Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Degala Ravi, Guntur Dt., vs State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 27 July, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.108 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy) Accused in Sessions Case No.240 of 2011 on the file of XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C."), challenging the conviction and sentence passed in calendar and judgment dated 14.10.2011, whereby accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 394, 397, 307 and 411 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 394 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 397 of I.P.C.; sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 2 imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. The trial Court ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.240 of 2011, who allegedly committed murder of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari during wee hours of 12.06.2010 and attempted to kill P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi with M.O.1 - Knife and snatched away Gold Nanthadu, marked as M.O.7.
The deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and P.W.1 - Edara Anusha are the mother and daughter. The marriage of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha was performed with one Janardhan, resident of Emani Village, Duggirala Mandal and she is living at Emani Village to lead marital life. Ten days prior to the occurrence, P.W.1 - Edara Anusha was suffering from ill-health, came to her parental house and staying in the house of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari. P.W.6 - Mekala Siva Nageswara Rao @ siva is the cousin of P.W.1 and the accused is the friend of said P.W.6 - Mekala Siva Nageswara Rao @ siva. Prior to the occurrence, P.W.6 - Mekala Siva Nageswara Rao @ siva introduced the accused to the family of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, since then he is visiting the house of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari occasionally and staying there during nights.
On 12.06.2010 at 07.00 p.m., the accused went to the shop of P.W.7 - Immedisetti Prabhakar, purchased a knife for Rs.30/-. On the intervening night of 12/13.06.2010 at about 02.00 a.m., the accused knocked the door of the house of the Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, immediately she opened the door, found the accused and questioned as to why he came at the late hour during night. The accused replied that he had some work, and would go away in the MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 3 early morning. The deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and P.W.1
- Edara Anusha slept on one cot, provided the accused another cot and all went to sleep during night. At about 4.30 a.m. on 13.06.2010 the accused stabbed the Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari with knife and snatched M.O.7 - Gold Nanthadu weighting 3 ½ sovereigns worth Rs.35,000/- from the neck of the Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari. On receipt of injuries, Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari raised cries, thereupon P.W.1 - Edara Anusha woke-up and made an attempt to rescue Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, then the accused stabbed P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and tried to flee away with the booty. Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari went out of the house and cried loudly. On hearing the same, P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi and others rushed to the scene of offence. When P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi tried to hold the accused, the accused stabbed her also, threw the knife used in the commission of offence there itself and fled away with the booty. Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari fell down and died instantaneously, whereas P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi received grave injuries in the hands of the accused. Immediately, P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi were shifted to Government Hospital, Tenali for treatment. Further, P.W.1 - Edara Anusha was shifted to Government General Hospital (GGH), Guntur for better treatment from Tenali. On 13.06.2010, P.W.13 - Sk.Silar Ahammad recorded Ex.P.1 - statement of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha in casualty ward of GGH, Guntur and transferred the same to Station House Officer, Vemuru Police Station on the point of jurisdiction.
P.W.14 - K.Sudhakara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemuru registered the same as a case in Crime No.50 of 2010 of Vemuru MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 4 Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 397, 394 and 307 of I.P.C. and submitted the copies of F.I.R. to higher officials and sent the original F.I.R. to jurisdictional Magistrate. P.W.16 - T.Murali Krishna, Inspector of Police, Tenali Rural Circle, took up investigation, visited scene of offence, observed scene of offence in the presence of P.W.9 - Sambasiva Rao and L.W.13 - Gajula Venkateswararao and got photographed the scene of offence through P.W.8 - K.Ravindrababu, the said photographs with C.D. are marked as Ex.P.2 ( 8 in number). P.W.16 - Inspector of Police also seized blood stained blanket, M.O.4 and pair shoes, M.O.6, stainless steel glass, M.O.2 during observation of scene of offence in the presence of mediators.
An inquest was held on the dead body of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari on 13.06.2010 by P.W.16 - Inspector of Police in the presence of blood relatives and mediators i.e. P.W.9 - Sambasiva Rao and Gajula Venkateswara Rao, from 04.30 p.m. to 07.00 p.m. Ex.P.4 is the Inquest report. Later, the dead body of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari was sent to autopsy. P.W.10 - Dr.A.Hena, CAS, Tenali conducted autopsy over the dead body of the Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, issued Ex.P.9 - post-mortem certificate opined that the Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries to great vessels of neck and that the time of death was 24 to 30 hours prior to his examination. P.W.10 - Doctor further opined that the injuries found on the body of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari could have been caused with sharp edged weapon like M.O.1 - Knife.
