Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P. H.C., Hyd. vs Addasari Trinadha 4 Others on 19 May, 2020
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy, B. Krishna Mohan
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
Criminal Appeal No.1090 of 2014
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy)
1. The State preferred this appeal challenging the calendar and judgment, acquitting respondent Nos.1 to 5 who were accused in Sessions Case No.40 of 2007 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, finding them not guilty for various offences punishable under Sections 148, 427, 302 and 324 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C).
For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties to the appeal will be, hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Sessions Court.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 427, 302 and 324 read with 149 of IPC by the Sessions Court, after full fledged trial and after considering the evidence, the accused were found not guilty by the Sessions Court, acquitted them.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.06.2005 Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) went to the house of her friend A. Tejalu (P.W.7) and slept on the verandah of their house. A3 who is aged about sixty years went to the house of A. Tejalu (P.W.7), lifted skirt (langa) of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), touched her private parts, which was witnessed by A. Tejalu (P.W.7) who informed the same to Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) who in turn informed the same to her parents Palaka 2 Savitri (P.W.2) and Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3). Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) in turn informed the same to her brother Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) and questioned A3 about his misbehaviour towards her daughter, he gave vague reply.
4. While so, on 04.06.2005, during evening hours, parents of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) went to police station, presented a report against A3 about his misbehaviour towards their daughter Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4). On coming to know about lodging of report against A3, A1 to A5 bore grudge and A1 armed with an axe and A2 to A5 armed with bricks and brick bats went to the house of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) at about 8:00 pm, knocked the door of their house, caused damage to the house; Addasari Karuvulu who is father of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and grandfather of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) questioned the accused who were present in the lane. All the accused grew wild and pelted brick bats and they hit Addasari Karuvulu with a brick bat on his head and also hit Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4). A3 pelted brick bats which hit on the left thigh of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) and at the instigation of A2, A1 hit Addasari Karuvulu with an axe (M.O.1) on his head, caused bleeding injury with an intention to kill him and the remaining accused also beat Addasari Karuvulu indiscriminately. Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and her husband Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3) returned from police station, witnessed the incident and the other witnesses Addasari Dharma Rao, Palaka Savitri, Addasari Krishna Rao, Palaka Pavitra, M. Saraswathi and Addasari Mahalaxmi (P.W.1 to P.W.6 respectively), Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3), Addasari Gowramma (L.W.6) and Addasari Adinarayana (L.W.7) witnessed the 3 incident. As neighbours gathered, all the accused ran away from the scene of offence and absconded from the village by locking doors of their houses.
5. In the meanwhile, injured Addasari Karuvulu was shifted to Bathili police station, where the injured Addasari Karuvulu made a statement before the Sub-Inspector of Police, who reduced the same into writing and referred the injured to government hospital for treatment, after seizing blood stained clothes (M.O.2 and M.O.3) of Addasari Karuvulu under the cover of mediators report (Ex.P8) in the presence of Andhavarapu Srinivasa Rao (P.W.10) and Badapu Magatha (L.W.13).
6. S. Vijaya Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bathili (P.W.16) registered the statement of injured Addasari Karuvulu as case in Cr.No.16/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC, issued FIR, original FIR was forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate and copies to the higher officials. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bathili S. Vijaya Kumar (P.W.16) examined Addasari Karuvulu, Palaka Savitri (P.W.2), Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3) and Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), recorded their statements. On reference of Addasari Karuvulu and Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) to hospital for examination and treatment, Dr. P. Prakasa Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon (P.W.12) examined Addasari Karuvulu on 05.06.2005 at about 2:40 am and found two injuries. Dr. P. Prakasa Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon (P.W.12) opined that the injuries are simple in nature externally, but 4 they are head injuries and there is no bone fracture and they are fresh, issued wound certificate (Ex.P13).
7. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bathili, S. Vijaya Kumar (P.W.16) visited the scene of offence on 05.06.2005, secured the mediators Yedla Kurmanaikulu (P.W.11) and Tankala Prakasa Rao (L.W.16), observed the scene of offence in their presence, prepared scene observation report (Ex.P9), seized the bricks (M.O.4) under the cover of scene observation report (Ex.P9), prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence (Ex.P19), examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.
8. The injured Addasari Karuvulu was discharged from the hospital and he was taken to his house and immediately within half an hour he died. Thereafter on 06.06.2005 at about 7:00 am Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1), S/o.Addasari Karuvulu went to police station and submitted Ex.P1 statement to the Sub-Inspector of Police S. Vijaya Kumar (P.W.16). On the strength of the same, the section of law was altered to Sections 302 and 324 read with 34 of IPC, issued altered FIR and the same was forwarded to the concerned Magistrate and copies to the concerned higher officials.
