Back
2017 Supreme(AP) 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SURESH KUMAR KAIT & U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, JJ.
Kale Mariyanna – Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1601 of 2010
Decided On : 25-01-2017
For the Appellant : K. Suresh Reddy.
Headnote:
Offence of Murder - Convicted - Appeal against conviction - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 - Examination of Accused - Criminal Procedure code - 313 - Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated delivered in S.C. by I Additional District and Sessions Judge West Godavari District whereby the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine in default of payment of fine he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months - Accused has filed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in convicting him by relying upon the testimony of PWs.2 and 3 treating them as eye-witnesses to the occurrence of the offence - Learned Judge also failed to notice the conduct of PWs. and that they did not inform anybody in the village much more to PW1 husband of the deceased -Till the next day which would throw any amount of suspicion on the truth of their evidence - Place of occurrence and the surroundings were fully covered by thorny bushes and it was improbable that PWs.2 and 3 would have taken their buffaloes to that area for grazing - Trial Court should have noted that PW2 was not generally taking buffaloes for grazing but her son alone was taking them daily and to explain this fact she invented a story that her son had gone for collie work on that day - Learned counsel for the appellant accused submits that PWs.2 and 3 are relatives to PW1 thus they are interested and planted witnesses - Trial Court failed to see that the testimony - Held, Merely because eye-witnesses are family members, their evidence cannot per se be discarded - Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of the witness - Supreme Court has held that over insistence on witnesses having no relation with the victims often results in criminal justice going away - It is further held that merely because eye-witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded - Court is no rule that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 shall be corroborated by independent witness - Evidence of PWs.2 and 3 in the case certainly inspires much confidence for the reason that none of the witnesses were related either to the deceased or to PW1. Initially when they say the crime they had fear in mind, however, after mustering enough courage, they first of all informed PW1 about the incident - Their deposition is consistent throughout. Both the above-mentioned witnesses had seen the crime from the bushes and babul trees - appellant could not get into it - Incident had taken place in the year 2004 and PWs.2 and 3, who are the eye-witnesses, were examined in the year therefore it was obvious to have some contradictions and discrepancies in their evidence. They are illiterate and ladies and it was also obvious that being ladies, on seeing such a brutal crime they might out of fear did not tell anybody including the villagers - Only after mustering enough courage they had disclosed to PW1 the husband of the deceased about the incident - Weapon used in the crime was recovered at the instance of the appellant from his house - Illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. Judgment under appeal is perfectly justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court arguments raised on behalf of the appellant do not shatter the credibility of the prosecution case. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed - Ordered Accordingly.
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 08.10.2010 delivered in S.C. No. 395 of 2007 by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District whereby the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. The accused has filed the present appeal on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in convicting him by relying upon the testimony of PWs.2 and 3 treating them as eye-witnesses to the occurrence of the offence. The learned Judge also failed to notice the conduct of PWs.2 and 3 that they did not inform anybody in the village much more to PW1, husband of the deceased - Meramma, till the next day which would throw any amount of suspicion on the truth of their evidence. The place of occurrence and the surroundings were fully covered by thorny bushes and it was improbable that PWs.2 and 3 would have taken their buffaloes to that area for grazing. The trial Court should have noted that PW2 was not generally taking buffaloes for grazing but her son alone was taking them daily and to explain this fact she invented a story that her son had gone for collie work on that day.
3. Sri K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant accused, submits that PWs.2 and 3 are relatives to PW1, thus they are interested and planted witnesses. The trial Court failed to see that the testimony of PWs.2 and 3 has not been corroborated by the medical evidence which reveals that all the injuries except one which was a lacerated injury, could not have been caused by a blunt weapon. The learned Judge has not given any importance to the alleged recovery of knife (penaka katti/curved knife) from the leaves of the hut of the appellant which circumstance was created by the investigation officer PW12 with the aid of PW1, a stock witness of the prosecution.
4. The learned counsel also submits that the learned Judge held that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with number of persons in the village but only attributed motive to the appellant who had illegal connection with the deceased since one year prior to the occurrence of offence.
5. The learned counsel further submits that the incident took place on 21.04.2005, however PW1 lodged complaint Ex.P1 on 22.04.2005. As per the statement of PW1 - informant of F.I.R., PWs. 1 and 6 went on searching the deceased on the next day of the incident at 06:00 a.m. and came to know through PWs.2 and 3 that the appellant had killed the deceased. In the complaint Ex.P1, the aforesaid fact was narrated. However, PW1 deposed in his evidence that PWs.2 and 3 informed him about the incident at mid-night on 21.04.2005. The learned counsel further submits that there was no need of searching at 06:00 a.m. if the incident had already been informed to PW1 at mid-night on 21.04.2005.
6. The learned counsel further submits that the distance between the police station and the scene of offence is two furlongs. If PW1 informed the police about the incident at mid-night itself against the appellant, what prevented PW1 from approaching the police station and getting the F.I.R. registered. He also submits that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 does not inspire confidence for the reason that both the witnesses are related to the deceased and PW1. Initially, PWs.2 and 3 stated that they ran away from the incident due to fear, and thereafter, they stated that after seeing the incident they ran away, however did not mention due to what reason they ran away. If they had seen the incident they were supposed to inform any villager including PW1 about the incident, however they failed to do so. PWs.4 and 5, who are daughters of the deceased, admitted that the appellant had illicit relation with the deceased. So is the stand of PW1 on this asp
