HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Crl.A.No.170 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
ORDER
No DATE NOTE
1. 27.04.2022 AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J and TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) Heard Ms. Elipe Shanthasree, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additonal Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.12.2021 in Sessions Case No.129 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is admitted for hearing.
I.A.No.1 of 2022
4. The Interlocutory Application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant pending disposal of the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the witnesses said to be eye witnesses cannot be relied upon for the reason that at 10.30 p.m without there being much light, identification is not possible. Further, it was submitted that the appellant, who was accused no.1 along with the wife of the deceased (accused no.2), upon trial, only the appellant has been convicted whereas the wife of the deceased i.e., accused no.2 has been acquitted, which shows that the appellant had no motive to commit the crime. It was further submitted that one of the eye witnesses is the child of the deceased, whose evidence cannot be relied upon as he was only seven years old. It was submitted that as per the report of the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem, the injury on the head of the deceased could have been caused only if somebody stood on the wall and threw the stone from top, but the appellant being handicapped in the leg could not have climbed the wall and thus, the allegations of him being the killer is not proved and he deserves to be given the benefit of doubt.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, from the judgment and the deposition of the witnesses submitted that the son of the deceased though, was seven years old but he was in proper and fit state of mind and the Court had posed questions to him and the answers given reveal that his deposition was worthy of being relied upon. Further, it was submitted that all the eye witnesses have consistently deposed with regard to the manner of occurrence and there is no discrepancy. It was submitted that the appellant has been identified by two eye witnesses namely, PW3 and PW.7 in a Test Identification Parade and there is no reason for either false implication or wrong identification by them. Moreover, it was submitted that the appellant is in custody since little over two years.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence against the petitioner and enlarge him on bail.
8. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stands dismissed.
___________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J) ___________________________________ (TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J) Pab