1
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR
TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST
WOMEN-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI B.THIRUPATHI
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. FAC: Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
(Wednesday, the 31 st day of January, 2024)
…
Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2020
Between: Md.Imran, S/o. Shareef Khan, Age: 26 years, Occupation: Student, R/o. Main Road, Narkatpally.
...Appellant
AND
The State of Telangana, through Station House Officer, Narketpally represented by Public Prosecutor, Nalgonda. ...Prosecution
AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE VIDE JUDGMENT DATED: 31.01.2020
PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, NALGONDA
S.C.NO. 13 of 2017
BETWEEN:
The State of Telangana through SHO, PS Narketpally ...Prosecution
AND
Md.Imran, S/o. Shareef Khan, Age: 26 years, Occupation: Student, R/o. Main Road, Narkatpally.
...Accused
This Criminal Appeal is coming before me on 24.01.2024 for final hearing and disposal, in the presence of Sri.M.M.Vasiq, Counsel for the Appellant/Accused and in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and upon
Page 1 of 44 2
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
perusing the grounds of appeal, Judgment of Trial Court and material record of the case and arguments of the above counsels having stood over for consideration till this date the court made the following: -
J U D G M E N T
1.This is an appeal preferred under Section 374 of the
Criminal Procedure Code by the appellant/accused against the
Judgment passed by the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge,
Nalgonda in S.C.No.13 of 2017 dated: 31.01.2020 convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is as follows:
(i)On 12.05.2011, PW.6/Kaleem/injured married one
Najara, who is the elder sister of accused/Md.Imran as per the customs prevailing in their community and during their wed-lock they blessed with one female child by name Muskan.
Thereafter, PW.6/injured used to harass Najara for additional dowry, and on 28.05.2013, PW.6/injured/Kaleem went to the house of Najara, caught-hold her throat by demanding
additional dowry, then her parents tried to rescue her, he beat
Page 2 of 44 3
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
them and that a case in Cr. No.114 of 2013, under Section 498-A, 506, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered in Police Station
Narketpally, and the same was pending before the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, (for Prohibition and Excise offenses),
Nalgonda, vide CC.No.425 of 2013. Later, their dispute was settled before the caste elders at Narketpally. Thereafter,
PW.6/injured took his wife/Najara and lead marital life for a period of some months. Due to pregnancy, she came to the house of accused for delivery,
(ii)On 08.06.2014, at about 10.30 AM.,
PW.6/Kaleemulla @ Kaleem went to his in-laws house, while he was chatting with his wife/Najara by lifting his son and asked health condition of their child and also questioned his wife/Najara as to Why she has not informed the health conditions of their child, and asked her “to come with him”, at that time, the accused/Imran, who is the brother-in-law of
PW.6/Kaleemulla @ Kaleem came there and argued with
PW.6/Kaleemulla @ Kaleem/ Kaleemullah @ Kaleem by questioning him as to why he came to his house, when the case was pending and asked him as to why the PW.6 was torturing his sister, then PW.6 replied that “Niku yendhuku ra,
Page 3 of 44 4
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
na pillalu ekkada vunnandhuku, na estam vachinapudu vastha”. Then. they both were caught-hold their collars each other. In the meantime, Najara called her father and
PW.5/Kanukurthi Padma and tried to stop them, then PW.6 left the accused by pushing, then the accused took an iron
Dumb-bell available at his house and attacked the
PW.6/Kaleem on his head for two or three times and tried to kill him, then Najara and PW.5/Padma rescued the PW.6. As a result, PW.6/Kaleem sustained grievous injuries on his head.
Thereafter, he was shifted to Santhosh Clinic, Narketpally for treatment, from there he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital,
Narketpally and from there he was shifted to NIMS Hospital.
Therefore, PW.1-Md.Shafi, who is the brother of PW.6/injured, set the criminal law into motion by lodging report to the police.
3.The learned trial Court framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.
4.Before the Trial Court, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and MOs.1 and 2. On behalf of the accused, no evidence is adduced and got marked Ex.D.1.
5.When the accused was examined under section 313
Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material appearing
Page 4 of 44 5
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
against him, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses he denied the same. In support of his defence the accused did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.
6.Upon consideration of the evidence available on record, the Trial Court by impugned judgment convicted the accused and sentenced him for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
7.For the sake of convenience, and for better understanding the facts, the parties herein will be referred as arrayed in SC No.13 of 2017 as “prosecution” and “accused”.
8.Aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, the accused/appellant preferred this
Appeal on the following grounds and argued that :
i.The conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is quite contrary to law, facts of the case and against the principles of natural justice.
ii.The Trial Court erred in holding the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, though the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond all the reasonable doubts.
