THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3049 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.1, aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.11.2018, in S.C.No.28 of 2015, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, whereby the appellant/accused No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The appellant herein, accused No.1, and his wife, accused No.2, were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant/accused No.1 guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, while giving the benefit of doubt to accused No.2.

4. PW.1 is the de facto complainant and the son of Pannala Sathaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). He lodged a Telugu written complaint on 28.04.2013 at 08.15 P.M., stating that PWs.2, 3, and the deceased went to their fields on receiving information that the brother of the deceased was axing the fence around their land. As soon as they reached the spot, they questioned accused No.1 as to why he was cutting the fence. Then, the appellant attacked the deceased with a sickle/veta kodavali (MO1). PW.3 tried to stop him, however, he received injuries on his hands. Accused No.2, who was also present there, attacked PW.2 by catching hold of her hair. On hearing the shoutings of PW.1 and others, two persons, namely P.Kashamma (LW.2) and B.Yadamma (LW.8), who were in the adjacent field came there and gave water to the deceased, called an ambulance and shifted them to the hospital. On the way to the hospital, the deceased died.

5. PW.3 was also examined by PW.11. According to PW.11, PW.3 received the following injuries:

“1) Lacerated wound on the right waist joint, 2x1 cm, right waist joint, simple in nature, caused by blunt object.

2) Lacerated wound on the left arm, length 2x1 cm., left arm, simple in nature, caused by blunt object.

Ex.P12 is the wound certificate issued by PW.11.

The above injuries are possible by MO.1.”

6. The inquest proceedings were conducted thereafter and the body was sent for post-mortem examination. PW.9 found the following injuries:

“1) Incised wound 3x2x2 inches right parietal area of the skull with fracture skull parietal bone with massive clots seen over the brain.

2) Incised wound 3x1x1 left four arm palmar aspect.

3) Laceration 3x2x2 both great toe of feet.

4) Incised wound 1/2x1/2x1/2 inches over right dorsum hand with mud and sand seen all over the body.

According to PW.9: “The injuries number one, two and four are caused by sharp weapon, number three is caused by blunt object, all the above injuries are anti mortem in nature. The above injuries are possible with MO.1.””

7. The Investigating Officer arrested the appellant and seized MO.1 along with other objects and sent them for FSL examination. FSL report was given, opining that the blood stains on item Nos.2 to 6 are of human origin, but the blood stain on item No.7 could not be determined.

8. Learned Sessions Judge examined the eye-witnesses, PWs.1 to 3, and also other witnesses, PWs.4 to 13. Mainly on the basis of the evidence of the eye-witness account, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty, while extending the benefit of doubt to accused No.2, who is the wife of the appellant.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that apart from the interested witnesses, testimony i.e., the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, there is no other evidence to support the version of the prosecution case that it was the appellant who hacked the deceased with MO.1. Further, PW.3 was not hospitalized, and was only treated as an out-patient, according to PW.11. Furth