On 29.06.2010 at 08.00 a.m., on credible information, P.W.16
- Inspector of Police, along with mediators including P.W.9 -
MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 5 Sambasiva Rao, Village Revenue Officer went to the Railway Station, Tenali, where they noticed a person, who is trying to skulk away on seeing them, immediately they apprehended the accused and arrested him. On interrogation, he made a confession leading to discovery and assured them that he would show shop, where he purchased M.O.1. On the confession of the accused, P.W.16 - Inspector Police seized gold nanthadu, which was snatched from the neck of the deceased with Lakshmidevi impression and one sutram from the possession of the accused in the presence of P.W.9 - Sambasiva Rao and L.W.15 - T.Manikya Rao under the cover of mediators report, Ex.P.6. The accused lead them to the shop of P.W.7 - Immedisetti Prabhakar, where he purchased M.O.1 - knife during the night of 12.06.2010. Later, test identification parade was held to identify M.O.7 - Gold Nanthadu by P.W.9 - Sambasiva Rao and L.W.15 - T.Manikya Rao, prepared identification proceedings. Later, the accused was remanded to judicial custody on the same day.
P.W.12 - Dr.K.Yedukondalu issued Ex.P.14 wound certificate of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha, opined that P.W.1 - Edara Anusha sustained two grievous injuries and other simple injuries. P.W.12 - Doctor also issued Ex.P.15 wound certificate certifying that P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi, sustained injuries, opined that the injury sustained by P.W.2 is simple in nature.
During investigation, P.W.11 - Inspector of Police, Finger Print Expert, developed chance prints on the knife left by the accused at the scene of offence, issued his report opined that the finger prints found on the knife are identical to the finger prints of the accused. Thus, based on the evidence collected during MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 6 investigation, P.W.16 - T.Murali Krishna, Inspector of Police, concluded that the accused is the person who caused murder of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and attempted to kill P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi while snatching away M.O.7 - Gold Nanthanu, filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 394, 397, 307 and 411 of I.P.C. before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali, who in turn registered the same as P.R.C. 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, learned Principal Sessions Judge registered the same as S.C.No.240 of 2011 and made over to the XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur, Tenali, to try the accused 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 charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 397, 307 and 411 of I.P.C. against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he 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 7 to substantiate its case. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explained the incriminating material that appeared against him in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, but he denied the same and gave his statement in Telegu as an answer to Question No.35 and reported no defence.
MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 7 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.240 of 2011, the present appeal is preferred on various grounds, mainly contending that P.Ws.1 to 4 are interested witnesses and recording of conviction based on the testimony of interested witnesses is a grave error committed by the trial Court below. Recovery of M.O.1 - Knife and M.O.2 - Stainless steel glass is nothing but invention by the police. But the trial Court failed to consider the recovery of M.O.1 - Knife and M.O.2 - Stainless steel glass, which were not referred in F.I.R. and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that Janardhan, husband of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha committed the offence, but to save him accused was falsely implicated in this case. Statement of accused to Question No.35 in the examination conducted under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not considered by the trial Court and that no blood stains were found on M.O.1, but the trial Court committed error in finding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 394, 397, 307 and 411 of I.P.C. Finally, it is contended that the finger prints of the accused were not taken before the Magistrate and there is every possibility of creating such finger prints to identify the person, whose finger prints were found on M.O.1 - Knife cannot be ruled out. Hence, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is not based on satisfactory evidence and committed grave error in finding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 394, 397, 307 and 411 of I.P.C. and requested to set aside the conviction and sentence MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 8 passed against the accused, finding him not guilty while allowing the appeal.
During hearing, Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - accused contended that the evidence of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi is full of inconsistencies and they are highly interested witness, hence finding the accused guilty for various offences based on such testimony of interested and related witnesses is a grave illegality. She also pointed out that there is unexplained delay in submitting report to the police about occurrence of incident and delay in holding Test Identification Parade of property, which is contrary to Rule 35 of Criminal Rules of Practice. Hence, all the circumstances creates any amount of suspicion on the prosecution version, but the trial Court did not consider the delay as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused and interestedness of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi and relation of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha with the deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, committed an error in finding the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 394, 397, 307 and 411 of I.P.C.