Page 5 of 44 6
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
iii.The Trial Court has failed to scrutinize the prosecution evidence and came to the wrong conclusion relying on the un-trustworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who are partisans and having enmical terms with the appellant.
iv.The Trial Court has failed to consider that the injured/PW.6 and PW.1 are the brothers and that they got vengeance against the family of the accused in view of the pending dowry harassment case being filed by the sister of the accused against the injured/PW.6 and his family members.
v.The Trial Court has failed to consider that the PW.5/eye witness did not support the version of the prosecution, as such she did not depose that she witnessed the accused beating the injured/PW.6. PW.3, who is a RMP, his evidence is only to the extent that he saw the PW.6 with injuries brought to his clinic and PW.4 said to have shifted the PW.6 to the hospital, and that their evidence is not about how the injured received injuries.
vi.The Trial Court has failed to consider that the PW.1, who is the real brother of the injured/PW.6 and the PW.2 who is the brother-in-law of the injured, who is also one of the accused in the dowry harassment case being filed by the sister of the Appellant/accused are undoubtedly got vengeance against the accused and his family, thus they have appeared before the Trial Court with an absolute improved version, which is absolutely bad in the eye of law, therefore, their version cannot be considered for proper adjudication of the case. vii. The Trial Court has failed to consider that there are contradictions in the evidence of the said witnesses, and that appreciating such untrustworthy evidence by the trial court while adjudicating the matter and holding guilt of the accused is absolutely erroneous
Page 6 of 44 7
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
and bad in the eye of law.
viii. The Trial Court has failed to consider that the independent witnesses i.e., PWs.7 & 8, who are said to be the mediators regarding recovery of the MOs.1 & 2 also did not support the case of the prosecution, as such, the recovery of material objects is not proved to be taken into consideration.
ix.The Trial Court has failed to consider that the Prosecution has failed to examine the Medical Officers, who said to have treated the accused for the injuries, the said witness are very much important for the proper adjudication of the matter, as such there are two wound certificates marked as Ex.P.12 and both have been issued with different versions, one wound certificate issued by the NIMS shows only one injury, and said to have been sustained in Road Traffic Accident, and other wound certificate shows 3 injuries said to have been caused by known persons near Narkatpally.
x.The Trial Court failed to consider that there are material irregularities in the medical certificate under Ex.P.12, and it cannot be considered until and unless the authors of those exhibits are examined to speak about its truth, as such non examination of those witnesses is fatal for the prosecution as such the accused has lost his right to cross-examine to asses its credibility.
xi.The Trial Court has failed to consider that circumstances mentioned in the case of the prosecution are highly unbelievable and this appellant has been fixed up in the above case without sufficient evidence and failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.
Page 7 of 44 8
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
9.Per contra, it is argued by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor that the trial court has appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and thereby held that the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby convicted the accused, and hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction.
10.Neither the appellant nor the prosecution adduced oral or documentary evidence in this appeal.
11.Upon careful examination of the material on record and the grounds urged in the appeal coupled with the contentions raised on behalf of both sides, now the points that would emerge for consideration in the present appeal are:
1) Whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?
2) Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in SC No.13 of 2017,
dt: 31.01.2020, suffers from any illegality or
irregularity and warranting inference by this Court?
3) To what relief?
12.It is a matter of record that initially basing on the report lodged by the PW.1, First Information Report was issued
Page 8 of 44 9
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
against the accused and his sister and parents, and after completion of investigation, PW.10 filed the charge sheet by deleting the names of the sister and parents of the accused.
13.It is not in dispute that PW.1 is the younger brother of the PW.6/injured. It is also not in dispute that the accused is the brother-in-law of the PW.6/injured to whom his elder sister was given in marriage. It is also not in dispute that the wife of PW.6/injured viz., Md.Nazara filed a criminal case against PW.6/injured and his family members vide Crime
No.114 of 2013 for the offence under Section 498-A, 506, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and the same was pending before the Special
Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition & Excise
Offences), Nalgonda, vide CC No.425 of 2013 as on the date of the alleged offence in this case and subsequently the said case was ended in acquittal in the year 2016.
POINT No.1:
1) Whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?
14. The specific case of the prosecution is that on 8.6.2014 at about 10:30 AM., when the PW.6/injured went to the house of the accused to see his daughter, where his wife
Page 9 of 44 10
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
and daughter were staying, while PW.6 was taking his child into his hand, at that time, accused beat PW.6/injured with
MO.1/Iron Dumb-bell on his head for two or three times, with an intention to kill him, as a result, he sustained grievous injury on his head.
15.In view of the aforesaid charges leveled against the accused, the initial burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate that the accused had committed the aforesaid offence. To ascertain that aspects it becomes necessary to scrutinize the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
16.Before adverting to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is relevant to mention the provisions of law for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code:-
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code reads as :
307. Attempt to murder—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
17.In the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to prove the above said charge, the prosecution is needed to prove the following facts with legal evidence:
Page 10 of 44 11
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
That the accused caused grievous hurt to PW.6/injured with MO.1/Dumb-bell on his head at the relevant point of time, with an intention to kill him.
