"It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the F.I.R. with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim."
In "Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana11" the Apex Court held as follows:
"It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that mere delay in lodging the FIR may not prove fatal in all cases, but in the given circumstances of a case, delay in lodging the FIR can be one of the factors which corrode the credibility of the prosecution version. Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground by itself for throwing away the entire prosecution case. The court has to seek an explanation for delay and check the truthfulness of the version put forward. If the court is satisfied, then the case of the prosecution cannot fail on this ground alone."
Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the Court shall decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough in given facts 10 (2011) 4 SCC 693 11 (2012) 6 SCC 204 MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 29 and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the Accused falsely. [See: Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala12 and Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)13].
In the instant case, the delay, at best, is one and half hour. P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar took half an hour to make preparations and lodged report, but for registration of crime police may took another half an hour and issued Ex.P.12 - F.I.R. Therefore, the delay is not so long and it is reasonably minimum, which is explained by P.W.1
- Ravi Sridhar in his evidence and the plausible explanation given by P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar is acceptable in ordinary course of events. Hence, we find the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 - Report is not fatal to the prosecution case. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants on the issue of delay in lodging report is hereby rejected.
One of the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 - knives is not proved.
It is the case of the prosecution that after arrest of the accused, they were interrogated and during interrogation, they made confession leading to discovery, which is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the present case, though prosecution examined P.W.11 - A.Srinivasulu, who signed on the confessional statement as a witness and also a witness for Ex.P.10 - Seizure mahazar for recovery of weapons, he did not support the case of the prosecution.
12
(1973) 3 SCC 114 13 (2017) 6 SCC 1 MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 30 Similarly, P.W.12 - K.Prasad another panch witness did not support the prosecution case. But, P.W.15 - P.Veeranjaneyulu, Investigating Officer, testified about recording of confession of accused leading to discovery and recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 on their confession in the presence of P.Ws.11 and 12. But this fact is not supported by any independent witness. No doubt, recovery evidence is not a substantive piece of evidence; it is only one of the circumstances to complete the links in the chain of circumstances when the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Here, the case of the prosecution is proved by independent direct evidence. Consequently, the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution loses its importance. Therefore, mere failure to prove the confession leading to discovery and recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 - Knives is inconsequential and it is not a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
P.W.15 - P.Veeranjaneyulu, Inspector of Police, visited scene of offence in the presence of P.W.8 - P.Ramu and L.W.9 - B.Uma Maheswar Rao, observed the same, prepared Ex.P.5 - Observation report. He also prepared Ex.P.13 - rough sketch and got photographed the scene of offence. Ex.P.8 is the photos (9 in number) along with one CD. Later, P.W.15 - P.Veeranjaneyulu - Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the dead body of Ravi Srikanth in the presence of P.W.8 - P.Ramu and L.W.9 - B.Uma Maheswar Rao and L.W.11 - A.Siva Krishna; Ex.P.6 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, P.W.2 - P.Venkata Sri Kamal, P.W.3 - R.Ranganayakulu, P.W.4 - B.Balasubrahmanyam, P.W.5 - K.Ravi Kumar Reddy and recorded their statements.
MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 31 As discussed above, recovery was not established. However, it is not a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.
P.W.13 - Dr.J.Paran Jhothi, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Ravi Srikanth, issued Ex.P.11 - Post-mortem examination and opined that the cause of death was due to multiple injuries to lung and trachea and esophagus which are vital organs.
Further, the evidence on record established that all the accused came to the scene of offence armed with deadly weapons. This itself is sufficient to conclude that the accused came to the scene of offence with preparation to kill Ravi Srikanth, which indicates the intention of the accused to kill Ravi Srikanth. It is the common knowledge of any ordinary prudent man that causing multiple hack injuries or stab injuries on the vital parts of a man would lead to his death. Based on the nature of weapons and seat of injuries, it can safely be inferred that the accused had knowledge that the injuries caused on the body of Ravi Srikanth are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events with such dangerous weapons since either hack injuries or stab injuries could only be caused with dangerous weapons like knives. Hence, the trial Court rightly found that the accused caused injuries on the body of Ravi Srikanth with an intention to kill him with knowledge that those injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events. Therefore, the conclusions arrived by the trial Court cannot be disturbed by this Court even after re-appraisal of entire evidence. Hence, we find that the accused Nos.1 to 3 caused injuries on the body of Ravi Srikanth, with an intention to kill him and they had MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 32 knowledge that those injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events.