Sri Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that the evidence of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi cannot be ignored as they are injured witnesses in the same incident. The evidence of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi cannot be discarded as interested witnesses since they are not going to get any benefit out of litigation, though P.W.1 - Edara Anusha is related to deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, her presence at the scene of offence is MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 9 highly probable. Therefore, her evidence on the ground of relationship with the deceased cannot be ignored. Yet another strong circumstance to establish the presence of the accused is the statement of accused to question No.35 in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Positive direct evidence of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi and admission of accused about his presence at the scene of offence at the relevant time, recovery of M.O.7 from his possession in the presence of P.W.9 - Sambasiva Rao and another mediator is sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 394, 397, 307 and 411 of I.P.C. The delay pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant - accused is without any basis since the Test Identification Parade was held on the same day when the accused was arrested and recovered M.O.7 - Gold Nanthadu. Therefore, none of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant - accused does not stand to any legal scrutiny and requested to confirm the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant - accused, dismiss the appeal.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether the accused caused injuries on the body of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari with an intention to kill her, knowing that the injuries caused by him on the body of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events? If not, whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. be sustained?
2) Whether the accused caused injuries on the body of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 10 with an intention to kill them, thereby the attempt made by the accused to kill P.Ws.1 and 2 constitutes an offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C.? If not, whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. be sustained?
3) Whether the appellant - accused voluntarily caused hurt on the body of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 -
Inampudi Bharathi while committing robbery and death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari? If not, whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 394 and 397 of I.P.C. be sustained?
4) Whether the accused received stolen property? If so, whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 411 of I.P.C. be sustained? 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 MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 11 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 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 Nos.1 and 2:
As the point Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked to one another, we deem it appropriate to decide both the points by common discussion.
The case of the prosecution mostly based on direct evidence of injured witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 and circumstantial evidence i.e. recovery of M.O.1 - Knife from the scene of offence and seizure of M.O.7 - Gold Nanthadu from the possession of the accused after his arrest and discovery of shop of P.W.7 - Immadisetti Prabhakara Rao, from whom M.O.1 - Knife was purchased by the accused.
As the case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence, if the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused based 1 (2013) 15 SCC 263 MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 12 on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence becomes more or less academic. Therefore, we would like to advert to the evidence of direct witnesses PWs.1 to 3 to find out legality of conviction of accused/appellant.
The relationship of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha with the deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and their stay in one house on the date of incident, sustaining injuries by P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2
- Inampudi Bharathi and death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari are not in dispute. Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari is the mother of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha, marriage of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha was performed with one Janardhan, resident of Emani Village, Duggirala Mandal and she is living at Emani Village, but she came back to her paternal house due to ill-health, 10 days prior to murder of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and sustained injuries by herself and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bhatathi at the residence of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari.
The presence of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha in the house at the time of incident is not disputed by the defence in the entire cross- examination of any of the witnesses, more particularly P.Ws.1 to 3. However, the statement of the accused to question No.35 during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. lent strong support to establish the presence of the accused in the house at the time of unnatural death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, mother of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and injuries sustained by P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi.
Apart from the statement of accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., medical evidence Ex.P.9 - post-mortem certificate coupled with the evidence of P.W.10 - Dr.A.Hena who MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 13 opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries to great vessels of neck. Thus, the prosecution could establish that Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari was murdered. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court regarding homicidal death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari needs no interference.
P.W.1 - Edara Anusha is the daughter of deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, who was present in the house at the time of incident and received injuries in the same incident. This fact is substantiated by the medical evidence of P.W.12 - Dr.Y.Yedukondalu and wound certificate marked as Ex.P.14. The oral evidence of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha, who is injured in the same incident, is another strong piece of evidence.
