THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.48 of 2015

JUDGMENT

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY The instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed by the appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 assailing the judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2015 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Warangal (for short, the ‘Trial Court’) in S.C.No.330 of 2012.

2. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant / accused No.1 to 3 and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has found the appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein guilty for the offence punishable under Section 447 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and convicted them under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. Upon convicting them, the Trial Court has sentenced the appellant Nos.1 to 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one (01) month. The Trail Court further sentenced the appellants of imprisonment for three (03) months for the offence under Section 447 of IPC.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.07.2011, a quarrel over a missing umbrella at a liquor shop led to a heated argument between Narsaiah (hereinafter ‘the deceased’) and appellant No.1 (Parlapalli Narsaiah). According to the prosecution, both the deceased and appellant No.1 consumed liquor with their acquaintance and subsequently engaged in a verbal spat when the appellant No.1 is said to have accused the deceased for hiding his umbrella. Following this confrontation, appellant No.1 went home and informed the appellant No.2 (Parlapalli Odamm, wife of the appellant No.1), appellant No.3 (Parlapalli Ramesh, son of the appellant No.1 and 2) and a juvenile (who was tried separately) about the incident. The prosecution alleges that the appellant No.1 to 3 and a juvenile armed with deadly weapons conspired and went to the deceased house with the intent to attack him. The appellant No.1 to 3 and juvenile reportedly launched a brutal assault on the deceased resulting in his immediate death due to severe injuries inflicted by the weapons they carried.

5. Subsequently, after the incident, PW.1 (P. Chandraiah, father of the deceased) lodged a complaint in Chityal Police Station and after examining, the police authorities in turn registered Crime No.79 of 2011 and took cognizance of an offence under Section 447 and 302 read with 34 of IPC. On 18.07.2011, the police authorities apprehended appellant Nos.1 to 3 and a juvenile on receiving a call from their owner where they made an extra judicial confession about the commission of the offence. Meanwhile, PW.10 (Medical Officer) held autopsy over the body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock due to head injury.

6. In the course of trail, the prosecution examined as much as fifteen (15) witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P10. No witnesses were examined in defence. Subsequently, on recording the statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the impugned judgment of conviction was passed and which is under challenge in the instant appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment contended that the findings of the Trail Court are perverse and in contravention to the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the Trail Court erred in relying on the testimony of PWs.1 to 4 who are described as highly interested and discrepant witnesses. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that PWs.1 to 3 were not actual eye witnesses and that their presence at the scene was staged. The learned counsel for the appellants also points out that PW.5 an independent eye witness, who did not support their