Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 793
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
R.S. CHAUHAN, A. ABHISHEK REDDY, JJ.
Rasula Ravi – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 74 of 2013
Decided On : 25-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Madhava Rao.
For the Respondent: J. Sridevi.
Acceptance of ocular evidence unless completely negated by medical evidence
Headnote:
Conviction - Offence under Section 302 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302 IPC - The court discussed the testimony of the witnesses, medical evidence, and the nature of the injury to determine the intention and knowledge of the accused. The court also referred to the case of Bastiram vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 5 SCC 398 to support the acceptance of ocular evidence unless completely negated by medical evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the legality of the judgment convicting him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The case involved the stabbing of the deceased by the accused, resulting in the death of the deceased. The appellant raised contentions regarding the credibility of the witness, discrepancy in the evidence, and the nature of the weapon used for the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the witness to be trustworthy and the medical evidence corroborated the testimony of the witness. The court dismissed the contentions raised by the appellant and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court, upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Issues: Credibility of witness, Discrepancy in evidence, Nature of the weapon used for the crime
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of the witness and the medical evidence to establish the intention and knowledge of the accused in causing the fatal injury. The court also emphasized the acceptance of ocular evidence unless completely negated by medical evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC was confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
R.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. The appellant, Rasula Ravi, has challenged the legality of the judgment dated 14.11.2012, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- and further directed to undergo a simple imprisonment of two months in default thereof.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 18.4.2010, around 7:30 a.m. Avula Mallaiah (PW-1) submitted a report (Ex.P1) at the Kollapur Police Station, wherein he stated that on 17.4.2010, at about 10:00 p.m. while his younger brother, Avula Srinivasulu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and one Thonda Raghu chitchatting by sitting on drainage platform, the accused Rasula Ravi S/o Muthyalu came along the road and abused the brother of complainant. Then his brother asked Ravi “why abusing me” later both have quarreled and Raghu separated them. After a while, Rasula Ravi came again with spear (Ballem), which is used for killing animals, stabbed near left armpit of Srinivasulu for killing due to previous enmity. As a result, Srinivasulu sustained severe bleeding injury and shifted to Government Hospital, Kollapur through 108 Ambulance, after first aid, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, as his condition was critical, again shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary legal action against the accused.”
3. On the basis of the said report, the police chalked out a FIR, namely FIR No. 44 of 2010 (Ex.P7) for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The investigation commenced. However, while undergoing treatment at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, the deceased died on 18.4.2010 at 4:15 p.m. Hence, S. Raghava Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-10) altered the section of law from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC, and issued alteration memo (Ex.P10). During the course of investigation, S. Raghava Rao, (PW-10) arrested the appellant on 28.4.2010. He was put up for trial.
4. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, submitted thirteen documents, and produced five material objects. On the other hand, the defense neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document to buttress its case. After appreciating the evidence, by judgment dated 14.11.2012, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
5. Mr. S. Madhava Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court.
6. The entire conviction is based on the sole testimony of Raghu (PW-6). However, the said witness is not of “sterling worth.” For, although he claims to be the friend of the deceased, although he claims that the appellant had stabbed the deceased, but he neither reported the case to the police, nor accompanied the deceased to the hospital. Thus, his very conduct, as a friend, is against human nature.
7. Secondly, his testimony is contradicted by the medical evidence. For, according to him, the appellant had attacked the deceased with a baku (a dagger); according to M. Mallaiah (PW-1), he was informed by R. Venkatswamy (PW-3) that the accused has stabbed the deceased with a ballem (a spear). Moreover, the police had recovered a spear at the instance of the accused. Thus, there is a discrepancy as to the weapon used for commission of the crime.
8. Thirdly, there is a discrepancy between the ocular and the medical evidence. For, according to Raghu (PW-6), the accused had hit the deceased only once with a dagger. Yet, according to Dr. S. Mohan Singh (PW-9), there were two fatal injuries on the body of the deceased, and the other injuries discovered on the body were not even recorded as they were minor injuries. Furthermore, according to Dr. S. Mohan Singh (PW-9), the second injury, namely horizontal injury of 1 x 1 cm present on lef