P.W.1 - Edara Anusha, in her evidence specifically stated about her return to paternal home due to ill-health from her matrimonial home at Emani Village, Duggirala Mandal. Her presence at the scene of offence is not in much controversy. But the tenor of the cross-examination of P.W.1 would go to show that husband of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha suspected her fidelity and caused death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and injuries on the body of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi when P.W.1 - Edara Anusha was found in the company of accused inside the house during night. But this cannot be accepted for the simple reason that no specific suggestion was put to P.W.1 as to causing injuries on the body of herself and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi and deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari by her husband Janardhan. Her consistent evidence more particularly her statement, Ex.P.1 directly establish that the accused caused MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 14 injuries on the body of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi with M.O.1 - knife, which she identified and also spoke about the snatching away gold jewellery from her mother's neck and recording of her statement by P.W.13 in casualty ward of GGH, Guntur. P.W.1 - Edara Anusha is not only a related witness but also injured witness. Merely because P.W.1 - Edara Anusha is related to the deceased, though injured, her evidence cannot be brushed aside on account of her relationship with the deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari. In fact, she is one of the victims, who received injuries on her body in the same incident of murderous assault. When her presence at the scene of offence is not in dispute, her presence at the scene of offence is highly probable being the daughter of deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 - Edara Anusha being the related witness to save her husband, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. the accused was falsely implicated, her evidence being related to the deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari cannot be accepted. Consequently, finding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is an illegality. No doubt, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish the presence of the related witness by cogent and satisfactory evidence. But, presence of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha at the scene of offence and receipt of injures is not disputed. On the other hand, the statement of accused to question No.35 during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. established that P.W.1 - Edara Anusha received injuries, but MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 15 contended that the injuries were caused by a person other than the accused.
The courts may rely on a part of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of other evidence against him led by the prosecution. But such statement of accused recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with the prosecution evidence. [Vide:"Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal2] The law is well settled that in a murder case where the eye witness was closely related to the deceased but his evidence found to be credible concurrently by trial Court as well appellate Court, the evidence of such witness cannot be disbelieved. Evidence of a close relation can be relied upon provided it is trustworthy. Such evidence is required to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before resting of conclusion to convict the accused. But where the Sessions Court properly appreciated evidence and meticulously analysed the same and the High Court re-appreciated the said evidence properly to reach the same conclusion, it is difficult for the superior Court to take a view contrary to the same, unless there are reasons to disbelieve such witnesses. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are inter- related to each other or to the deceased. (Vide: "Bhagaloo Lodh v. State of U.P.3" "State of Punjab v. Suraj Prakash4" "Himanshu v. State of NCT of Delhi5" "Mookkiah v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu6"
2
AIR 2010 SC 3507 3 (2011) 13 SCC 206 4 AIR 2016 SC 1015 5 (2011) 2 SCC 36 6 (2013) 2 SCC 89 MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 16 Merely because witnesses were closely related to deceased persons, their testimonies cannot be discarded, a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against innocent person, however, in such cases, Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible evidence. (Vide: Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P.7") Applying the above principles to the present facts of the case, considering the statement of accused to question No.35 in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and injuries received by P.W.1 - Edara Anusha, the finding of the trial Court about her presence and receipt of injuries in the hands of the accused cannot be discarded even after reappraisal.
P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi is an independent witness. She came to the scene of offence on hearing the cries of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, found the accused stabbing P.W.1 - Edara Anusha with M.O.1- Knife and tried to obstruct the accused, but the accused caused injures on her body also. This fact is supported by oral evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 and medical evidence of P.W.12 - Dr.K.Yedukondalu, Ex.P.15 - wound certificate of P.W.2.
Son of P.W.2 was examined as P.W.3 - Inampudi Nageswara Rao, who rushed to the scene of offence on hearing cries on 13.06.2010 at 04.30 a.m. from the scene of offence. P.W.3 - Inampudi Nageswara Rao and his mother P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi being the neighbours visited the scene of offence and found the accused escaping with Gold Nanthadu. P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi were suffering from 7 (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 923) MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 17 bleeding injuries and the accused dropped the knife at the scene of offence, escaped with M.O.7 - Gold Nanthadu. P.W.3 and his elder brother tried to catch him by following him, but their attempts were proved futile, as the accused escaped towards Balijepalli road. He also testified about calling 108 Ambulance, shifting the injured P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi, by his wife to Tenali Government Hospital and shifting of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha to G.G.H., Guntur for better treatment. The evidence of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi is free from any improvement, omissions or contradictions. Even after reappraisal of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we find no material inconsistencies, which go to the root of the prosecution case.
Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - accused contended that merely because the P.Ws.1 and 2 are injured witnesses, their evidence cannot be believed as the injuries were caused by the husband of P.W.1, who along with another person came on motor bike in a drunken state, caused death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and injuries to P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi and fled away on the motorcycle.
In the entire cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, nothing was suggested to them that husband of P.W.1 along with another person caused injuries on the body of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and P.W.1 - Edara Anusha, P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi, snatched away M.O.7 - Gold Nanthadu from the neck of deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari leaving M.O.1 - Knife at the scene of offence. But the accused invented altogether a different story that he sustained injuries in the same incident when he was pushed, more particularly head injury and other injuries over the body, but the MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 18 neighbours of the scene of offence caught hold of him, tied him to a tree and insisted him to disclose the details of the persons, who fled away on the motorcycle after causing injuries on the body of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi. This theory was not suggested to any of the witnesses examined before the trial Court to substantiate the prosecution case. Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion, the defence set up by the accused can be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in "M.B. Ramesh (D) by L.Rs. v. K.M. Veeraje Urs (D) by L.Rs. and Ors8" and Calcutta High Court in "A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian9", it is extracted hereunder.
"Wherever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross-examination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. It is a rule of essential justice.
Applying the principle laid down in the above decisions, the defence of appellant/accused is liable to be rejected.
In any view of the matter, P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi are admittedly received injuries in the incident. Sustaining injuries by P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi, and death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, mother of P.W.1 is established by cogent and satisfactory evidence. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant - accused is that merely because they are injured witnesses as they received injuries when they made attempt to save the husband of P.W.1, their testimony cannot be accepted to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.
8 AIR 2013 SC 2088 9 AIR 1961 Cal 359 MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 19 No doubt, the evidence of injured witness can be scrutinised like any other witness. However, testimony of injured eyewitness stands on higher pedestal than other witnesses (Vide: "Shyam Babu v. State of U.P.10"). In the facts of the said judgment, Nathu Ram (P.W.1) is closely related to all the deceased as he is the son of the deceased Pahunchi Lal and nephew of deceased Lalta Prasad. Prayag Singh (P.W.3), the injured witness, is the real brother of the deceased Pahunchi Lal and Lalta Prasad. Mukut Singh (P.W.6) has also admitted in his cross-examination that he has some land in joint khatta with the victims but their testimony cannot be discarded on the ground of relationship alone as they appeared to be honest and truthful witnesses and their testimony has not been impaired in their cross-examination. Even from cross examination of these witnesses nothing came out to impair their credibility. The Apex Court also observed that among these three eye witnesses one was injured witness and his evidence stands on higher pedestal and there was no reason to either disbelieve his version or his presence at the place of occurrence. Therefore, reliance on the evidence of the witness was proper.
Similarly, evidence of members of the family of the deceased cannot be rejected on that ground that they are family members. (Vide: "Suresh Sitaram Surve v. State of Maharashtra11") Testimony of injured witnesses when found to be credible, their testimony has to be relied upon as the credibility of their deposition would not be affected. (Vide: "Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh12") 10 AIR 2012 SC 3311 11 AIR 2003 SC 344 12 (2009) 12 SCC 546 MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 20 In any view of the matter, even though the injured witness appeared before the Court to testify about the commission of offence, it is for the Court to decide whether such witness is wholly reliable witness and whether the presence of the witness at the scene of offence at the relevant time is probable? If the Court finds that the injured witness is worthy of credence and his testimony is free from any inconsistencies, the Court can record conviction of the accused even based on the sole eyewitness or injured eyewitness and relationship is not a matter for consideration when he is wholly reliable witness.
In the present facts of the case, the presence of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi is not in dispute and their sustaining injuries is also not in dispute, but who caused injuries is the dispute. P.W.1 - Edara Anusha, though related to Janardhan being the wife, the evidence of P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi, who is a neighbour and independent witness spoke about causing injuries on the body of P.W.1 and receipt of injuries in the hands of the accused by herself and causing injuries to Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and no enmity is attributed to P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi or even P.W.1 - Edara Anusha also. If there is any enmity between P.W.1 - Edara Anusha, P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi and accused, question of permitting him to stay during night in the house of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and sleep on a cot does not arise. This itself indicates that they were not in inimical terms. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi is to be accepted as their testimony is free from any embellishments or inconsistencies and the evidence of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha is corroborated by another injured witness. P.W.2 - Inampudi MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 21 Bharathi and P.W.3 - Inampudi Nageswara Rao, who directly witnessed the incident of fleeing the accused from the scene of offence and they chased him to some distance.
