IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – When there is ample ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence, mere non-recovery of weapon from appellant would not materially affect case of prosecution.
(2) Article 136 is an extraordinary jurisdiction which is exercisable only when this Court is satisfied that it is necessary to interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’ ) in Criminal Appeal No.811/2008, whereby the High Court has dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the judgment dated 04.04.2008 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge at Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court) whereunder, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows:

On 06.09.2006, the deceased (father of PW-1) and PW-1 went to the 14th mile centre of Lemalle Village to sell their vegetables. While PW-1 was getting the vegetables weighed, the deceased crossed the road and went to the shop of PW-3 to purchase tobacco leaves. PW-2 and PW-4 were also present at the place of occurrence. Having seen the deceased, the appellant, armed with a knife, came to the shop of PW-3 and sprinkled chilli powder into the eyes of the deceased, and stabbed him on the chest and abdomen, resulting in grievous injuries. The appellant immediately fled from the spot after seeing PW-1 to 4. The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital Amaravathi, where the doctors declared him dead.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report given by PW-1, PW-7 registered the case being FIR No. 120/2006 dated 06.09.2006 at PS Amaravathi for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, PW-8 and PW-9 visited the place of occurrence, held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased, examined the eyewitnesses, arrested the appellant, and filed charge sheet against him. On 26.12.2007, charges under Section 302 IPC were framed and the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to substantiate the case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and there was no oral or documentary evidence adduced by the defence side.

PW-1: Madhirapalli Srinivasa Rao, Son of the deceased ? PW-2: Shaik China John

PW-3: Shaik Subhani, owner of the tobacco shop

PW-4: Kovvuri Venkateswara Rao, belong to the same village as the deceased.

PW-5: Dr. G. Peter Paul, who conducted post-mortem on 07.09.2006.

PW-6: Kalapala Venkaiah, Panchayat Secretary of Endrol Village.

PW-7: I. Govindarajulu, Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Records Bureau.

PW-8: T. Ravindra Babu, Inspector of Police.

PW-9: K. Jagadishwara Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police.

5. The Trial Court after analysing the statement made by the prosecution witnesses, vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2008 held the appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2008 before the High Court challenging the Trial Court’s order of conviction and sentencing. Vide judgment and order dated 22.06.2012, the High Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and observed that there is no iota of doubt in the case of the prosecution and therefore, the prosecution has discharged its burden in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt.

7. We have heard Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, Learned Counsel appearing for the State.

8. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the weapon (knife) alleged to have been used by the appellant in the commission of the offence was not seized by the police and non-seizure of the said weapon is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It was further submitted that the prosecution failed to examine the scribe of the FIR and that there was a delay in sending the FIR to the court.

9. It w