The appellant – A-1, who is found guilty and convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307 IPC in S.C. No.5 of 2003 by the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam vide judgment dated 21-05-2004, preferred this appeal assailing the said judgment of his conviction and sentence.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 01-09-2000, A-1 visited the Electrical Sub Station, Seethammadara, Visakhapatnam, to pay the bill and as he deviated the queue and reached the counter, some others also followed him and the same resulted in nuisance, as such, the Bill Collector - PW.1 admonished A-1 and advised him to follow the queue, for which A-1 felt insulted and developed grouse against PW.1 and waited for an opportunity to wreak vengeance against him. Hence, he conspired with A-2 to kill PW.1, acquired MO-1 knife and on 06-10-2000 at about 1-30 p.m., A-1 and A-2 reached Electrical Sub Station, Seethammadara, Visakapatnam and A-1 attacked PW.1 after picking up an altercation with him and stabbed him indiscriminately with an intention to kill him and on PW.1 raising crises, neighbours came there and PWs.2 and 5 apprehended A-1. However, sensing danger, A-2 sped away from there on his two-wheeler. The injured - PW.1 was removed to NRI hospital, Visakhapatnam. Basing on the complaint given by PW.2, PW.10 – the Station House Officer, IV - Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam registered a case in Crime No.224 of 2000 under Section 307 read with 34 IPC against the accused. A-1 was arrested on the same day at 5-30 PM and was sent for remand on the following day morning and A-2 was arrested on 10-10-2000 and sent for remand. Upon A-1 and A-2 pleading not guilty to the charge, they were put on trial.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution has got examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-18 and MOs.1 to 7 on its behalf. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

4. The trial court, taking the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material on record in to consideration, has found A-1 guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him for the same to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month while finding A-2 not guilty of the charge levelled against him and acquitting him for the same.

5. Aggrieved by the said impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against him, A1 preferred this appeal as has already been stated in paragraph No.1, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(a) that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and other material on record in proper perspective;

(b) that the trial Court ought not to have relied on the evidence of interested witnesses PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5;

(c) that the trial Court ought to have seen that since no test identification parade was conducted, identification of A-1 by the witnesses in the Court is doubtful;

(d) that the trial Court ought to have seen that the reprimand alleged to have been given by PW.1 to A-1 was not so grave to develop intention to kill him;

(e) that the trial Court ought to have seen that the medical evidence is inconsistence with the ocular evidence of PW.1 and that the trial Court ought not to have relied on the alleged confession of A1.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant – A-1 raised the self same grounds that are raised in the grounds of appeal. He further submits thatit is PW.2, who preferred Ex.P-1 police complaint, and his evidence discloses that he along with his office colleagues Naiudu, Valli and Venkatalakshmi were returning back to the office after having lunch outside and while so they saw A-1 running towards them with a knife in his hands and PW.1 running behind him (A-1) holding his stomach and shouting that ‘catch that man, he stabbed me’. The learned counsel submits that though PW.2 w