9. K. Venugopala Naidu, Inspector of Police (P.W.15) on receipt of phone call left to the scene of offence, collected altered FIR, held inquest over the dead body of Addasari Karuvulu in the presence of inquest panchayatdars and also examined the blood relatives of the deceased, got photographs of the scene of offence (Ex.P7 is the bunch 5 of photos) and the dead body of deceased Addasari Karuvulu was sent to government hospital for postmortem examination.
10. Dr. K. Chiranjeevi, Civil Assistant Surgeon (P.W.14) conducted autopsy over the dead body of Addasari Karuvulu on 07.06.2005 from 8:00 am to 11:00 am, found various internal and external injuries, issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P16) opining that the cause of death was due to hemorrhage shock from internal hemorrhage and nuerogenic shock due to compression and hematoma.
On 09.06.2005 at about 4:00 pm K. Venugopala Naidu, Inspector of Police (P.W.15) reached Gurandi junction, arrested all the accused in the presence of mediators Yedla Kurmanaikulu (P.W.11) and Tankala Prakasa Rao (L.W.16), recorded their confession statements in the presence of mediators. A1 led the Inspector of Police and the mediators referred above to his house, produced axe (M.O.1), the same was seized under the cover of mediators report (Ex.P12) in the presence of mediators, remanded the accused to judicial custody.
11. The successor of K. Venugopala Naidu, Inspector of Police (P.W.15), Ch. Adinarayana, Inspector of Police (P.W.17) took up further investigation, after collection of postmortem certificate sent the material objects to RFSL along with letter of advise (Ex.P21) and after receipt of wound certificate, he sent a requisition to the concerned Magistrate for recording the statement of Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1), Palaka Savitri (P.W.2), Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), Addasari Malakaxmi (P.W.6) and Sunnamsetti Appala Swamy (P.W.8) under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C). Later 6 obtained certified copies of the statements and after receipt of RFSL report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
12. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathapatnam, after following necessary procedure contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C as the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in turn registered the same as Sessions Case, made over it to I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam to try and dispose of the case, in accordance with law.
13. The Sessions Court after securing the presence of the accused and upon hearing argument of Public Prosecutor and defence counsel, framed charges against the accused, read over and explained the same to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
14. During trial on behalf of prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.17 were examined, marked Exs.P1 to P21, D1 to D3 and M.O.1 to M.O.4.
15. After closure of prosecution of evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material that appeared against them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
16. Upon hearing the arguments of both the counsel, the Sessions Court found the accused not guilty for any of the charges and accordingly acquitted them under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. 7
17. Dissatisfied with the acquittal of the accused, the State preferred this appeal on various grounds. The grounds are general in nature, except a specific ground about failure of Sessions Court to appreciate the evidence of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and Addasari Krishna Rao (P.W.3) and also the circumstantial evidence available on record to find the accused are guilty for the grave offences punishable under Sections 148, 427, 302 and 324 read with 149 of I.P.C, thereby committed grave error in acquitting the accused and requested to set aside the Calendar and Judgment in Sessions Case No.40 of 2007 and convict the accused for the aforesaid offences.
18. During hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Dushyanth Reddy, while reiterating the contentions, has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) who is an injured witness and also her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C (Ex.P4). The opinion of the doctor who examined the injured initially is not based on any X-ray report and in fact no X-ray was taken. Therefore, no much credence can be given to the report of the doctor (P.W.12) who initially examined the injured and issued wound certificate (Ex.P13), when the same is not based on any radiological examination. However, the postmortem report (Ex.P16) discloses that there is a fracture injury on the head of the deceased, which is the cause for the death. Therefore, much credence can be given to postmortem report (Ex.P16). The medical evidence is supported by the ocular evidence of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2), Addasari Krishna Rao (P.W.3) and Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4). The motive behind the commission of such assault against Addasari Karuvulu is 8 substantiated by the evidence of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) and A. Tejalu (P.W.7). Besides direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence regarding recovery of axe (M.O.1), on the confession made by A1, leading to discovery is another additional link to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 427, 302 and 324 read with 149 of I.P.C. But the Sessions Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective, committed a grave error in acquitting the accused finding them not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 427, 302 and 324 read with 149 of I.P.C, requested to set aside the same exercising power under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.