18.In order to prove the above charge, the prosecution adduced the following evidence:
PW.1/Md.Shafi, who is the complainant stated in his evidence that, on 8.6.2014, at about 10:30 A.M., he was on security guard duty at Narketpally in Muthoot Finance
Corporation Office, at that time, he had seen that
PW.6/Md.Kaleemulla @ Kaleem was being brought by
PW.5/Kanukurthi Padma and one Pasha to the hospital of
PW.3/Kompelly Krishna Murthy and he saw that his brother
PW.6/Md.Kaleemulla @ Kaleem had injuries on the back side of head and his clothes were stained with blood. On seeing the same, he rushed to the hospital of Krishnamurthy/PW.3. But,
PW.3/Krishnamurthy advised them to shift his brother to
Kamineni Hospital in view of severe injuries of his brother.
Then PW.5/Kanukurthi Padma and the said Pasha shifted his brother/PW.6/Kaleemullah to Kamineni Hospital. In the meantime, he went to his house and informed the same to his mother/Md.Shareefa Bee and his brother/Md.Jani and
PW.2/Md.Kaisar Ali. Later he went to Kamineni Hospital and
Page 11 of 44 12
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
got provided treatment to his brother. On the advice of the doctors at Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, he shifted his brother to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, from there his brother was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad.
19.PW.1 further deposed that on his enquiry, his brother/PW.6/Kaleemulla informed him that the accused beat him with an iron Dumb-bell on his head and caused said injuries, at that time, the wife of injured Kaleemullah by name
Asia caught hold his legs without moving and the mother-in- law of injured/Kaleemullah caught-hold his waist.
PW.6/injured further informed him that his father-in-law by name Chicken Pasha locked the doors by keeping them inside.
20.During the cross-examination of PW.1, he denied the suggestion of the accused that his brother/PW.6 sustained the said injuries in a road accident and taking advantage of the said injuries a false case has been foisted. He further deposed that he did not state to that police that when he reached near the hospital of Krishna Murthy, by that time, his brother/PW.6 was taken to Kamineni Hospital, which is marked as Ex.D.1.
The evidence of PW.10/Investigating Officer also reveals that
PW.1 had stated to him as in Ex.D.1. However, it was nowhere suggested to the PW.1, during the cross-examination that PW.6
Page 12 of 44 13
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
did not sustain injuries at the house of the accused. It was also not suggested to the PW.1, during the cross-examination that accused did not beat the PW.6 with iron dumb-bell on his head. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is unchallenged regarding the injuries sustained by the PW.6 at the house of the accused. The learned defence counsel cross-examined the
PW.1, but in his cross-examination nothing tangible could be elicited to disbelieve his evidence. With regarding to the said incriminating evidence deposed by the PW.1, there are no material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW.1, except giving certain suggestions, which were denied by the
PW.1 nothing could be elicited by the defence to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1.
21.As per the testimony of PW.2/Md.Kaisar Ali, who is brother in law of the injured, that on 8.6.2014 at about 10:30 A.M., he was returning from Kamineni Hospital,
Narketpally as he used to work as Security guard therein and when he reached near his house he received phone call from
PW.1 and he informed him over phone that his brother
PW.6/Kaleemullah was in a pool of blood with injuries on his head and that said Kaleemullah was being shifted to Kamineni
Hospital, Narketpally. He further deposed that on such
Page 13 of 44 14
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
information, he went to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally and found the PW.6/Kaleemullah with injuries on the back side of his head, at that time, PW.6/Kalemullah informed him that his wife, his father, and his mother-in-law, and accused beat the
PW.6/Kaleemullah with Iron Dumbel and caused said injuries.
Later the injured was referred to Kamineni Hospital, LB Nagar but they shifted the injured/PW.6/Kaleemullah to NIMS hospital, Hyderabad instead of Kamineni Hospital, LB Nagar,
Hyderabad.
22.In the cross-examination of PW.2, he deposed that the wife of PW.6/injured gave report to police against him,
PW.6/injured and his family members for dowry harassment and that said case was pending before Special Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda, and later the said case was
ended in acquittal in the year 2016. But, PW.2 denied the suggestion of the accused that they foisted this case to get compromise in a criminal case filed under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code. He also denied the suggestion of the accused that PW.6 sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and the accused did not cause the said injuries. But, it was not specifically suggested to PW.2 in his cross-examination that the accused did not beat the PW.6 with iron dumb-bell at the
Page 14 of 44 15
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
house of the accused. It was also not disputed that the PW.6 was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar, and from there he was shifted to NIMs Hospital, Hyderabad due to the injuries sustained by him. Though the PW.2 was cross-examined by the defence but nothing could be elicited to discredit his testimony and particularly the evidence of PW.2 is devoid of material omissions and contradictions.
23.PW.3/Kompally Krishnamurthy, who was working as RMP Doctor, deposed that on 8.6.2014 at about 11:00 A.M., the PW.6/injured/Kaleemullah was brought to his hospital at
Narketpally with injuries on his head through somebody. In view of severity of injuries, he asked them to shift the injured
Kaleemullah/PW.6 to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally.
24.But, the counsel for the accused did not choose to cross-examine the PW.3 by denying the injuries sustained by
PW.6/Kaleemullah and he was brought to the hospital of PW.3.
Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 is unchallenged that the injured was brought to the hospital of PW.3 at Nakrekal with injuries on his head.