The main contention of Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - accused is that P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi are interested witnesses. But she is unable to distinguish interested witness, injured witness and related witness and raised such contention without any basis.
Interested witness is a witness, who is expected to gain benefit out of the litigation.
Injured witness is a person, who received injuries in the same incident, whereas related witness is a person related to the victim or injured person.
In the present case, P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi are not going to get any benefit out of the litigation. Therefore, P.W.1 - Edara Anusha, P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi and P.W.3 - Inampudi Nageswara Rao cannot be described as interested witness. The settled law is that the evidence of a related or interested witness should be meticulously and carefully be examined. In a case where the related and interested witness may have some enmity with the assailant the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny. This is only a rule of prudence and not one of law. But more than the categorization of a witness, the issue really is one of appreciation of the evidence of a witness. A Court should examine the evidence of a related and interested witness having an interest in seeing the accused punished and also having some enmity with the accused with MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 22 greater care and caution than the evidence of a third party disinterested and unrelated witness. This is all that is expected and required. (Vide: "Raju v. State of Tamil Nadu13").
When the evidence of interested witness is consistence and corroborated by medical evidence it cannot be rejected only on the ground that it was of interested witness. (Vide: "Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan14") Applying the above principles to the present facts of the case, taking into consideration of entire evidence of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha, P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi and P.W.3 - Inampudi Nageswara Rao including the statement of accused to question No.35 during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., we find that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is worthy of credence and they are wholly reliable and truthful witnesses.
P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi and P.W.3 - Inampudi Nageswara Rao are neighbours to the scene of offence i.e. house of the deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and they have no enmity with the accused, apart from that they are aware about frequent visits of accused being the friend of P.W.6 - Mekala Siva Nageswara Rao. P.W.6 is the cousin of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 inspires confidence of the Court. Therefore, relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it can safely be concluded that the accused is the person, who caused injuries on the body of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari, which lead to her death and caused injuries to P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi when they interfered at the time of causing death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari.
13
(2012) 12 SCC 701 14 AIR 1974 SC 276 MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 23 On close scrutiny of entire evidence with great circumspection, we find that the trial Court rightly believed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded a finding that the accused is the person, who caused death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and injuries on the body of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi and the said finding cannot be disturbed even after reappraisal of entire evidence since we find no ground to disturb the findings recorded by the trial Court.
Admittedly, the accused was present at the scene of offence at the relevant time of causing death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and injuries on P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi. When his presence is admitted, it is for him to explain as to how the incident occurred and who caused injuries on the body of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi and Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari other than the accused. The same was not suggested to any witness, more particularly to P.Ws.1 to 3. As discussed above, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in "M.B. Ramesh (D) by L.Rs. v. K.M. Veeraje Urs (D) by L.Rs. and Ors" (referred above) and Calcutta High Court in "A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian" (referred above), the plea of the accused that some other person caused injuries on the body of P.Ws.1, 2 and Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari cannot be accepted.
Coming to circumstantial evidence, the accused after his arrest at the Railway station in the presence of P.W.9 - Sambasiva Rao and another mediator, made a confession that he purchased M.O.1 - Knife from the shop of P.W.7 - Immedisetti Prabhakar on payment of Rs.30/- and came to the house of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari. The same was reduced into writing, vide Ex.P.6. Therefore, MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 24 Ex.P.6 - admissible portion mediators report dated 29.06.2010 drafted at 11.00 a.m. coupled with the evidence of P.W.7 is sufficient to conclude that the accused developed motive to snatch away the gold jewellery from the person of deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and after purchasing knife, he knocked the door and entered into the house, slept for sometime, later caused injuries with M.O.1 - Knife, which was recovered from the scene of offence under observation report, Ex.P.3. Hence, based on the evidence of P.W.7 - Immedisetti Prabhakar coupled with Ex.P.6 - admissible portion mediators report dated 29.06.2010 drafted at 11.00 a.m., this Court can infer that he had intention to kill Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari to snatch away gold ornaments from her body.