19. Whereas the legal aid counsel for the accused Sri B. Parameshwara Rao strongly supported the judgment while drawing the attention of this Court to the evidence of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), M. Saraswathi (P.W.5) and A. Tejalu (P.W.7), while disputing the identity of the person who caused injury, since there was no light shedding on the scene of offence to identify the person who assaulted Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) and Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), demonstrated that there is no possibility of identifying the assailant, drawn the attention of this Court to certain piece of evidence in the evidence of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), so also in the cross examination of M. Saraswathi (P.W.5) and A. Mahalaxmi (P.W.6). He also further contended that Dr. P. Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) did not find any bony injury, but in the postmortem examination, a bony injury was found which is the cause for death on account of compression of hematoma etc. There is a gap of nearly a day between causing injury and death and thereby such injury could have been caused somewhere else and 9 not in the incident that allegedly occurred on 04.06.2005 during night. Consequently, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, more particularly, when two views are possible, the view which is in favour of the accused is to be accepted, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, requested to dismiss the appeal.
20. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points for determination are:
1. Whether all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and caused injuries on the body of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) with an intention to kill him, knowing that those injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of events, if so whether the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 427, 302 and 324 read with 149 of I.P.C be sustained?
2. Whether the accused caused any injury on the body of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, if so, whether they are liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 427, 302 and 324 read with 149 of I.P.C?
21. Before deciding the points framed by this Court for determination, it is apposite to advert to the law laid down by the Apex Court as to the scope of jurisdiction of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka1 the Apex Court laid down five guidelines for deciding an appeal against acquittal. They are as follows:
1
(2007) 4 SCC 415 10 (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
22. In Dwaraka Dass & Ors v. State of Haryana2 the Apex Court in Para No.2 held as follows:
While there cannot be any denial of the factum that the power and authority to appraise the evidence in an appeal, either against acquittal or conviction stands out to be very 2 (2003) 1 SCC 204 11 comprehensive and wide, but if two views are reasonably possible, on the state of evidence: one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then and in that event, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal, merely because it feels that it, sitting as a trial court, would have taken the other view. While reappreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge.
But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice."
23. In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors3, the Apex Court in para No.8 held that:
There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.3
(2004) 9 SCC 186 12 Those principles were reiterated in the later judgment of Apex Court in Nallabothu Ramu alias Seetharamaiah and others v.
State of Andhra Pradesh4. Keeping the above principles in mind, we wish to approach the present case and decide the points framed for determination as mentioned above.
24. POINT Nos.1 & 2:
The case of the prosecution as narrated in nutshell need not be reiterated and at best this Court is required to reappreciate the evidence available on record to find out the legality of the findings recorded by the Sessions Court and the sustainability of the acquittal, when an appeal is filed against acquittal by the State.
25. The case of the prosecution is based on both direct and circumstantial evidence. The direct evidence is the evidence of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2), A. Krishna Rao (P.W.3) and Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) who witnessed the incident of beating Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) on his head with axe and brick bats by all the accused indiscriminately. Out of the above three witnesses, Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) is an injured witness. The circumstantial evidence is the enmity between Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1), Palaka Savitri (P.W.2), A. Krishna Rao (P.W.3) and Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) on account of lodging report against Addasari Kartheek (A3), S/o.Late Mangayya, Aged about 60 years, registration of crime against him on the same day before the incident of causing injuries which lead to the death of Addasari Karuvulu, witnessing the incident of misbehaviour of A3 by A. Tejalu (P.W.7) and the other additional circumstance is seizure of axe (M.O.1) on being 4 (2014) 12 SCC 261 13 led by A1 to his house, based on the confession leading to discovery. Thus, when the case of the prosecution is based on both direct and circumstantial evidence, the Sessions Court is expected to appreciate the entire evidence in proper perspective.
26. When the case of the prosecution is based on direct and circumstantial evidence, the Sessions Court has to test the testimony of direct witnesses and record its finding as to why their evidence is not believed and whether they are wholly unreliable or they neither reliable nor unreliable and whether the testimony of any independent witnesses is corroborated with the testimony of the related witnesses and so also appreciate the circumstantial evidence on the touch stone of probability and reliability.