25.As per the evidence of PW.4/Md.Minhaz that on 8.6.2014 at about 11:30 A.M., the injured Kaleemulla/PW.6 was brought to the hospital of PW.3 with injuries, then he
Page 15 of 44 16
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
shifted the injured to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally in his
Auto. But in the cross-examination of PW.4, it was not suggested to PW.4 by denying the injuries sustained by PW.6 and he was brought to the hospital of PW.3 and thereafter he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally in the auto of
PW.4. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 is unchallenged that the injured/PW.6 was brought to the hospital of PW.3 with injuries and from there he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital,
Narketpally in the auto of PW.4.
26.PW.5/Kanukurthi Padma testified in her evidence that about 5 years back at about 10:30 A.M., she was in her house, at that time, the wife of said Md.Kaleemullah came to her house and informed her that her husband sustained injury on his head and asked her to come to her parents house. Then she rushed to the house of accused and found
PW.6/Kaleemullah with injures on his head. Then she made phone call to the father-in-law of said Kaleemullay by name
Sharif Pasha and informed that said Kaleemullah sustained injury on his head. On his arrival, herself and said Sharif
Pasha took the said Kaleemullah/PW.6 to the hospital of PW.3.
But, PW.3 refused to give treatment and asked them to take him to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, then, they shifted the
Page 16 of 44 17
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
PW.6/Kaleemullah to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally and got him treated there.
27.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross- examined the PW.5 and got marked the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witness, but during the cross-examination of PW.5, nothing could be elicited in support of the case of the prosecution. However, the counsel for the accused did not choose to cross-examine the PW.5 by denying the injuries sustained by the PW.6 on his head at the house of accused.
Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 that the wife of the
PW.6/injured informed him that her husband sustained injury on his head at her house, then he rushed to the house of accused and found PW.6/Kaleemullah with injuries on his head and later he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally is unchallenged.
28.As per the testimony of PW.6/Kaleemullah, who is the injured, that his marriage with the sister of accused was taken place on 12.05.2011 at Narketpally and they blessed with a daughter. After marriage, his wife filed a criminal case alleging dowry harassment and the said case was ended in acquittal. On 8.6.2014 at about 9:30 A.M., he went to the house of accused, where his wife was staying. While he was
Page 17 of 44 18
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
taking his child into his hands, as he was crying on the bed, at that time, the accused came armed with an Iron Dumb-bell and beat him on the back side of his head at the first instance due to which he sustained bleeding injury. When the accused again tried to beat him, he warded the blow and he pushed him aside. His wife did not take his child from his arm, even though he asked. When his wife/Nazara caught-hold his hand, again the accused beat him with the said iron dumb-bell on his head. PW.6 further testified that while he was coming out, his mother-in-law/Anwar Unissa caught-hold his waist, then his father-in-law/Sharif Khan @ Pasha closed the door when he attempted to go out of the house, in the mean time, the accused again hit him with the said iron Dumb-bell on his head for third time, upon which he fell down and he lost his control over his body. Then, PW.5/Kanukurthi Padma shifted him to Hospital of PW.3, but he did not give treatment and advised to take him to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally. Later, he was taken to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, and from there he was taken to NIMS hospital for better treatment. He further testified that accused beat him with an intention to kill him. PW.6/injured also could identify the Dumb-bell with which the accused beat him on his head.
Page 18 of 44 19
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
29.During the cross-examination of PW.6/injured, he deposed that prior to one year of this case, his wife filed a criminal case for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code against him, his mother, his sister and brother-in- law, and the said case was pending as on the date of the alleged incident. But, he denied the suggestion of the accused that he pressurized the accused and his family members to withdraw the said case filed under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code, but he did not heed and that filed this false case by taking advantage of the injuries sustained in an accident.
But, there is no whisper in the cross-examination of PW.6 that on which date, which place and at what time, the said accident occurred in which PW.6 sustained injuries as suggested by the accused in his cross-examination. It was also not suggested to
PW.6 that on the date of the alleged incident PW.6/injured did not come to his house and he did not sustain injuries at his house and that he was not shifted to hospital from his house.
Though the PW.6 was cross-examined by the defence but except mere suggestions which were denied, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Moreover, no material omissions and contradictions were elicited from the evidence of
PW.6.
Page 19 of 44 20
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
30.PW.10/D.Praneeth Kumar is the Investigating
Officer, his testimony is that on 8.6.2014 at about 4:00 PM., he received report under Ex.P.1 from PW.1, basing on it he registered a case in Crime No.148 of 2014, under Sections 307, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and issued First Information
Report under Ex.P.8, and examined the PW.1 at police station.
Later, he visited scene of offence at Narketpally town, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama besides drawn rough sketch in the presence of PW.7 and PW.8 under Exs.P.9, and
P.10 respectively and also seized MO.1/Dumb-Bell and
MO.2/blood stained bed sheet from the scene of offence. Later, he examined and recorded the statement of PW.5. Thereafter he visited Kamineni Hospital, there he examined and recorded the statement of Md.Jani. Thereafter, he visited NIMS hospital, there he examined and recorded the statements of PW.2,
Md.Shareef Bee and Md.Saleem Khan. Later, he visited
Narketpally there he examined and recorded the statements of
PW.3, PW.4, J.Ravinder, G.Kishore Kumar and Md.Janimiya.