Coming to the knowledge, the accused being a graduate in Commerce, he is aware about the consequences of causing injuries on the vital parts of the body i.e. neck and caused injuries with the knowledge that those injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of events with M.O.1 - Knife. Hence, the trial Court rightly concluded that the accused had intention and knowledge to cause death of deceased Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari to snatch away the gold ornaments from the body.
P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi admittedly received injuries. According to their evidence, the accused caused injuries on P.W.1, when she intervened while the accused stabbing her mother, Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi received injuries when she intercepted while the accused fleeing away from the scene of offence after causing injures on P.W.1 - Edara Anusha. Thus, the reason for causing injuries on the body of P.W.1 was her intervention and the MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 25 reason for causing injuries on the body of P.W.2 was due to her interception, while the accused was fleeing away from the scene of offence. The accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and convicted for the same.
Section 307 of I.P.C. deals with punishment for attempt to commit murder, which reads thus:
"Section 307.Attempt to murder:- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
A bare reading of Section 307 of I.P.C., it is clear that such act must have done with such intention or knowledge. In the present facts of the case, the accused did not visit the house of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari knowing that P.W.1 is available in the house. Therefore, the question of intention to kill P.W.1 - Edara Anusha does not arise. Similarly, accused caused injuries on P.W.2
- Inampudi Bharathi when she intercepted him while he was fleeing from the scene of offence. Therefore, the accused is lacking intention to kill P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi.
Thus, in the absence of any intention to kill P.Ws.1 and 2 and those injuries were caused in the manner, which we explained in the earlier paragraphs, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., but the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. for causing injuries on the body of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Hence, the finding of the trial Court on this aspect is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.
MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 26 Though charge for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is framed, as the injuries caused by the accused on the body of P.W.1
- Edara Anusha are grievous in nature as per Ex.P.14 wound certificate of P.W.1, the accused is liable for punishment for the offence 326 of I.P.C. as M.O.1 - knife is a dangerous weapon used for cutting, stabbing etc. Similarly, the accused is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. for causing injuries on the body of P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi as the injury is simple in nature in view of the evidence of P.W.12 - Dr.K.Yedukondalu coupled with Ex.P.15 wound certificate. Hence, we find the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. for causing death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari by causing injuries on her body with an intention to kill her knowing that those injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of event. Further, we find the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. for causing grievous injuries on the body of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and also guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. for causing injury on the body of P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi while setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the accused in favour of the prosecution.
P O I N T No.3:
The accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 394 and 397 of I.P.C.
To establish the robbery, the prosecution examined P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi and also proved MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 27 recovery of M.O.7 - Gold Nanthadu from the possession of the accused after his arrest based on confession leading to discovery. Ex.P.5 is the admissible portion of mediators report dated 29.06.2010 drafted at 08.00 a.m. in the presence of P.W.9 - Village Revenue Officer. When P.W.13 - Investigating Officer interrogated the accused, then the accused produced M.O.7 - Gold Nanthadu from his pocket in the presence of P.W.9 and others. M.O.7 is the Gold Nanthadu with two Mangalasutrams, one with Lakshmi Goddess image, Gold nanthadu, three black beads and two read beads and one bronze dollar (billa), and the same was seized under the cover of Ex.P.5 - Mediators report. P.W.13 handed over the same to P.W.9 - Village Revenue Officer, for holding Test Identification Parade. According to the evidence of P.W.9, the inspector of police gave M.O.7 and two or three similar gold chains and asked P.W.9 and L.W.15 - T.Manikya Rao to conduct test identification parade of property. Accordingly, they kept three chains and M.O.7 on a table in reading room of Gandhi Irvin Park, Tenali and asked P.W.1 - Edara Anusha, daughter of the deceased to identify her mother's gold ornaments. She identified M.O.7 out of 4 chains. Ex.P.8 is the identification proceedings.
In the cross-examination, nothing was elicited at least pointing out the mode of conducting test identification parade, but for the first time, learned counsel for the appellant Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy contended that the procedure adopted for holding test identification parade is contrary to Rule 35 of Criminal Rules of Practice.
