1
IN THE COURT XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:
NARASARAOPET.
Present: Sri. P.V.S. Suryanarayana Murthy, XII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, FAC XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.
Monday, this the 1st day of April, 2024.
Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2023 (S.C.No.478/2021 on the file of Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.)
Between: Bejawada Yalamandachari s/o Edukondalachari, 24 years, Viswabrahmin r/o Veternary Hospital 1st line, Vinukonda Town, Now at Vantena Bazar,
Kothapet, Vinukonda Town, Palnadu District.
… Appellant/Accused.
AND
State: Inspector of Police, Vinukonda Town PS, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, XIII ADJ court, Narasaraopet.… Respondent.
This is an appeal filed by the accused against the conviction and sentence dated: 23-01-2023 passed by the Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet in S.C. No.478 of 2021 Between State: Inspector of Police, Vinukonda Town PS, Rep. by Public Prosecutor.… Complainant
AND
Bejawada Yalamandachari… Accused
Presentation---25-04-2023 Filing---25-04-2023 Notice issued by court to appear---30-06-2023 Appellant is on bail /jail - ---In jail Date of Hearing---01-03-2024 Order--- Appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet in S.C.478/2021, dt.23- 01-2023 against the accused is confirmed.
2
This appeal coming on for hearing before this court on 01-03-2024 in the presence of Sri.G.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for
Appellant, and the learned A.P.P for respondent and today this court pronounces the following:
J U D G M E N T
The appellant/accused/convict aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,
Narasaraopet in S.C.No.478/2021, dt.23-01-2023 preferred the present Criminal Appeal under Sec.374(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.).
b)For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
c)The Inspector of Police, Vinukonda PS, filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.208/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 397 and 451 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
i)P.W.1/injured is a resident of Seethaiah Nagar colony,
Vinukonda town and her husband (P.W.2) running a School in
Sithaiah Nagar colony, Vinukonda. On 7.6.2021 at 7.00 p.m., while P.W.1 was preparing Tea in her Kitchen, one unknown person was searching the showcase in the Bedroom and then she shouted ‘who he was’, then the said person saw the P.W.1 and thrown her on the ground and stabbed her on the right side abdomen, right wrist and left wrist and caused bleeding injuries.
Then she cried and then the accused jumped from the wall and absconded. The accused was identified as ‘Bejawada
Yelamandachari’ as previously, he studied in their school.
ii)Then P.W.2 and others after hearing the voice of
P.W.1, went there and immediately they shifted her into 3
Chinnapareddy Hospital, Vinukonda, from there to Lalitha Super
Specialty Hospital, Guntur. Based on the statement of P.W.1, the police registered a case in Cr.No.208/2021. The P.W.10 received the intimation, investigated the case, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, seized the material objects. He arrested the accused on 16.7.2021 and recorded his confessional statement. After receipt of the wound certificate and analysis report, a charge sheet was filed.
3.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 451, 394, 397 IPC against the accused and numbered as PRC.20/2021.
After furnishing copies of documents as contemplated under
Sec.207 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate committed the case to the District Judge, Guntur who assigned Sessions Case number and made over to the learned Additional Assistant Sessions
Judge, Narasaraopet as the offence under Section 397 of IPC is
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
4.After the appearance of the accused, the trial court examined the accused under section 228 Cr.P.C., and charges under Sections 451, 394, 397 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During trial, before the trial court, PW1 to PW10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 and MO1 to MO6 were marked.
After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found against him, for which he denied and reported no defense evidence.
4
6.After hearing the arguments, the learned Additional
Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 451, 394 and 397 IPC and convicted him under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven years for the offence under Sec.397 IPC and Five years for the offence under Sec.394 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he should undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
Three months and further, sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of Two Years for the offence under
Sec.451 IPC.
7.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, the accused preferred the present Criminal Appeal on the following grounds:
(a) The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on proper lines and convict the accused.
(b) The trial court did not take into consideration discrepancies and omissions in the case of prosecution.
(c) Except the evidence of a defacto-complainant, there is no other direct evidence before the court, as such great caution to be taken but the trial court failed to take caution.
(d) The trial court has taken into consideration that no theft was committed in the house of the defacto-complainant and P.W.1 did not state before the police that the accused entered into her house to commit theft. As such there is no evidence that the accused entered into the house for the purpose of committing the theft.
(e) The trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the 5 school of the defacto-complainant was running but no one witnessed the offence but wrongly convicted the accused.
(f) The trial Court ought to have taken into consideration that the doctor who gave First Aid to the injured was not examined by the prosecution which is fatal to the case of prosecution.