Thereafter he examined and recorded the statement of
PW.6/injured. On 20.06.2014, he apprehended the accused at his residence and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of PW.9 and produced him before the Court for
Page 20 of 44 21
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
judicial custody. Later, he sent the blood stained bed sheet to
Forensic Science Laboratory and collected Forensic Science
Laboratory report under Ex.P.11 and wound certificate of
PW.6/Kaleemulla under Ex.P.12 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
31. Whereas, the evidence of PW.7/Puram Subhash and PW.8/Buttapothula Lingaiah, who are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama, reveals that no scene of offence panchanama was conducted in their presence and they do not know the contents of the panchanama. Therefore, the evidence of PW.10/Investigating
Officer is not corroborated by the evidence of PWs.7 and 8 as to conducting of the scene of offence panchanama. But, PWs.7 and 8 identified their signatures on the Scene of Offence-cum-
Seizure Panchanama and rough sketch and that their signatures were marked as Exs.P.3 to P.6 respectively.
32.The evidence of PW.9/Sayyad Ahamad Patel who is the panch witness for the confessional statement of the accused reveals that nobody confessed in his presence and nothing was seized. Moreover, it is well settled law that the confession of accused made before the police is inadmissible in evidence as contemplated under Section 25 of the Indian
Page 21 of 44 22
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
Evidence Act, but the confession leads to discovery of the fact is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act. In the present case on hand, except the confessional statement of the accused under Ex.P.7, nothing was seized basing on the confessional statement of the accused. Therefore, the confessional statement of the accused under Ex.P.7 is inadmissible in evidence.
33. It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of PW.10/Investigating Officer is not supported by the evidence of PWs.7 and 8 who are the panch witnesses, as to recovery of MO.1/iron dumb-bell and that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of MO.1 from the scene of offence which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
34.Per contra, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor contended that though the panch witnesses turned hostile, but, the evidence of PW.10/Investigating Officer is corroborated by the PW.6/injured who identified the dumb-bell marked under MO.1 by stating that MO.1 is the said dumb-bell with which accused beat him.
35.In Madhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (1978) 4
SCC 435, wherein it was observed that:
Page 22 of 44 23
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
“where the evidence of Investigating Officer who recovered the material objects is convincing the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witness did not support the prosecution version. Similar view was expressed in Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of Maharasthra (2001) 9 SCC 362.”
In Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 657, wherein it was held that:
“even if panch witness turned hostile which happens very often in criminal cases, the evidence of the person who affected the recovery would not stand vitiated. The Court has held in large number of cases that merely because the panch witnesses have turned hostile is no ground to reject the evidence if the same is based on the testimony of the Investigating Officer alone. “
36.In the present case on hand, it is the specific evidence of PW.10/ Investigating Officer that he conducted
Scene of Offence Panchanama besides drawn rough sketch in the presence of PWs.7 and 8 and seized MO.1/dumb-bell and blood strained bed sheet/MO.2 from the scene of offence.
Admittedly, PWs.7 and 8, who are the panch witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. However, there was no specific suggestion put to the PW.10 in his cross- examination that as to what made him to give false evidence against the accused as to conducting of Scene of Offence
Panchanama and also recovery of MOs.1 and 2 from the scene
Page 23 of 44 24
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
of offence. This witness was cross-examined by the defence but except mere suggestions which were denied nothing could be elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Moreover, PW.6 who is the injured testified in his evidence that accused beat him on his head with iron dumb-bell with an intention to kill him. PW.6 could also identify the said dumb-bell stating that the said dumb-bell was used by the accused to cause the said injuries, and that the said dumb-bell is marked as MO.1 through him.
Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the evidence of PW.10 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.6/injured as to the MO.1 which was seized from the scene of offence i.e., the house of the accused, which was used as a weapon of offence by the accused in the commission of the crime.
37.Therefore, in the light of the above decisions, and in view of the above discussion, merely because PWs.7 and 8/panch witnesses turned hostile, and did not support the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the evidence of
PW.10/Investigating Office and PW.6/injured cannot be believed. Therefore,the evidence of PW.10/Investigating Officer cannot be brushed aside in the absence of the evidence of
PWs.7 and 8/panch witnesses as to the recovery of MO.1 and
MO.2. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the
Page 24 of 44 25
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
prosecution has proved the recovery of MO.1/dumb-bell from the scene of offence with which the accused caused grievous injuries to the PW.6.
38.It is also argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution failed to examine the Medical
Officer who gave treatment to the PW.6 and that the non- examination of Medical Officer would be fatal to the case of the prosecution to prove the injury sustained by PW.6. It is also contended that PW.6/injured sustained the said injuries in the road traffic accident and by taking the advantage of the said injuries he foisted this false case in order to get compromise the criminal case filed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code by the sister of the accused against the PW.6.