27. Prosecution has examined the son of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) by name Addasari Dharma Rao who lodged Ex.P1 as P.W.1. Even as per the prosecution version and the evidence collected during investigation, Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) is the direct witness to the incident. According to Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) at about 8:00 pm all the accused raided their house, in the meanwhile his sister and brother in law returned from the police station. A1 while saying that they went to Police Station to give report, hacked his father with an axe on his head, A2 broke open the doors, also pulled the household articles of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and damaged other articles. A5 beat Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) with a brick bat on his thigh, A3 also beat Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) on her left thigh. As his father received bleeding injury on his head, they covered the injury with cloth. Since, 14 Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) also received injury, his brother Addasari Krishna Rao (P.W.3) shifted his father to Gurandi junction on his cycle, Palaka Savitri (P.W.2), her husband Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3) and Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) also followed them. From Gurandi junction, they shifted the injured to Bathili Police Station in a bus, where the statement of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) was recorded by the police and registered crime, issued FIR against the accused. As such the testimony of Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) to the extent of witnessing the incident being injured is to be accepted, unless it is discredited by eliciting anything in the cross examination to improbablise his presence at the scene of offence.
28. In the cross examination of Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) a specific defence was set up that his father was paralytic, hyper tension and diabetic, but P.W.1 denied the same, while asserting that his father received injury on his head. It is also stated specifically that at about 2:00 pm his father was brought from the hospital to his house and at about 2:15 pm he died. Therefore, the unnatural death of father of Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) is not in dispute and similarly, the cause of death due to head injury received by Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) is also not in dispute.
29. Dr. P. Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) is the doctor who examined the injured in the hospital and issued wound certificate (Ex.P13), finding only two injuries:
1) a cut injury of 5 x ½ cm over the left side scalp.
2) a cut injury of 8 x 1 cm over the scalp near forehead.15
He also examined Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), found one contusion of 3 x 4 cm over the left thigh, which is simple in nature and issued wound certificate (Ex.P14). He admitted in the examination in chief that the injuries found on the body of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) could be caused with axe (M.O.1).
30. Surprisingly, in the cross examination, he admitted that he did not mention in the wound certificate (Ex.P13) that the cut injuries are incised wounds and lacerated wounds and he has not taken any X-ray to find out the bony injuries. It is asserted in the cross examination that those injuries are not possible by blunt object.
31. Thus, the evidence of Dr. P.Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) supports the case of the prosecution to the extent of causing cut injuries on the head of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased), but those injuries are possible only with a sharp edged weapon like axe (M.O.1).
32. Whereas, in the evidence of Dr.K. Chiranjeevi (P.W.14), who conducted autopsy, specifically testified the injuries found both external and internal. They are as follows:
External Injuries:
1) A lacerated wound over center of the head towards right side 2 x ½ inches depth and no fresh bleeding, edges were clean cut. Fracture of right parietal bone present.
2) Lacerated wound just 2" above Pinna of right ear 1 x ¼ x ¼ inches.
No fresh bleeding. Edges were clean cut, depressed fracture of right temporal bone present.
16Internal Injuries:
1) Skull - Fracture on the right temporal right parietal bones present.
2) Brain & Meninges and Cerebral vessels - Meninges congested, large hemotoma present on the right side.
3) Other parts are normal.
Based on the injuries found in the postmortem examination, he issued his opinion that the death was caused 36 to 48 hours prior to his examination and the cause of death was due to hemorrhage shock from internal hemorrhage and nuerogenic shock due to compression of hematoma and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P16).
33. The external injuries found by Dr.P. Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) referred in wound certificate (Ex.P13) are corresponding to external injuries found by Dr.K. Chiranjeevi (P.W.14) during postmortem examination and the internal injuries are corresponding to the external injuries referred in postmortem certificate (Ex.P16). Postmortem examination was conducted between 8:00 am to 11:00 am on 07.06.2005. According to the opinion of Dr.K. Chiranjeevi (P.W.14), death occurred about 36 to 48 hours prior to his examination i.e. almost two days prior to the examination which is substantially established time of death of Addasari Karuvulu i.e. approximately early hours of 05.06.2005.
34. The legal aid counsel for the accused Sri B. Parameshwara Rao contended that there is any amount of inconsistency between the testimony of Dr.P. Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and Dr.K. Chiranjeevi (P.W.14) and possibility of causing such injuries on the head in any 17 other incident cannot be ruled out. Thereby the injuries found by Dr.K. Chiranjeevi (P.W.14) during postmortem examination cannot be attributable to A1. This contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the incident occurred at 8:00 pm on 04.06.2005, immediately he was shifted to Police Station where the statement of injured Addasari Karuvulu was recorded and referred the injured to area hospital where the injured Addasari Karuvulu and Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) were treated and sent back as the injuries are simple in nature, according to the opinion of Dr.P. Prakasa Rao (P.W.12). Dr. P. Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) examined both the injured clinically and no radiological examination was done and therefore, arriving at an opinion that Addasari Karuvulu did not receive any bony injury cannot be accepted. The inconsistency in the evidence of Dr.P. Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and Dr.K. Chiranjeevi (P.W.14) is on account of improper examination of injured i.e. without conducting any radiology examination. Consequently, much credence cannot be given to the testimony of Dr.P.Prakasa Rao (P.W.12), regarding his opinion that there was no bony injury for the simple reason that such bony injury could be detected only on radiological examination. Therefore, the opinion of Dr. K. Chiranjeevi (P.W.14) outweigh the opinion of Dr. P. Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) as the fractures were found during postmortem examination and that too there was no possibility of receiving such anti mortem fracture within a gap of four hours.