(g) The trial Court ought to have taken into consideration that the suggestions made by the accused that he was working as a Teacher in Gautham School and the reason for the decrease of Students in the School of defacto-complainant.
(h) The trial Court ought to have taken into consideration that after the commission of the offence the defacto-complainant, her husband or relatives did not inform the same to the police.
(i) The trial Court ought to have taken into consideration that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is hear-say evidence.
It is prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the sentence and conviction passed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,
Narasaraopet against the accused in S.C.No.478/2021 dated:
23.01.2023.
8.At the time of hearing, the counsel for the accused filed the written arguments. Heard the learned APP.
(i)The brief contentions in the written arguments of the accused are as follows:
In a criminal trial one has to start the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The prosecution is required to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and in this case the defence of the accused is that he is innocent and falsely implicated and the same was stated in Sec.228 and 313 Cr.P.C.
6 examinations. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant and P.Ws.2 to 4 are not the eyewitnesses but they came to know the incident through P.W.1. P.W.5 is the mediator for the scene observation report and seizure of the material objects. P.Ws.6 and 7 are the doctors who treated the P.W.1 and accused.
(a)The accused was not present at the time of alleged offence, at the house of P.W.1 and the accused was in the hospital of P.W.7 on the date and time of alleged offence. The alleged offence is at Vinukonda and the hospital of P.W.7 is situated at Narasaraopet. The distance between Vinukonda to
Narasaraopet is about 40 kms. P.W.7-Dr.Gopireddy Srinivasa
Reddy clearly testified that he examined Yallamandachari s/o
Edukondalu at 7.00 p.m, on 7.6.2021 and noted the injuries in
Ex.P5-wound certificate. P.Ws.2 to 4 are not the eyewitnesses and they came to know of the offence through P.W.1. Except the
P.W.1, no other direct eyewitness in this case. The prosecution has to establish that the accused entered into the house of P.W.1 to commit robbery or dacoity but they failed to prove the same.
P.W.1 did not state before the court that the accused entered into her house for committing theft, robbery or dacoity. It is not possible to enter into the house except from the main gate as the house was surrounded by compound wall height about 10 feet.
Even though the witness did not state the intention of the accused to enter into her house, the trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that the accused entered into the house of P.W.1 to commit robbery.
(b)P.W.1 deposed that the accused stabbed her with a knife on her right side of stomach, right wrist, right thigh and left wrist. The doctor who treated P.W.1 has to observe the said 7 injuries and note the same in Ex.P4. But P.W.6 testified that he found the injuries on right forearm, right thigh and right side of the chest. Thus, there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 with the evidence of P.W.6 regarding the injuries sustained by her. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is an old student of P.W.2 and hence, she could identify him. As per the cross examination of P.W.1, they used to run Girls and Boys
Hostel at Seethaiah Nagar and more than 2000 students studying in their school. So it is clear that the accused might have studied in the school of P.W.2 when the school was at Palnadu road.
Admittedly P.W.1 looked after the affairs of Hostel but not the school and the accused had no admission in the Hostel. When the accused left the school, he was a school Boy, his age about 15 years and when at the time of alleged incident, the accused was 25 years old and there will be a drastic change in the face of Boy while he grew up and no one can identify the face after 10 years gap.
(c)P.W.5 is VRO and mediator for the scene observation and seizure report. He admitted that at the time of Ex.P2, P.W.2 and his mother was present and they show M.Os.3 and 4. So it is clear M.Os.3 and 4 seized by the police at the intervention of
P.W.2 and his mother who are the interested witnesses. He further deposed that Ex.P3 was drafted by one Police Constable and he brought one Computer and printer and the same was typed at the scene of offence. Taking a computer and printer to the scene of an offence does not happen in any case and far away from the truth. The evidence of P.W.10 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.8. The alleged incident took place on 7.6.2021 at 7.15 p.m., the FIR was registered at 8.6.2021 at 3.15 p.m.
8
There is no explanation regarding inordinate delay in lodging the
FIR. The trial court, without appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted the accused in a routine manner. It is prayed to allow the appeal.
(ii)Per contra, the learned APP has submitted that in this case on hand P.W.1 was in the house at the time of incident and she sustained injuries in the hands of the accused and that P.W.1 has testified that the accused stabbed her with a knife and also testified that accused studied in their school previously and hence, she could identify the accused. He has further submitted that since the accused studied in the school of P.W.1, there is no need to conduct Test Identification Parade. He has further submitted that the incident took place on 7.6.2021 at about 7.00
P.M., immediately P.W.1 was shifted to Hospital at Vinukonda, after First Aid, she was shifted to Lalitha Super Specialty
Hospital, Guntur and they gave intimation to the police who recorded the statement of P.W.1 at Lalitha Super Specialty
Hospital, Guntur. According to him, when a person sustained grievous injury nobody would go to the Police Station to file a complaint and they would reach the Hospital for treatment and hence, the prosecution explained the delay in a proper manner.