39.The learned counsel for the accused relied upon a decision in a case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Maruti Ananta
Bhosale, Criminal Application No.5470 of 2009, dt:
13.09.2011, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, held in para
No.4” 4 : …… when medical certificate to a particular person is issued by a Doctor in discharge of public duty, that certificate is for a particular purpose and cannot be equated with the public document nor it can be equated with the public document forming the acts or records of the acts of the sovereign authority or of official bodies and
Page 25 of 44 26
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
tribunals or of the public officers, nor it can be equated with the public record kept in any state of private documents. If such argument is accepted,the accused persons may be deprived of their valuable right to cross-examine the medical officer and to point out that the opinion of the medical officer is not correct. It may seriously prejudice the rights of the accused and affect his life and liberty.”
40.Per contra, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor contended that when the injuries sustained by
PW.6 are not disputed by the accused and that non- examination of the medical officer is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is also contended that the accused failed to prove his defence that when PW.6 met with accident and sustained injuries.
41.Admittedly, the prosecution failed to examine the
Dr.Ranjith Kumar, who treated the PW.6/injured, and the prosecution filed a report stating that the said Dr.Ranjith
Kumar was not working in Kamineni Hospital and his whereabouts are not known. As such, the evidence of
Dr.Ranjith Kumar is closed. Admittedly, the Wound Certificate of PW.6 (2 sheets) was marked through PW.10/ Investigating
Officer who collected the wound certificate of PW.6 from the
NIMS and Kamineni Hospitals. Moreover, in the entire cross- examination of PWs.1 to 10 there is no whisper by denying the
Page 26 of 44 27
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
injuries sustained by the PW.6 on that day. Furthermore, there is no whisper in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 10 that
PW.6 had not taken any treatment in the Kamineni Hospital or in NIMS Hospital.
42.In a case Om Prakash and others Vs. State of
Utter Pradesh reported in AIR 1993 SC 431, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that:
“when the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, mere non-examination of the Doctor, who issued the wound certificate, etc., is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.”
43.In the present case on hand, the prosecution could not examine the Dr.Ranjith Kumar, as he was not working in the Kamineni Hospital and his whereabouts are not known. On perusal of the wound certificate (2 in number) under Ex.P.12 which was marked through PW.10/Investigating Officer, goes to show that the wound certificate of PW.6 dt:3.7.2014 was issued by the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad and the Medico-Legal Case Record of PW.6 was issued by the
Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences, Narketpally. The wound certificate of PW.6 issued by the Nizam’s Institute of
Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, clearly goes to show that PW.6 sustained head injury which is grievous in nature. It further
Page 27 of 44 28
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
reveals that the injury alleged to have sustained in a road traffic accident, which is in a printed proforma. But, the said wound certificate would show that the descriptive particulars of the PW.6 and the nature of injuries sustained by him were written with handwriting. Admittedly, accused did not adduce any evidence on his behalf to prove his defence that PW.6 sustained injuries in the accident. Even there is no whisper in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses on which date, which place, at what time and how PW.6 met with accident and sustained injuries as contended by the accused.
Therefore, merely because not striking out in the printed proforma regarding the column i.e., “the injury alleged to have sustained in a road traffic accident”, in Wound Certificate it cannot be said that PW.6 sustained injury in a road traffic accident, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence of the accused to prove that PW.6 sustained injuries in the accident only.
44.Moreover, the Medical Legal Case Record, which is marked under Ex.P.12, issued by the Kamineni Hospital,
Narketpally, clearly goes to show that PW.6 sustained the grievous injuries as follows : 1) laceration over ® occipital region, measuring 10x4x2cms, 2) Punctured wound over (R)
Page 28 of 44 29
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
occipital region, measuring 1x05.x0.5 ms, 3) Laceration on the left side of occipital region measuring 3x1x1cms. The Medical
Officer mentioned in the Wound Certificate/Medico Legal Case
Record under Ex.P.12 that the above said injuries are grievous in nature and the age of injuries are fresh in nature.
Furthermore, MO.2/bed sheet, which contains blood strains was recovered from the house of the accused, and MO.1 and
MO.2 were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory during the course of investigation. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory
Report under Ex.P.11 which goes to show that human blood was detected on the MOs.1 and 2. But, there was no specific suggestion put to the PW.6/injured and PW.10/Investigating
Officer that the MO.2/bed sheet was not pertaining to the accused. Even, there was no whisper in the cross-examination of PW.6 and PW.10/Investigating Officer that the blood which was detected on MOs.1 and 2 is not pertaining to human blood. Therefore, as can be seen from the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 and
PW.10/Investigating Officer is coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.P.11/Forensic Science Laboratory Report, and Ex.P.12/Wound Certificate, which clearly establishes that
PW.6 sustained grievous injuries on his head in the hands of
Page 29 of 44 30
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
the accused with MO.1. Therefore, it cannot be said that the non-examination of Medical Officer would be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
45.The learned counsel for the accused also argued that the evidence of PW.1 to PW.6 are full of omissions and contradictions and that their evidence cannot be believed.
