Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Vs. Thota Seshu & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 1992
Petitioner: Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.
Respondent: Thota Seshu & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 1992
Judges: R.C. LAHOTI & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 20, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3 with Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307/109 – Appre-ciation – Incident at midnight – Statement of injured not cor-roborated by medical evidence on duration of injury – Incident in thick of locality and witnessed by neighbours, but no independent witness examined – Only other witness assigning no reason of his accompanying the injured – Said witness receiving injury while separating accused and complainant – Such injury not shown to anybody – Also refusing to depose if he had seen the incident – Presence doubtful. Held that trial court and High Court have rightly acquitted the accused and there is no ground to dislodge such acquittal. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The State has put in issue the acquittal of the two respond-ents who were charged respectively under Section 307 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 109 IPC. The trial court acquitted the accused-respondents. The State filed an appeal against the acquittal, which was summarily dismissed by the High Court.
2. It is true that Shaikh Humayun, PW-1 sustained two stab wounds on the chest caused by a sharp weapon and another incised injury caused by sharp weapon over the left hand finger on 15.10.1987. However, the trial court has disbelieved the version of the incident as deposed to by PW-1 before it. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the incident as alleged was not natural. There were material inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of complainant-PW1 compared with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as recorded by the Investigating Officer. The time of the incident deposed to by him did not find corroboration with the medical evidence. According to the injured, he was medico-legally examined within 3 hours of the incident while according to Dr. P. Martha (PW-6) who examined the injured had found the injuries to have been sustained 12 to 18 hours prior to the time of examination. The incident is said to have taken place in the thick of the locality and the place of incident was sur-rounded by several houses and admittedly the neighbouring resi-dents had also witnessed the occurrence. And yet no independent witness was either examined during investigation or produced in the court to corroborate the version of the incident as given by PW-1 Shaikh Humayun. The only eye-witness produced in the court was Shaikh Abbas (PW-2). PW-2 assigned no reason to have accompa-nied PW-1 at the time of incident, which had taken place at about midnight. He is stated to have himself sustained injuries while intervening between PW-1 and the accused persons. But such injuries, he admitted, that he had neither shown to the Investi-gating Officer nor disclosed to anyone else. This rendered his presence at the time of the incident doubtful. What is more, he refused to depose during the course of his examination in the court that he had actually seen the accused-respondent no. 1 stabbing PW-1. The Additional Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined the witness. Thus, the trial court was left with the sole and singular testimony of PW-1, which too was found to be infirm and not wholly reliable.
3. In this view of the facts, the trial court has found it not safe to record a finding of guilt against the accused-respondents. The High Court has also thought it fit not to inter-fere with the acquittal recorded by the trial court. In our opinion also, it is not a fit case where we may be inclined to dislodge the verdict of acquittal arrived at by the trial court and the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, held liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The acquittal of the accused-respondents is maintained. The accused-respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
1. The State has put in issue the acquittal of the two respond-ents who were charged respectively under Section 307 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 109 IPC. The trial court acquitted the accused-respondents. The State filed an appeal against the acquittal, which was summarily dismissed by the High Court.
2. It is true that Shaikh Humayun, PW-1 sustained two stab wounds on the chest caused by a sharp weapon and another incised injury caused by sharp weapon over the left hand finger on 15.10.1987. However, the trial court has disbelieved the version of the incident as deposed to by PW-1 before it. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the incident as alleged was not natural. There were material inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of complainant-PW1 compared with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as recorded by the Investigating Officer. The time of the incident deposed to by him did not find corroboration with the medical evidence. According to the injured, he was medico-legally examined within 3 hours of the incident while according to Dr. P. Martha (PW-6) who examined the injured had found the injuries to have been sustained 12 to 18 hours prior to the time of examination. The incident is said to have taken place in the thick of the locality and the place of incident was sur-rounded by several houses and admittedly the neighbouring resi-dents had also witnessed the occurrence. And yet no independent witness was either examined during investigation or produced in the court to corroborate the version of the incident as given by PW-1 Shaikh Humayun. The only eye-witness produced in the court was Shaikh Abbas (PW-2). PW-2 assigned no reason to have accompa-nied PW-1 at the time of incident, which had taken place at about midnight. He is stated to have himself sustained injuries while intervening between PW-1 and the accused persons. But such injuries, he admitted, that he had neither shown to the Investi-gating Officer nor disclosed to anyone else. This rendered his presence at the time of the incident doubtful. What is more, he refused to depose during the course of his examination in the court that he had actually seen the accused-respondent no. 1 stabbing PW-1. The Additional Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and cross-examined the witness. Thus, the trial court was left with the sole and singular testimony of PW-1, which too was found to be infirm and not wholly reliable.
3. In this view of the facts, the trial court has found it not safe to record a finding of guilt against the accused-respondents. The High Court has also thought it fit not to inter-fere with the acquittal recorded by the trial court. In our opinion also, it is not a fit case where we may be inclined to dislodge the verdict of acquittal arrived at by the trial court and the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, held liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The acquittal of the accused-respondents is maintained. The accused-respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