35. In the cross examination of Dr.K. Chiranjeevi (P.W.14) nothing was elicited to disbelieve the cause of death. Therefore, the medical evidence available on record proved that the cause of death was due 18 to wounds mentioned in postmortem certificate (Ex.P16), while ignoring wound certificate (Ex.P13), for the simple reason that it was not issued based on radiological examination. Apart from that when the inquest report (Ex.P11) is seen, the apparent cause of death was due to injuries caused on the head of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased). Thus, the prosecution is able to establish that the death of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) is homicidal.
36. The main grievance of the prosecution is that when the evidence of injured witnesses is available on record, their evidence cannot be brushed aside, simply because they are related to the deceased, but the Sessions Court based on the discrepancy in the medical evidence overlooked the ocular testimony though it prevails over the medical evidence. Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1), who is the son of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) who was present in the house at the time of incident, directly witnessed the incident i.e. causing injuries with an axe (M.O.1) on the head of his father. Apart from that he also received injuries, but as he was not referred to doctor, no medical report is produced. He being the son of deceased is supposed to be available in the house at the odd time. Therefore, in all probabilities the presence of Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) cannot be disbelieved. Even assuming for a moment that Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) is not a direct witness, the testimony of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) is consistent as to the cause of death of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) who is no other than her grandfather. But the legal aid counsel pointed out certain minor inconsistencies regarding shredding of electrical light etc., the witness is aged about 16 years and a girl with rural background, her 19 evidence has to be appreciated with great caution. She spoke about the motive for commission of offence and witnessing the incident of causing injury on the head of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) who is her grandfather. In fact the accused has no grievance against Addasari Karuvulu, but the entire grievance was against Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3) and Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4). The evidence of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) who is injured vide wound certificate (Ex.P14) issued by Dr. P. Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) substantiates her presence at the time of incident and her presence in the house at the time is probable in the natural circumstances. Consequently, on the ground of minor inconsistencies about shredding of light etc., her evidence cannot be thrown overhead. On the other hand, in the cross examination of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) nothing could be elicited to discredit her testimony totally. Therefore, Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) is wholly reliable witness and her evidence is probable and inspires confidence of this Court.
37. At the same time, Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) who is daughter of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) also testified about her presence at the time of incident and also spoke about the motive for commission of offence. In the entire cross examination of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) nothing was elicited to disprove or discredit her testimony, merely because she is related witness and her evidence cannot be thrown out, since the time of incident is during night in a village, where no other neighbour is expected to be present except the inmates of the house, Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) is no other than the inmate of the house of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased). Therefore, much credence can be 20 attached to the testimony of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2). Apart from the evidence of Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1), Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), prosecution also examined A. Krishna Rao (P.W.3) who is no other than the brother of Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) and Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) who shifted the injured to Police Station and from there to the hospital with the assistance of police on reference by the police. In the cross examination of A. Krishna Rao (P.W.3), he admitted that A5 also lodged report with the police against Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3), while denying the suggestion that A3 did not misbehave with Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4). He also denied the suggestion that this case was foisted at the instance of Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3) and Nagaiah against the accused. Thus, noting was elicited in the cross examination of A.Krishna Rao (P.W.3).
38. Coming to the evidence of M. Saraswathi (P.W.5) and A. Mahalaxmi (P.W.6), they are not related to Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1), Palaka Savitri (P.W.2), A Krishna Rao (P.W.3), Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4). P.W.5 is a married woman residing at her parents' house and she know Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1), Palaka Savitri (P.W.2), A Krishna Rao (P.W.3), Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) and other witnesses who are residents of the same village and narrated the incident that her house is in the corner of the street, she along with one Parimala went to the house of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) to watch TV, there she found galata and she directly witnessed hacking of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) with an axe (M.O.1). In the incident, Addasari Karuvulu received head injury, but she did not state anything as to receipt of 21 any injury by any other person. However, she is clear in her testimony that on receipt of injury, Addasari Karuvulu raised hue and cry, she shifted the injured into the house, but unable to say the reason for causing such hack injury.
