( 1 ) PREJUDICE of the accused in criminal trial for non-supply of the witness statement is the core question in this appeal. [1] Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor the above landmark pronouncement is the answer. [2] It is rightly argued by the learned senior counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the appellant that the above decision is the guiding principle in the Criminal justice System even by now being relied by apex Court in the recent judgments. [3] Incidentally several other factual details and the niceties of the procedural and substantive law of crime are also highlighted by Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy and indeed they are feast to the ears of the Bench and bar. [4] As usual and as is being happening regularly before this Court, the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor remained absent. Sri Ramalingeswara Reddy a learned young colleague of the learned prosecutor represented the respondent State by perusing the Court record during the course of arguments of the case by saying that the state is not assisting the prosecutor either with the case record or with any case law. [5] A sorry state of affairs and unnecessary to comment further and advisable to decide the appeal on merits.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the first accused in s. C. No. 199 of 1998 on the file of the Additional assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali.

( 3 ) IMPUGNED ORDER: the learned Additional Assistant Sessions judge by reason of the impugned judgment dated 31-8-1999 convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 307 and 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under each count, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under both the counts and further directed that the sentences shall run concurrently and remand period, if any, shall be set off.

( 4 ) THE appellant is now challenging the legality and correctness of the above judgment. FACTS:

( 5 ) FACTUAL details of the case are:[1] The appellant is the son of A-2. [2] P. W. 1 is the brother of A-2. All are residents of Yeminenivaripalem. [3] There are long pending civil disputes between the two families over joint house sites and lands. [4] A-1 and A-2 the son and the father are accused in the trial. [5] The accused developed enmity against P. W. 1 and threatened him with dire consequences. [6] The motive for the crime is the property disputes. INCIDENT: [7] The incident occurred on 10-8-1997 at about 5. 00 p. m. , near the village. [8] It is stated that P. W. 1 intended to sell away the house site to one Addanki satyanarayana for Rs. 14,000/- and engaged p. W. 5 for surveying the land in order to hand over the same to the proposed purchaser. Accordingly, on 10-8-1997 at about 4. 00 p. m. , P. Ws. 1 and 5 and the proposed purchaser and others are measuring the site. Noticing the same, both accused and their family members objected to survey and in pursuance of the same there was a quarrel. [9] Thereafter, all of them returned to the main road. At about 5. 00 p. m. , the 2nd accused again picked up a quarrel with P. W. 1 and the first accused picked up a crowbar and dealt a blow on the head of P. W. 1 resulting serious bleeding injury leading to unconsciousness. He fell in pool of blood. Thereafter A-1 attempted to stab P. W. 1 with the same crowbar, but P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 rescued him, else P. W. 1 could have received the fatal injury leading to his death. [10] P. W. 1 is the victim, P. Ws. 2 to 5 and two others witnessed the attack. [11] P. W. 1 was shifted to Government hospital at Repalle by P. W. 2 and first aid was provided to him by P. W. 9 and later he was referred to Guntur General Hospital and on intimation from the hospital P. W. 10 the police officer proceeded to the hospital and obtained report from P. W. 2 as P. W. 1 was still unconscious and was unable to give any statement. [12] Police registered the case in Crime no. 28 of 1997 under Sections 324 read with section 34 IPC. , and later the Section of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document