Incident of ghastly murder occurred in a broad daylight in the open place in front of the Sai Chandana Hot Foods and it is a busy locality. Both the deceased Ravi Srikanth and accused No.1 are rowdy sheeters and there were differences among them in maintaining supremacy in the area, though their criminal background is not relevant under Sections 53 and 54 of the Evidence Act, still it was the reason for committing murder of Ravi Srikanth.
One more circumstance which would point a finger towards participation and commission of offence by accused No.1 is the injury sustained by him at the time of commission of offence. P.W.15 - Inspector of police in his evidence categorically stated that accused No.1 was sent to Government Hospital, Nellore for treatment as accused No.1 sustained injury at the time of commission of offence. Though, a suggestion was put to P.W.15 that accused No.1 did not receive any injury at the time of commission of offence, nothing could be elicited from P.W.15 in cross-examination to discredit his statement in examination in chief. During examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. a specific question was put to accused No.1 (accused Nos.2 and 3) that accused No.1 was sent to Government Hospital, Nellore for treatment as accused No.1 received injury at the time of commission of offence and accused No.1 (accused Nos.2 and 3) simply replied that it is false, but did not choose to give any explanation about the injury.
MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 33 P.W.16 - Dr.S.Subrahmanyam, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Nellore, who treated accused No.1 and issued wound certificate, Ex.P.18 certifying that the injuries suffered by accused No.1, they are follows:
(1) Sutured wound of 1 ½ inch on the dorsum of left foot near middle toe.
(2) Sutured wound 1 inch on the sole of left foot. (3) An incised wound 1/2 inch x 1/4 inch x 1/8 inch on the right fore finger.
P.W.16 - Doctor opined that the above injuries are simple in nature and the injuries were received on 25.04.2010 due to assault. Though, in the cross-examination of P.W.16, it is elicited that he did not state the age of wounds in Ex.P.18 wound certificate, nothing much about the age of the wound or nature of the injury could be elicited from P.W.16, except making a suggestion that it is possible to suffer injuries 1 to 3 if a person contact with hard surface or sharp edged stones. No suggestion is made to P.W.16 that he gave a false certificate to support the investigating agency and implicate accused No.1 in the present offence. Further, to the specific question No.24 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, about the injuries referred above, accused No.1 (accused Nos.2 and 3) answered 'not aware'. Thus, Ex.P.18 wound certificate is not disputed. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.16 or discredit the wound certificate Ex.P.18 issued by P.W.16. When accused No.1 sustained injuries, it is for him to explain those injuries as it is within his exclusive knowledge, but accused No.1 did not explain as to how he sustained injuries. In the absence of any specific explanation, the case set up by the prosecution is to be accepted.
MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 34 In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to conclude that the injuries certified under Ex.P.18 by P.W.16 - Doctor S.Subrahmanyam is yet another circumstance that undoubtedly establishes the participation and commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. by accused No.1 and fix the culpability of accused No.1 for the said offence.
When the incident took place in a busy locality on Sunday, the testimony of P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma is sufficient to record conviction for the grave offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. When the accused committed such grave murder in the broad daylight in the presence of several persons, it can be described as ghastly murder and the accused cannot be allowed to sneak away from the prosecution based on minor inconsistencies. Therefore, we find that it is not a fit case for interference in the calendar and judgment of trial Court and conviction and sentence passed thereunder.
On an overall re-appreciation of entire material and independent oral evidence of eyewitnesses i.e. P.W.6 - K.Venkata Krishna and P.W.7 - V.Rajeswaramma and brother of the deceased Ravi Srikanth i.e. P.W.1 - Ravi Sridhar, who was in the company of deceased by the time of incident, whose evidence inspires confidence of the Court and stood to the test of credibility, we find that the accused Nos.1 to 3 caused injuries indiscriminately on the body of Ravi Srikanth, as a result Ravi Srikanth died instantaneously. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused cannot be set aside or altered by this Court.
MSM,J and NJS,J Crlas_35 and 189_2013 35 In view of our foregoing discussion, we find no ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. Consequently, the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
In the result, criminal appeal Nos.35 and 189 of 2013 are dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 under the calendar and judgment dated 28.12.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.343 of 2010 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore.
The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore, is directed to secure the presence of accused Nos.1 to 3 and commit them to prison forthwith to undergo the sentence ordered by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY _______________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 27.07.2020 Ksp