46.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though there are minor discrepancies and omissions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 regarding the alleged incident, but the witnesses stated that PW.6 sustained grievous injuries in the hands of the accused with MO.1. It is further submitted that the minor discrepancies and the omissions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 are not significant which do not touch the root of the case. It is also further argued that minor discrepancies and omissions cannot be taken into consideration when the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is trustworthy.
47.In State Represented by Inspector of Police v.
Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152, where in it was held that:
“While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies,
Page 30 of 44 31
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons”.
In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 186, it was held that:
"Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility."
In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr. (AIR 1981 SC 1390), it was observed that:- “Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however, honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so.”
In A. Shankar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 2302., the Supreme Court held:
“17. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely,
Page 31 of 44 32
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions." The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars, i.e., materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence.
48.In the present case on hand, PW.1 testified in his cross-examination that he did not state to the police that when he reached near the hospital of Krishna Murthy by that time,
Page 32 of 44 33
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
his brother/PW.6 was taken to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally and after knowing the same he went there as in Ex.D.1. PW.10/
Investigating Officer deposed that PW.1 stated as in Ex.D.1.
But, it is the specific evidence of PW.1 that he had seen his brother/PW.6/Kaleemullah who had injuries on the back side of his head and on his enquiry PW.6/Kaleemullah informed that accused beat him with a iron dumb-bell on his head and caused injuries. With regarding to this incriminating evidence nothing was brought on record to disbelieve the evidence of
PW.1. It is the testimony of PW.6 that the police did not examine him and did not record his statement. However,
PW.6/injured categorically testified in his evidence that on 8.6.2014 at about 9:30 A.M., he went to the house of accused and when he was taking his child into his hands, by that time, the accused beat him with an iron dumb-bell on his head for two or three times with an intention to kill him. With regarding to this incriminating evidence deposed by PW.6/injured nothing has been brought on record to discredit the testimony of
PW.6/injured. PW.2 also stated in his evidence that
PW.6/injured informed him that the accused beat him with an iron dumb-bell and caused injury. PWs.3 to 5 who are
Page 33 of 44 34
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
independent witnesses also testified that PW.6/injured/
Kalimullah sustained head injury.
49.A close examination of the testimony of PWs.1 to 6 indicates that there is line of consistency, as to time, place of offence and manner as to how the offence took place. Be it noted here that whatever testified by the PWs.1 to 6 can be traced to Ex.P.1/report which had come to the light soon after the offence. Thus, there is clear consistency between the version deposed by the PWs.1 to 6 and the contents of the report under Ex.P.1. Thus, the testimony of PWs.1 to 5 can be said to be having an element of truth since their version is consistency not only with that of the evidence of PW.6 but also the consistency with the report under Ex.P.1. Moreover, in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 6 nothing substantial to be brought on record to disbelieve their version. Thus, having failed to elicit any false motive on behalf of the prosecution to implicate the accused in the present case, it can be held that the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 requires to be given much credence to believe the case of the prosecution. Moreover, though there are minor discrepancies and omissions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 6 which are not stated to the Investigating Officer, are not material contradiction and omissions which do not affect the
Page 34 of 44 35
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
core of the prosecution case and that they should not be made a ground on which the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 can be rejected in its entirely. However, minor discrepancies and omissions are quite natural unless they prove fatal to the case of the prosecution, they cannot be given much credence. So, citing the above discrepancies, the case of prosecution, which is otherwise proved, cannot be doubted. Therefore, there is no substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused.
50.It is contended by the learned Defence Counsel for the accused that PWs.1 and 2 are none other than the brother and brother-in-law of the PW.6/injured, and they are interested witness and that their evidence cannot be believed.
51.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that though the PWs.1 and 2 are the brother and brother-in-law of PW.6/injured, but they deposed whatever narrated by the PW.6/injured regarding the attacking with an iron dumb-bell on his head by the accused, as such their evidence can be believed.
52.In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Naresh reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324, their lordships held as follows:
Page 35 of 44 36
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
“It is clear that merely because the witnesses related to the complainant are the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If there is evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the Courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a little care”.
53.It is well settled that relative and interested witnesses version it inspires confidence of the Court basing on its objectivity and consistency, that can as well be relied upon to record a finding, thus “interest” of a witness by relation, as such, is not a ground to disbelieve the testimony of witness.
54.In the instant case on hand, it is no doubt true that
PWs.1 and 2 are the brother and brother-in-law of the
PW.6/injured. Be it noted that PWs.1 and 2 do not state that they witnessed the accused causing injury on the
PW.6/injured. They merely stated that when they enquired with the PW.6/injured as he had injury on the back side of the head, then the PW.6/injured stated that the accused beat him with iron dumb-bell on his head and caused injury. Thus, indicates the truthful version of PWs.1 and 2. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 possesses a ring of truth and consistency which is hallmark of truthfulness of a witness.