39. In her cross examination she stated that there is no electricity to the house of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) and she again stated within five minutes that electricity was restored and soon after restoration of electricity, she and Parimala went to their houses and she did not witness the incident. This inconsistency is only circumstantial and the same cannot be thrown away for the simple reason that the witness is a rustic rural witness and such margin has to be given to the testimony of rustic witness in the village.
40. The evidence of A. Mahalaxmi (P.W.6) is consistent that A1 hacked Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) at about 8:00 pm at the lane adjacent to the house of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and in the same incident Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) and Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) also received injuries. She also spoke about death, but there is a discrepancy with regard to the date of death. In her cross examination she stated that there is no electricity at the time of incident, though the house of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) was connected with electric supply. But this is not sufficient in the absence of any suggestion to the witness that it is difficult to identify the person who caused hack injury on the head of Addasari Karuvulu. Therefore, whatever the legal aid counsel pointed out the discrepancy in the cross examination of the witness is of no use in the absence of any suggestion that the 22 assailants cannot be identified without the aid of electrical lamp. Hence, the discrepancy with regard to electricity supply etc., is inconsequential and can be ignored. Thus, the testimony of eye witnesses is consistent as to the assailant who caused hack injury on the head of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) and caused injuries on the body of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4).
41. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness who was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness". (Vide Ramlagan Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0216/1972 : AIR 1972 SC 2593; Malkhan Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0164/1974 : AIR 1975 SC 12; Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0211/1983 : AIR 1983 SC 957; Appabhai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0028/1988 : AIR 1988 SC 696; Bonkya alias Bharat Shivaji Mane and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0066/1996 : (1995) 6 SCC 447; Bhag Singh and Ors. (supra); Mohar and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0808/2002 : (2002) 7 SCC 606; Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/7910/2008 : (2008) 8 SCC 270; Vishnu and 23 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 10 SCC 477; Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 2261; Balraje alias Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0352/2010 : (2010) 6 SCC 673).
While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/1584/2009 : (2009) 9 SCC 719, where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under:
Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0053/1995 : 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235, this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand MANU/SC/0652/2004 : (2004)
7 SCC 629, a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during 24 the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross- examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana (2006) 12 SCC 459). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below.
42. The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
43. In view of the judgments referred above, when injured witness herself spoke about the incident and identified the assailants who are neighbours residing in the same village, her evidence has to be given much credence and on the basis of such evidence, the Court can record conviction of the accused, but the Sessions Court did not consider the evidence in proper perspective.
44. If for any reason, the availability of electricity at the time of incident is relevant, if there is no possibility of identifying the accused during dark night, but the incident occurred at 8:00 pm which is not 25 so dark night and that too the assailants are known persons to them and they gave complaint against them also. In those circumstances, identification of the assailants cannot be doubted. This aspect was not considered by the Sessions Court in proper perspective and committed error.
45. Coming to the circumstantial evidence, there was enmity between Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1), Palaka Savitri (P.W.2), A. Krishna Rao (P.W.3) and P.W.4 and the accused, as a complaint was lodged against A3 for his misbehavior as narrated in the earlier paras. Though enmity is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, since enmity is a double edged weapon, it can be used either to foist false case or to commit the offence. It is only one of the circumstances to complete the links in the chain of circumstances, when the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it is difficult to the Court to record conviction on the sole basis of enmity.
46. The other evidence with regard to the other circumstances relied on by the prosecution is recovery of axe (M.O.1) based on the confession of A1 leading to discovery, after his arrest by the police. The confession leading to discovery is supported by mediator Yadla Kurmanaikulu (P.W.11). He was cross examined at length, however, the counsel can elicit as to the shredding of electrical light in the street etc., which is irrelevant for the reasons stated above and nothing was elicited to disprove the confession made by A1 leading to discovery which is marked as Ex.8 (admissible portion in the mediators report) and recovery of axe M.O.1 under the cover of 26 mediators report (Ex.P12) on its production by A1 from his house which is not accessible to any other person, except to A1 and his family members. Apart from that the injuries found are the cut injuries and such injuries could be caused only with a sharp edged weapon like an axe and the size of injuries is also correlating with the size of axe (M.O.1).
47. On the other hand, RFSL report (Ex.P15) also substantiated the case of prosecution that M.O.1 was used in causing injury on the head of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased). Thus, both the direct evidence and circumstantial evidence cumulatively proved the guilt of A3 beyond doubt. On the other hand, the evidence of K. Venugopala Naidu, (P.W.15), may not throw light on the veracity of the testimony of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), merely because there is an omission about the availability of electricity to the house of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) in view of discussion in the earlier paras.
