HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.522 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment dated 24.05.2011 rendered by the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in S.C.No.286 of 2010, the appellant approached this Court by way of appeal.
2. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the judgment of the trial court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the learned judge ought to have seen that the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. are made out by the prosecution; that the learned judge ought to have taken into consideration the evidence of P.W-5 who is an injured witness; that the learned judge has not considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in correct perspective; and therefore, the appeal has to be allowed.
3. Reported to take it as heard by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused.
4. Now the points that arise for determination are:
(1) Whether the appellant succeeded in establishing the guilt of the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. as contended in this appeal.
(2) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in Dr.CSL , J 2 Crl.A.No.522 of 2012 applying the established principles of law to the said facts so as to interfere with the said judgment exercising the appellate jurisdiction.
5.Point No.1:
The facts of the case in nutshell, as projected in the charge sheet, are that on 11.5.2010, at about 2 am., P.W-1 heard the cries of the wife of P.W-5 who is his neighbour and on that, he rushed to the house of P.W-5 and found P.W-5 with injuries and immediately, he along with others shifted the injured to hospital and on enquiry, he came to know that some quarrel went on between P.W-5 and the accused who is his father-in-law and the accused threatened to kill P.W-5 and therefore, on the date of incident, he attached P.W-5 with an axe with an intention to kill him.
6. Record discloses that putting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11, Exs.P-1 to P-8 and Ex.D-1 into consideration, the learned judge of the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the respondent-accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The said finding is assailed by the appellant.
7. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 and 2 are not the ocular witnesses to the incident. P.W-2 deposed that her daughter-Amrapala witnessed the incident and raised hue and cries. The said Amrapala was examined as P.W-3. Though P.W-3 gave evidence to the effect that when they were sleeping in the front yard of the house, the respondent-accused beat her husband with an axe on his head at about 2 am and after seeing the said incident, she raised hue and cries, she did not depose Dr.CSL , J 3 Crl.A.No.522 of 2012 in clear terms how she could see the accused at those odd hours i.e., during night time. No material whatsoever is on record to show the presence of any lighting at the place of incident which enabled P.W-3 to identify the culprit.
8. P.W-4, who is projected by the prosecution as a person who proceeded to the scene of offence immediately after the incident and shifted the injured to hospital, during the course of examination stated that the respondent-accused was not living at Adegaon-B Village since 10 days prior to the incident and even on the date of the incident, he was not present in the said village and that he was at Ecnoda.
9. Even P.W-5 did not state how he identified the respondent- accused.
10. The evidence of the injured witness is crucial and it is for the prosecution to establish the case in clear terms through the said witness. The injured witness in this case who is P.W-5 did not state anything about the alleged grudges between him and the respondent- accused and further as to how he identified the respondent-accused in that night time.
11. The alleged panch witnesses i.e., P.Ws.6 and 7 failed to support the case of the prosecution and following them P.W-8 also turned hostile.
12. P.W-9 who treated P.W-5 deposed that the injuries sustained are simple in nature.
Dr.CSL , J 4 Crl.A.No.522 of 2012
13. P.W-11-the Investigating officer during the course of cross- examination admitted that there is one day delay in lodging the complaint. When the contents of Ex.P-1-complaint are looked into, this Court finds the presence of an averment that the respondent- accused bore grudge in mind and with an intention to take vengeance attacked P.W-5-injured with an axe. But, the presence of such grudges is not established by the prosecution before the trial Court. Furthermore, as earlier discussed, the evidence of P.W-9 is that the injuries sustained by P.W-5 are simple in nature.
14. In normal course, if a person has real intention to take the life of another, the injuries that would be caused, that too with an axe, would certainly be grievous in nature. There is every necessity for the prosecution to establish the intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that the act he does would result in death. The intention on the part of the respondent-accused to cause death of P.W-5 is not established. Further, the presence of the respondent-accused at the alleged scene of offence is also not established. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant failed to establish before the trial Court that the respondent-accused committed the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is further clear that none of the grounds of appeal are sustainable in the light of the unsatisfactory evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court. Therefore, the resultant conclusion is that the appellant failed Dr.CSL , J 5 Crl.A.No.522 of 2012 to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. before the trial court.
16. Point No.2:
When the judgment of the trial Court is gone through, this Court finds that the learned judge of the trial Court had discussed each and every aspect of the case and by applying the correct proposition of law has come to a justifiable finding and thereby, acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge framed.
17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 24.05.2011 rendered by the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in S.C.No.286 of 2010.
_________________________ Dr. JUSTICE C.SUMALATHA 21.10.2021 dr