Page 36 of 44 37
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
55.It is also argued by the learned counsel for the accused that except the evidence of PW.6/injured, there is no other evidence of eye witness and that the prosecution also failed to prove the ingredients for the offience under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
56.Per contra, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submitted that the sole testimony of PW.6/injured is sufficient to base conviction and that the prosecution could prove the ingredients for the offence under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code.
57.In State of UP. Vs. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629, wherein it was held that:
“the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, leads support to his testimony that he was present during he occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross- examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW.4 has rightly been relied upon by the Court below. “
58.In Abdul Sayeed vs State Of M.P, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it is held :
Page 37 of 44 38
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
26. “The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".
28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.”
InShivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of
Karnataka 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that :
“the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case, it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.”
Page 38 of 44 39
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
In Pargan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 4 SCC 619, wherein it was held that:- “The testimony of an injured witness requires a higher degree of credibility and there have to be strong reasons to discard the same.”
In State of Rajasthan Vs. Arjun Singh and others etc., reported in (2011) 9 SCC 115, wherein it was held that:- “where an eye witness received injuries during the course of incident, his presence on the spot cannot be doubted.”
In Mano dutt and another Vs. State of UP, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 79, wherein it was held that:- “It is trite that the evidence of injured witness, being a stamped witness, is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness would not want to let actual assailant go unpunished.”
59.In the present case on hand, PW.6/injured, who is the brother-in-law of the accused testified in his evidence that on the date of the alleged incident i.e., on 8.6.2014 at about 9:30 AM he went to the house of the accused where the wife of
PW.6/injured was staying, while he was taking his child into his hand, in the meantime, the accused came armed with an iron dumb-bell and beat him on the back of his head for two or three times with an intention to kill him, due to which he
Page 39 of 44 40
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
sustained grievous injury on his head and thereafter he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally from there he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. But, during the cross-examination of PW.6, nothing was brought on record to discredit his testimony. Moreover, the accused has also not disputed the injuries sustained by PW.6/injured.
60. A close examination of the testimony of PW.6 indicates that there is a line of consistency, as to the time, place of offence and manner of occurrence as to the accused beat him on his head with an iron dumb-bell with an intention to kill him. With regard to the incriminating evidence deposed by the
PW.6/injured, there are no material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW.6/injured, except putting mere suggestions which were denied by the PW.6/injured nothing has been brought out to doubt his veracity. A reading of the deposition of the PW.6/injured shows that it has ring of truth around it. Therefore, the evidence of PW.6/injured is cogent, convincing, trustworthy and inspires confidence.
61.As can be seen from the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, the evidence of PW.6/injured, is not only corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 but also coupled with the wound certificate and Forensic Science Laboratory report under
Page 40 of 44 41
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
Exs.P.12 and P.11, and also Mos.1 and 2, which clearly establishes that the accused beat the PW.6/injured on his head with an iron dumb-bell and caused grievous injuries with an intention to kill him.
62.In the light of the above decisions, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the prosecution successfully proved through the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 and 10 that the accused caused grievous injuries to
PW.6/injured on his head by beating him with an iron-dumb- bell/MO.1 with an intention to kill him at his house.
63.Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this
Court holds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused committed the act of causing grievous injuries to PW.6 with an iron dumb-bell with an intention to kill him and that the prosecution proved the ingredients for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code. Thus, it can be held that the prosecution could prove the charge under Section 307of the Indian Penal Code against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the point is answered against the accused and in favour of the prosecution.
Page 41 of 44 42
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
POINT No.2 :
Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions
Judge, Nalgonda in SC No.13 of 2017, dt:
31.01.2020, suffers from any illegality or irregu-
larity and warranting inference by this Court?
64. This Court has gone through the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. The learned Trial Court very well
appreciated the oral as well as the documentary evidence and after considering the entire material produced by the prosecution, convicted the accused by sentencing him for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
65.Therefore, this Court holds that there are no convincing reasons in interfering with the judgment passed by the trial Court. Thus, viewed from any angle this Court finds that there is no iota of truth in the defence urged by the accused, and appeal grounds are devoid of merits and law.
Therefore, it is held that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in SC No.13 of 2017 is legally and factually sustainable and that accordingly, this
Page 42 of 44 43
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
point is answered in favour of the prosecution and as against the appellant/accused.
POINT No.4 :
To what relief?
66. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of the conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda in S.C.No.13 of 2017, dated:31.01.2020 sentencing the accused to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for five (5) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further Simple Imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
The Order of the trial Court in respect of disposal of the property is also confirmed. The bail and bonds are hereby canceled. The appellant/accused is called absent. The
Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda is directed to take him under custody and send him to jail for suffering remaining portion of his sentence. Accused has undergone conviction period from 31.01.2020 to 07.02.2020. The fine amount of
Rs.500/- was already paid before the Trial Court.
Page 43 of 44 44
Crl.A. No.10 of 2020
Dt: 31.01.2024
67.A copy of this Judgment along with the Trial Court record shall be transmitted to the Court concerned for compliance.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, Gr.1, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of January, 2024.
Sd/-
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. FAC: Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-NIL-
Sd/-
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. FAC: Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
Page 44 of 44