48. S. Vijaya Kumar (P.W.16) is the person, who registered the case and issued FIR, but in the cross examination the counsel could elicit that Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) did not gave any report to him and Addasari Karuvulu cannot walk himself without the assistance of anyone. But this fact is not useful to disbelieve the prosecution case totally, since it was not the case of the prosecution at all that Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) did not give any report to the police, but Addasari Karuvulu gave report to the police, when he was shifted to police station on sustaining injuries. The statement of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) marked as Ex.P17, a previous statement of the injured 27 person who died within a span of few hours can be treated as a dying declaration which is relevant under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such previous statement of injured who died later is also another strong circumstance to believe that A3 is the person who caused the death, causing injury on the head of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased). When the previous statement of injured recorded by the police is free from doubts, the Court can accept such declaration of deceased.
49. Time and again the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines to base conviction on dying declaration or the statement of the deceased.
In Bhajju @ Karan Singh v. State of M.P5 the Division Bench of the Supreme Court laid down seven guidelines to base conviction of the accused for the grave offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C, on dying declaration and they are as follows:
i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration [Mannu Raja v. State of M.P (1976) 2 SCR 764]
ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration [State of M.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (AIR 1985 SC 416; Ramavati Devi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 164)]
iii) The Court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The 5 2012 AIR (Criminal) 400 28 deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration [Ram Chandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor (AIR 1976 SC 1994)]
iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence;
[Rasheed Beg v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1974) 4 SCC 264)]
v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration, the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected; [Kake Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1982 SC 1021)]
vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction; [Ram Manorath v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1981 SCC (Crl.) 531)]
vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. [State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurthi Laxmipati Naidu (AIR 1981 SC 617)] In Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat6 the Supreme Court laid down ten principles, but first seven are common in Bhajju @ Karan Singh v. State of M.P (referred supra) and the remaining three principles are as follows:
"viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself 6 1992 AIR 1817 29 guarantees truth. [Surajdeo Oza v. State of Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1505)]
ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eye witness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail [Nanahau Ram and another v. State (AIR SC 912)]
x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. [State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan (AIR 1989 SC 1519)].
In the light of the above principles, we will consider the three dying declarations in the instant case and we will ascertain the truth with reference to all dying declaration made by the deceased Bai Kanta. The Apex Court in [Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1982, S.C. 839)] referred to held:
"Where there are more than the statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred".
These guidelines are again reiterated by the Supreme Court in Muthu Kutty and another v. State by Inspector of Police7 and Sunder Lal v. State of Rajasthan8.
50. Moreover, it is the consistent view of the Apex Court in all the judgments referred supra that, though a dying declaration is entitled 7 2004 (6) Suppl SCR 222 8 (2007) 10 SCC 371 30 to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the learned counsel for the accused has no power of cross- examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, or prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. The Apex Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which are summed up in the earlier paragraphs as indicated in Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat (6th cited supra). Thus, from the law declared by the Apex Court in various judgments, the Court has to satisfy itself that the injured was not tutored or prompted by any person and that the statement was given voluntarily in fit state of mind and truthful, taking into consideration of the surrounding circumstances of the case.
51. Turning to the facts, Addasari Karuvulu was shifted to the police station on a cycle, he gave statement (Ex.P1) and till he came back to his house, after medical examination, he was in fit state of 31 mind. It is not the case of Addasari Karuvulu that he was unconscious. Hence, the statement of Addasari Karuvulu (Ex.P1) is truthful, free from doubts and voluntary. Hence, much relevance can be placed on it to record conviction of A3.
