JUDGMENT :

1. Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment dated 24.05.2011 rendered by the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in S.C.No.286 of 2010, the appellant approached this Court by way of appeal.

2. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the judgment of the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the learned judge ought to have seen that the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. are made out by the prosecution; that the learned judge ought to have taken into consideration the evidence of P.W-5 who is an injured witness; that the learned judge has not considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in correct perspective; and therefore, the appeal has to be allowed.

3. Reported to take it as heard by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused.

4. Now the points that arise for determination are :

(1) Whether the appellant succeeded in establishing the guilt of the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. as contended in this appeal.

(2) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts so as to interfere with the said judgment exercising the appellate jurisdiction.

5. Point No.1:

The facts of the case in nutshell, as projected in the charge sheet, are that on 11.5.2010, at about 2 am., P.W-1 heard the cries of the wife of P.W-5 who is his neighbour and on that, he rushed to the house of P.W-5 and found P.W-5 with injuries and immediately, he along with others shifted the injured to hospital and on enquiry, he came to know that some quarrel went on between P.W-5 and the accused who is his father-in-law and the accused threatened to kill P.W-5 and therefore, on the date of incident, he attached P.W-5 with an axe with an intention to kill him.

6. Record discloses that putting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11, Exs.P-1 to P-8 and Ex.D-1 into consideration, the learned judge of the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the respondent-accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The said finding is assailed by the appellant.

7. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 and 2 are not the ocular witnesses to the incident. P.W-2 deposed that her daughter-Amrapala witnessed the incident and raised hue and cries. The said Amrapala was examined as P.W-3. Though P.W-3 gave evidence to the effect that when they were sleeping in the front yard of the house, the respondent-accused beat her husband with an axe on his head at about 2 am and after seeing the said incident, she raised hue and cries, she did not depose in clear terms how she could see the accused at those odd hours i.e., during night time. No material whatsoever is on record to show the presence of any lighting at the place of incident which enabled P.W-3 to identify the culprit.

8. P.W-4, who is projected by the prosecution as a person who proceeded to the scene of offence immediately after the incident and shifted the injured to hospital, during the course of examination stated that the respondent-accused was not living at Adegaon-B Village since 10 days prior to the incident and even on the date of the incident, he was not present in the said village and that he was at Ecnoda.

9. Even P.W-5 did not state how he identified the respondent-accused.

10. The evidence of the injured witness is crucial and it is for the prosecution to establish the case in clear terms through the said witness. The injured witness in this case who is P.W-5 did not state anything about the alleged grudges between him and the respondent-accused and further as to how he identified the respondent-accused in that night time.

11. The alleged panch witnesses i.e., P.Ws.6 and 7 failed to support the case of the prosecution and following them P.W-8 also