( 1 ) HEARD Sri. P. Parameswara Rao, counsel representing appellant-accused by way of legal aid and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mohd. Osman Shaheed. The appellant-sole accused Gannu Uma Maheswara Rao preferred this criminal appeal aggrieved by the conviction and sentence made by Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in S. C. No. 122 of 2002, dated 01. 11. 2002, whereunder the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 448 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, and was also convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.

( 2 ) SRI. B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel representing the appellant-accused would submit that there is no independent evidence available on record and this is a dispute between close relatives and there is some doubt or suspicion about the weapon used. The learned counsel would also submit that except examination by a private Doctor though a case of serious nature has been registered by the police, the Investigating Officer had not chosen to get the injured examined through Government Doctors. The learned counsel would submit that this would throw some suspicion relating to the case of prosecution. The learned counsel also would submit that the Investigating Officer admitted that he had sent the accused to hospital, as he was having abrasion on his ankle and this would show that there was some quarrel between the relatives and nothing more and nothing beyond.

( 3 ) PER contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence available on record and would submit that the evidence is clear and categorical and the very fact that the injured were not examined by Government Doctor may not alter the situation in any way. Heard both the counsel. The accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 307 IPC and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 7, Exs. P. 1 to P. 15 and M. Os. 1 and 2, found him guilty of the offence under Sections 448 and 307 IPC and sentenced him as already referred to supra.

( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution is that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are residents of Buddavari Street, Mallikharjunapeta and the accused is co-son-in-law of P. W. 1. On 4. 3. 2002 at about 19. 00 hours, the accused trespassed into the house of P. W. 1 and stabbed him with onion cutter on left side of his chest and left thigh and attempted to kill him and when P. W. 2, his wife went to his rescue, the accused also stabbed her with the same knife on left side or her ribs and attempted to kill her due to previous grudge. When the blood relatives of the injured and neighbours gathered at the scene of offence, accused fled away. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were shifted to Peoples Nursing Home at Gandhinagar for treatment, where the Sub-Inspector recorded statement of P. W. 1, registered the same as F. I. R. in Cr. No. 199 of 2002 against the accused and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

( 5 ) THE learned Judge, after recording the reasons in detail and relying on the material available on record, arrived at a conclusion that the offences with which the accused was charged with had been proved. It is no doubt true that P. W. 6- private practitioner, who examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 deposed that he is resident of Vijayawada and he is a private practitioner at Peoples Nursing Home. On 4. 3. 2002 the injured by name Ramisetty Ramanjaneyulu-P. W. 1 came to his hospital with the following injuries: 1. Stab injury on the left side of chest just inside an interior to the axillary line with lower end of the scapular length 6 inches. 1 x1 depth. The injuries are bleeding profusely with severe pain and unable to move the chest. 2. A cut injury 2 above the knee joint 4 length and inch depth. He stated tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document