52. A3 alone caused the death with an axe (M.O.1), though the all other accused armed with brick bats and came to the house of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) and caused injuries. Therefore, joining into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons is sufficient to infer that they had an intention to do away with the life of the person who lodged report against A3 i.e. Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3). But incidentally Addasari Karuvulu appeared before them and questioned, immediately in a spur of moment A3 caused injury on the head though he has no intention to kill him who is senile. Therefore, they have no premeditation to kill him, but in a sudden provocation they caused injury on the head of Addasari Karuvulu which resulted in death. In those circumstances, the Court can infer that they had no intention to kill Addasari Karuvulu, but they had an intention to kill either Palaka Savitri (P.W.2), her husband Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3) or Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), came to the house, armed with deadly weapon and brick bats, but suddenly caused injury on the body of Addasari Karuvulu which resulted in death. When death caused in grave and sudden provocation, the court can infer that assailant had no intention. More so, A3 never decided to kill Addasari Karuvulu, but came to the scene of offence to kill Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and her husband Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3), but due to obstruction caused by Addasari 32 Karuvulu, picked up quarrel, A3 caused injury with an axe (M.O.1) suddenly. Hence, A3 or any other accused had no intention to kill Addasari Karuvulu. In such circumstance the court may take certain circumstances into consideration to decide intention of accused to kill as laid down in Dhirendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand9 the Apex Court has laid down certain parameters which are to be taken into consideration while deciding the question as to whether a case falls under Sections 302 or 304 of I.P.C which are as follows:
a) The circumstances in which the incident took place;
b) The nature of weapon used; c) Whether the weapon was carried or was taken from the spot; d) Whether the assault was aimed on vital part of body; e) The amount of force used; f) Whether the deceased participated in the sudden fight; g) Whether there was any previous enmity; h) Whether there was any sudden provocation; i) Whether the attack was in the heat of passion; j) Whether the person inflicting the injury took any undue
advantage or acted in the cruel or unusual manner.
53. The same is reiterated in the later judgment in Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava v. State of Gujarat10. By applying the principles laid down in the above judgment, as Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) obstructed A3, he caused an injury on the head of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) with an axe, though he had no intention to kill him and that there was no previous enmity between Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) and accused, but due to sudden provocation, A3 attacked Addasari Karuvulu in a heat of passion and inflicted injury. In those 9 2015 SCC Online SC 163 10 (2018) 4 SCC 329 33 circumstances, the offence committed by A3 would attract the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. Thus, A3 is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C as he had no intention to kill Addasari Karuvulu (deceased).
54. Coming to the act of other assailants i.e. A1, A2, A4 and A5, they allegedly armed with brick bats which are not dangerous weapons, but they did not cause any injury with brick bat on the body of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) as per wound certificate (Ex.P13) or postmortem certificate (Ex.P16). On the other hand, those injuries would be caused only with a sharp edged weapon like axe (M.O.1). Consequently it is difficult to conclude that any other accused caused any injury on the body of Addasari Karuvulu which resulted in death. But the evidence of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) is consistent that A3 beat her with a brick bat on her left thigh and this is supported by the evidence of Dr. P. Prakasa Rao (P.W.12) and wound certificate (Ex.P14). Therefore, A3 is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C, since brick bat is not a dangerous weapon and there is no evidence about size and weight of brick bat to construe the same as dangerous weapon. Hence, A3 is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C.
55. Though Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) was allegedly beaten by A5 and supported by the evidence of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), no wound certificate is produced to substantiate the same. Hence, the injury allegedly found on the body of Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) caused 34 by A5 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, A5 cannot be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 324 or 323 of I.P.C and liable to be acquitted.
56. It is the case of the prosecution from the beginning that all the accused came to the scene of offence armed with deadly weapon i.e. axe (M.O.1) by A1 and others with brick bats. M.O.4 is four brick bats marked before the Sessions Court, but those stones can be secured at any place. However, in the previous statement of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) (Ex.P17), there is a reference about the brick bats and the manner in which the incident took place was narrated. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, only four persons i.e. A3, his wife Chamanti, son Trinadha and daughter Jyothi came to the scene of offence holding axe (M.O.1) and brick bats (M.O.4). Thus, the assembly consists of four persons only which is not sufficient to constitute unlawful assembly under Section 141 of I.P.C. hence, accepting previous statement of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) (Ex.P17), it is difficult to convict any other accused, except A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II for causing death of Addasari Karuvulu without intention to kill and 323 of I.P.C for causing simple injury on the left thigh of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4).
57. The duty of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal is similar to the appeal against conviction. Keeping in mind the law referred above, we reappraised the evidence afresh uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the Sessions Court and on re-appreciation, we have no hesitation to hold that A3 caused death of Addasari 35 Karuvulu in a heat of passion without any intention to kill him. Hence, A3 is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 323 of I.P.C, but the Sessions Court totally ignored and on technical ground acquitted the accused.
58. In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The Calendar and Judgment in Sessions Case No.40 of 2007 dated 04.01.2011 passed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in respect of A1, A2, A4 and A5 is hereby affirmed.
However, the Calendar and Judgment in respect of A3 is hereby set aside finding A3 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 323 of I.P.C. Accordingly, A3 is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C.
The learned First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam is directed to secure the presence of A3 and commit him to prison forthwith to undergo the above sentence. 36
59. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in the appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY _______________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN Dated 19.05.2020 Rvk 37 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN Criminal Appeal No.1090 of 2014 Dated: 19.05.2020 RVK W