(a)He has further submitted that the accused entered into the house of P.W.1 and searched in the Almyrah of Bedroom and when P.W.1questioned, he attacked her and stabbed her which shows that the accused entered into the house of P.W.1 to commit theft. He has further submitted that the accused has taken a plea of alibi in the written arguments before this court at the first instance. He has further submitted that the accused jumped from the house of P.W.1 and hence, he sustained the 9 injuries for those injuries he took the treatment. He has further submitted that the accused did not give any explanation in his
Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination or at the time of first examination and simply gave a suggestion to P.Ws.1 and 2 that the men of
P.W.1 attacked the accused but they did not give the names of the persons who attacked the accused. According to him, the accused jumped from the house of P.W.1 and hence sustained injuries and took the treatment and P.W.10 who is Investigating
Officer also admitted that the accused took the treatment in the hospital of P.W.7. He has further submitted that the trial court rightly appreciated oral and documentary evidence and convicted the accused and there are no grounds to interfere in the judgment of the trial court. He prays to confirm the sentence and conviction imposed by the trial court.
9.Now the following points are formulated for determination:-
1.Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 451, 394 and 397 IPC?
2.Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial court is factually and legally sustainable?
3.To what relief ?
10.POINT Nos.1 and 2:
Both the points require common discussion and hence, discussed jointly under one head. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 07-06-2021 at about 7 P.M., while the PW1 was in her house and preparing Tea, the accused trespassed into their house, went into the bedroom and opened the cupboard, then 10
PW1 asked who was he, then the accused attacked PW1 and stabbed her with knife. The further version of the prosecution is that PW1 raised cries, then her husband and others rushed there and shifted her to hospital and based on the complaint of PW1, a case was registered.
(a)In this case on hand, PW1 is the injured and defacto- complainant. PW2 is the husband of PW1. PW3 and PW4 rushed to the spot after receipt of the information. PW5 is the VRO in whose presence, the investigating officer seized the material objects, prepared the scene observation report and recorded the confession of the accused. PW6 is the Doctor who examined the
PW1 and issued the Ex.P4-wound certificate. PW7 is the Doctor who examined the accused and issued an Ex.P5-wound certificate. PW8 is the Head Constable of Kothapet PS who recorded the statement of PW1 while she was in Lalitha Super
Specialty Hospital, Guntur and taking treatment. PW9 is the Sub-
Inspector of Police who registered the FIR and PW10 is the investigating officer. Ex.P1 is the statement of PW1 recorded by
PW8. Ex.P2 is the scene observation report. Ex.P3 is the mediatornama. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate of PW1. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate of the accused. Ex.P6 is the hospital intimation. Ex.P7 is the FIR. Ex.P8 is the rough sketch and
Ex.P9 is the FSL report.
(b)The version of the PW1 in Ex.P1 is that she is resident of Vinukonda and running Ravindra School through her husband and on 07-06-2021 at about 7 P.M., while she was in the house in her kitchen and preparing Tea, some male person entered into bedroom and opened the showcase and then the
PW1 questioned the said person, then the accused thrown her 11 and stabbed her on right side of the stomach, right hand left hand and then she raised the cries, then the accused ran away and the accused studied in their school previously and hence, she identified him as Bejawada Yalamandachari, S/o.Edukondalachari.
He came to their house for the purpose of theft and then PW2 immediately rushed to the spot and shifted her to Chinnapareddy
Hospital, Vinukonda and from there to Lalitha Super Specialty
Hospital, Guntur for better treatment. PW1 gave Ex.P1 statement to PW8 on 08-06-2021 at about 11.30 A.M., while she was in
Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur.
(c)To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked Exs.P1 to
P9. Before proceeding further, it is beneficial to refer to the charges framed against the accused. The charges framed against the accused are under Sections 451, 394 and 397 IPC.
To prove the offence under Section 451 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that on 07-06-2021 at about 7 P.M., the accused trespassed into the house of PW1 in order to commit the offence of robbery.
To prove the offence under Section 394 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that on 07-06-2021 at about 7 P.M., the accused attempted to commit robbery in the house of PW1.
To prove the offence under Section 397 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that on 07-06-2021 at about 7 P.M., the accused attempted to commit robbery, used the deadly weapon and caused grievous hurt to PW1.
