SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(AP) 296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. UMA DEVI, JJ.
Dasari Gottam Veeranna and another - Appellants
Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2011
Decided On : 19-06-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. P. Satya Manjula.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:

Criminal law - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 161 - Indian Panel Code - Section 302 - Section 34 - Convicted -Criminal appeal arises out of Judgment appellants were convicted for offence – Respectively and sentenced to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month - Appellant was also convicted and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years - Case of prosecution is that were wife and mother of one and residents of village Mandal and that they live by attending to coolie work - That in morning on deceased and appellants/accused went into nearby forest for coolie work that when appellant was playing his radio in a high pitch deceased requested him to reduce volume as it was causing annoyance that thereupon appellants picked up a quarrel with deceased bore grudge and were waiting for an opportunity to wreak vengeance against deceased - Appellant to judicial custody and that after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against appellants - Allegedly retrieved from body of deceased was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for its opinion and that it was not safe to convict appellants based on such defective investigation - Held, Appellants that non-sending of arrow-head to Forensic Science Laboratory is fatal to case of the prosecution - When there is credible evidence on record on occurrence of offence and also regarding manner in which the offence was committed by appellants/accused failure of investigating agency to send arrow-head for forensic analysis pales into insignificance - Evidence on record rules out any possibility of false implication of appellants/accused and there is no reason to doubt veracity of testimony of who retrieved arrow-head from body of deceased - On defenses own suggestion every household of village in question will have bows and arrows and therefore it was not improbable that the appellants have used them to do away with life of deceased and injure were examined Criminal Procedure Code at the earliest point of time after occurrence and no contradictions could be elicited between their statements so recorded and evidence given by them before Court - Appeal Dismissed(Para 23)

JUDGMENT :

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. This criminal appeal arises out of Judgment dated 3-12-2010 in S.C.No.69/2010 on the file of the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Prakasam Division, Markapur, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 302 r/w. Section 34 IPC, respectively, and sentenced to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Appellant No.2 was also convicted under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. The case of the prosecution is that PW-1 and PW-3 were the wife and mother of one Pulicherla Naganna (the deceased) and residents of Thummalabailu village, Dornala Mandal and that they live by attending to coolie work. That in the morning on 14-12-2008, the deceased, PW-2 and the appellants/accused went into the nearby forest for coolie work; that when appellant No.1 was playing his radio in a high pitch, the deceased requested him to reduce the volume as it was causing annoyance; that thereupon the appellants picked up a quarrel with the deceased, bore grudge and were waiting for an opportunity to wreak vengeance against the deceased and PW-2; that in the evening all of them returned to Thummalabailu and that the deceased informed PW-1 about the dispute on that night itself. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 15-12-2008, PW-1, the deceased and PW-2 attended the marriage of their relatives at Thummalabailu and were returning home; that when they reached the bus stop centre, at about 9 p.m., the appellants noticed the deceased and PW-2 going home and came over onto the road from their house; that appellant No.2 shot an arrow against the deceased which pierced into his stomach; that appellant No.1 shot an arrow against the deceased which pierced into the left side of his chest due to which he died at the spot; that the appellants escaped from the scene; that PW-2 was shifted to Primary Health Centre, Dornala for treatment in an ambulance and that after first aid, PW-2 was referred to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment. That after the dead body of the deceased was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Dornala, PW-9, Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornala Police Station, recorded the statement of PW-1 on 16-12-2008 at 02.00 Hours, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.79/2008 under Sections 307, 302 r/w. Section 34 IPC at 03.00 Hours and sent express FIRs to all the concerned Officers. PW-11, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, secured the presence of PW-5 and LW-9, visited the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch thereof and also prepared an observation report duly attested by PW-5 and LW-9; that during the observation of the scene of offence, PW-11 seized the blood stained earth and control earth in the presence of mediators under the cover of mahazar duly attested by the mediators; and that PW-11 got the scene of offence photographed by PW-7. That PW-11 examined the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW-5 and L.Ws.6 and 7, examined PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and LW-5 and recorded their statements; that he has also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 16-12-2009 from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m., prepared Ex.P-3 inquest report and sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Markapur for conducting autopsy. That PW-11 sent the material objects preserved by PW-6 to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur for analysis. That on 17-12-2008, PW-11 arrested appellant No.2 at Shivasadan, interrogated him in the presence of PW-5 and LW-9 and as per the confessional statement seized a bow and sent him to judicial custody. That on 10-3-2009, PW-8 arrested appellant No.1 at Thummalabailu, and on his confessional statement seized the bow used for commission of the offence and three other arrows under mahazarnama duly attested by PW-5 and LW-9 and sent appellant No.1 to judicial custody and































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top