Rule 35 of Criminal Rules of Practice deals with Identification of Property. As per Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 28 identification parades of properties shall be held in the Court of the Magistrate where the properties are lodged; each item of property shall be put up separately for the parade and it shall be mixed up with four or five similar objects; before calling upon the witnesses to identify the property, he shall be asked to state the identification marks of his property. Witnesses shall be called in one after the other and on leaving shall not be allowed to communicate with the witnesses not yet called in. The procedure prescribed under Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice was not spoken by P.W.9 - K.Sambasiva Rao, Village Revenue Officer. Though four or five similar items of property shall be mixed with the property to be identified; only two or three similar items were mixed. Hence, test identification parade of property is contrary to mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. As P.W.9 - Village Revenue Officer, who conducted test identification parade of property did not state abut the procedure follwed by him to conduct test identification parade, the accused cannot be acquitted on that ground, since identification evidence is only corroborative piece of evidence, but not substantive evidence. Merely, failure to conduct identification parade of property/invalid test identification parade is not a ground to acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 394 and 397 of I.P.C. if the proved circumstances cumulatively establish the guilt of the accused.
When no suggestion was put to witness suggesting that the procedure followed by P.W.9 for conducting test identification parade is not valid, this Court need not consider such contention during appeal more particularly, in the absence of any suggestion to MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 29 P.W.9 - Village Revenue Officer, during trial. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not a ground to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant - accused for the offence punishable under Section 394 and 397 of I.P.C.
One of the major piece of evidence relied on by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.11 - Inspector of Police in Finger Print Bureau. P.W.11 - P.M.Raj is the Inspector of Police, Finger Print Bureau, Guntur, visited the scene of offence on receipt of information on 13.06.2010. According to his evidence, he examined the scene of offence, developed two chance prints, one on M.O.1 - Knife and another on M.O.2 - stainless steel glass. He has not find any chance prints on door, cot and other things. The one developed on M.O.1 - Knife was labelled as "A" and the other one developed on M.O.2 - Stainless steel glass was labelled as "B". Later, finger prints of the accused were obtained by the police during investigation. P.W.11 examined the chance prints with admitted finger prints of the accused and found that they are identical and issued Ex.P.13 opinion.
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused in the grounds of appeal questioned about the truth in lifting chance prints on M.O1
- Knife and M.O.2 - Stainless steel glass for the first time before this Court without any appropriate cross-examination of P.W.11. A bald suggestion was put to P.W.11 that the chance prints of M.Os.1 and 2 were obtained by force and submitted to the Court and the same denied by P.W.11. In any view of the matter, it is only a piece of evidence being opinion evidence.
MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 30 Section 394 of I.P.C. deals with voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, while Section 397 of I.P.C. deals with robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
"390. Robbery.--In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery.--Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery.--Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted."
The present case would fall within clause-1 of Section 390 of I.P.C. i.e. when theft is robbery. Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
In the present facts of the case, the accused caused grievous hurt on the body of P.W.1 - Edara Anusha and hurt on the body of P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi, and death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari. Therefore, it attracts Sections 397 and 394 of I.P.C. Hence, the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 394 of I.P.C. for causing death of Inampudi Nagaraja Kumari and hurt on the body of P.W.2 - Inampudi Bharathi while committing robbery and also found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 397 of I.P.C. for causing grievous hurt on the body of P.W.1 - Edara MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 31 Anusha while committing robbery. Hence, the findings for the trial Court cannot be disturbed with regard to conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 394 and 397 of I.P.C.
As discussed above in the earlier paragraphs, consistence evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the statement of accused to question No.35 during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 394 and 397 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the point is answered against the accused and in favour of the prosecution.
P O I N T No.4:
The trial Court also found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C., but the same cannot be sustained for the reason that when once the Court found the accused committed theft or robbery, convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 394 and 397 of I.P.C., question of finding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. does not arise since he is not a receiver of stolen property, but the person, who committed theft or robbery. Hence, conviction and sentence recorded against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. is hereby set aside holding him not guilty for the said offence. The point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.
In view of our foregoing discussion, we find no grounds warranting interference of this Court with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court except to the extent indicated above while deciding point No.2.
MSM,J and NJS,J CrlA_108_2015 32 In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed-in-part. The calendar and judgment dated 14.10.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.240 of 2011 by the XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 397 of I.P.C. is hereby affirmed, while setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 411 of I.P.C. However, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of I.P.C. The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three (3) years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. The accused is further convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and shall pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. It is further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY _______________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 27.07.2020 Ksp