(d)In this case on hand, PW1 who gave the Ex.P1 statement to the police is the injured. PW1 has testified that on 07-06-2021 at about 7 P.M., while she was in the kitchen for 12 preparing Tea and heard some noise from showcase from the bedroom and she went there and found the accused therein and then the accused who noticed that PW1 identified him, tried to kill her and stabbed her with a knife on her right side of the stomach, right wrist, right thigh, left wrist indiscriminately and went away from the kitchen. She further stated that she raised some cries and on hearing her cries, her husband came there and shifted her to hospital and on 08-06-2021 police came to the hospital and recorded her statement.
(e)In this case on hand, PW1 is the injured and defacto- complainant. She has clearly and categorically testified to the manner of the incident. The specific version of the PW1 is that the accused studied in their school previously and hence, she could identify him and also revealed his name in Ex.P1-statement given to the police. Though the PW1 was cross-examined at length, nothing could be elicited to discredit her testimony. She has admitted that there are two ways to reach the third floor by crossing the girls hostel and there is no theft committed in her house at the time of incident. She further testified that she shouted at the time of stabbing by the accused and she used to keep cash and gold in the Beeruva. The evidence of PW1 is quite natural, convincing and trustworthy. If the evidence of an injured witness is trustworthy, it can be taken into consideration without there being any corroboration.
(f)PW2 who is none other than the husband of PW1, heard the cries of his wife on 07-06-2021 at about 7 P.M., and immediately he went to the third floor and found the PW1 in a pool of blood and immediately shifted her to hospital and from there to Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur and PW2 came 13 to know through PW1 that the accused attacked her. During cross-examination PW2 testified that the accused studied in their school in the year 2008 and left the school in the year 2012.
(g)PW3 is the medical student who received intimation from PW2, immediately rushed to the house of PW1 and found the PW1 lying in the hall with bleeding injuries. No doubt, PW2 to PW4 are not the direct eyewitnesses to the incident but the evidence of PW2 to PW4 corroborating the evidence of PW1.
(h)PW5 is the Village Revenue Officer who testified that on 09-06-2021, the CI of Police called him, then he went there and reached the house of PW1 and then the police observed the scene of offence and found one knife and also seized the knife, gum plaster and blood samples taken on tiles. He has further testified that the police prepared an Ex.P2-scene observation report. PW5 further testified that on 16-07-2021 the accused confessed before the police and then the police recorded the confession of the accused.
(i)Ex.P2 is the scene observation report. As seen from
Ex.P2, PW10 prepared Ex.P2 in the third floor of the house of the PW1 situated in Seetaiah Nagar, Vinukonda. Under Ex.P2, the PW10 seized M.Os.1 to 3. Ex.P8 is the rough sketch prepared by PW10. PW10 who is the investigating officer in this case has testified the chronological events of the investigation. Thus, as seen from the evidence of PW5 and PW10 coupled with Exs.P2 and P8, the investigating officer seized the M.Os.1 to 3 and also prepared Exs.P2 and P8 and 09-06-2021 at the scene of the offence.
14
(j)Ex.P3 is the mediatornama-cum-confession statement.
The confession made by the accused while he was in the custody of the police is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.
No doubt, the confession which leads to discovery is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(k)The further version of the prosecution is that on 07- 06-2021, PW1 went to the hospital at Vinukonda, from there to
Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate issued by PW6. PW6 has testified that they examined
PW1 on 07-06-2021 at 11.47 P.M., and found multiple stab injuries on right forearm, right thigh and right side of the chest and fracture to rib bone of the right side of the chest wall. The evidence of PW6 and Ex.P4-wound certificates clearly proves that
PW1 sustained the injuries. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW6 and Ex.P4 with regard to injuries sustained by her. No doubt, except the evidence of PW1, there is no other direct evidence to show that the accused attacked the
PW1. The evidence of PW1 is quite natural, convincing and trustworthy. Except giving suggestions to PW1 that people of
PW1 beat the accused and hence, she foisted a case against the accused, nothing could be elicited to discredit her testimony.
Assuming for a moment, if the people of PW1 beat the accused, what prevented the accused to give a complaint. No complaint given by the accused.
(l)The material on record clearly proves that on 07.06.2021 at 7 P.M., the accused trespassed into the house of
PW1 and reached the bedroom situated on the third floor and tried to commit robbery. The material on record further discloses that when PW1 questioned the accused, the accused by using a 15 knife (deadly weapon) stabbed the PW1 and caused multiple injuries. Thus, the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 394 and 397 IPC.
(m)PW1 has specifically testified that the accused entered the bedroom and opened the showcase. In Ex.P1, she has specifically mentioned that the accused opened a showcase with an intention to commit theft. The accused trespassed into the house of PW1, entered into the bedroom and opened the showcase where cash and gold were there, probablises the version of prosecution.
(n)In the citation reported in, 2014 (1) ALD (Crl.) 699 in between
Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr
Vs.
State of Karnataka
His Lordships has held that:
“the court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, which do not go to the heart of the matter”.
(o)The learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. No doubt, the incident took place on 07-06-2021 at about 7 P.M. As seen from Ex.P7-FIR, the same was registered on 08-06-2021 at about 3.15 P.M. The incident took place on 07-06-2021 in the house of PW1 situated at Vinukonda. Immediately, PW1 shifted to the hospital and for better treatment, she was shifted to 16
Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur. In general if a person sustained the injuries, her relatives ought to have shifted her to the hospital for providing the treatment but did not go to the police station. After reaching PW1 to Lalitha Super Specialty
Hospital, Guntur, the hospital authorities gave the intimation under Ex.P6 and the police recorded the statement under Ex.P1 on 08.06.2021. The delay of 20 hours in lodging the FIR is satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.
(p)In the citation reported in,
Criminal Appeal No.1182 of 2012 in between
Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh
The Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed the similar issue and held at Para 18 that:
“We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the FIR being only a corroborative piece of evidence and not a substantive piece of evidence, mere delay in registering the FIR could not be held to be a ground adverse to the case of prosecution.”.
The delay in lodging FIR in all cases is not fatal to the prosecution case.
In this case on hand, the prosecution satisfactorily established the delay.
(q)The learned counsel for the accused has vehemently contended in the written arguments that as per the evidence of
PW7, the accused went to Dr. Srinivasa Reddy Hospital,
Narasaraopet and took treatment on 07-06-2021 at about 7 P.M., and as per the prosecution version, the incident also took place 17 on 07-06-2021 at 7 P.M., at Vinukonda which is far away from
Narasaraopet. When the plea of alibi is taken, the burden heavily lies on the accused to prove the same. PW7 has testified that he examined one person Yallamandachari, S/o.Edukondalu (accused) at 7 P.M., on 7-06-2021 and found the injuries i.e. fracture of left ankle and fracture of L2 vertebral body of spine and both the injuries are grievous in nature and he issued Ex.P5-certificate.
Coming to Ex.P5-certificate which is in the name of Susmitha
Ortho & Trauma Care Hospital, Narasaraopet reveals that
Bejawada Yalamandachari S/o. Edukondalu of Vinukonda village came for a report as to certain injuries said to have been caused on 07-06-2021 at about 7 P.M. In the bottom of Ex.P5, it is mentioned that the injured person was first seen by the undersigned at 12.05 P.M., on 10-06-2021 and the examination was commenced at 12.10 P.M., and found the following injuries:
1) Left Bind-kola ankle fracture.
2) L2 vertebral body fracture.
Ex.P5-certificate falsifies the evidence of PW7. If the evidence of PW7 is taken into consideration, he examined the accused on 07-06-2021 at 7 P.M. If the contents of Ex.P5- certificate issued by PW7 is taken into consideration, he had first seen the injured person on 10-06-2021 at 12.05 P.M. Thus, the evidence of PW7 is quite contrary to the Ex.P5-certificate. Hence, the accused failed to establish the plea of alibi. Furthermore,
Ex.P5 does not contain the identification marks. The accused who has taken the plea of alibi in the written arguments ought to have a say in his Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination. He did not say anything regarding the plea of alibi or the men of PW1 beat 18 him. Thus, the accused has not given any satisfactory explanation.
(r)The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the prosecution has not conducted Test Identification
Parade. PW1 has specifically stated in her Ex.P1-statement and in the deposition that the accused studied in their school and hence, she identified his name as Yellamandachari, S/o.Edukondalu. The accused did not deny that he never studied in the school of PW1 and PW2. Hence, there is no need to conduct an identification parade for identification of the accused as PW1 acquainted with the accused as he was the student of their school.
(s)For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is legally and factually sustainable. These points are answered accordingly.
11.POINT NO.3:
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet in
S.C.478/2021, dated: 23-01-2023.
Partly dictated to the Stenographer GrI of XIII Addl. District Judge’s court, Narasaraopet, transcribed by her and partly dictated to the Stenographer GrIII of XII Addl. District Judge’s court, Guntur, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1st day of April, 2024.
Sri P.V.S. Suryanarayana Murthy,
XII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
GUNTUR, FAC XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.
Copy to: The Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.