Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Basha Bashi, Eg.Dt., vs The State Of Ap.,Rep Pp., on 21 August, 2024
Author: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010519692017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3486]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 194/2017
Between:
Shaik Basha @ Bashi, Eg.dt., ...APPELLANT
AND
The State Of Ap Rep Pp ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Apellant:
1. M BHAGYASRI
2. LEGAL AID
Counsel for the Respodent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
Page 2 of 14
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.194 OF 2017
JUDGMENT :
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.186 of 2016 on the
file of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at
Rajahmundry, is the appellant herein. He was tried for
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') by the learned
Sessions Judge.
2. Vide judgment dated 09.01.2017 in the
aforesaid Sessions Case, the appellant was convicted of the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to
pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence
punishable under Section 323 IPC. Both the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
3. The substance of charges as against the
accused is that on 26/27.09.2015 at about 1.30 AM at
D.No.2-224, Velampeta, Seetanagaram mandal, the
accused committed murder by intentionally causing death
of his brother's son Shaik Razi (hereinafter referred to, as
'the deceased'), by hacking him with an axe
indiscriminately on his head, face and thereby committed
an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and that on
the same date, time and place mentioned above, the
accused voluntarily caused hurt to his mother Shaik
Haleema Beebi by fisting on her mouth, and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the
material prosecution witnesses and the accused are
resident of Velampeta of Seethanagaram mandal. P.W.1
is nephew of the accused and brother of the deceased.
P.W.2 is grandmother of the deceased and mother of the
accused. Father of P.W.1 Shaik Baji died 16 years ago.
The accused is junior paternal uncle of P.W.1. The
deceased is natural brother of P.W.1. The accused has
been residing in Rampachodavaram for the last 10 years.
P.W.2 has a thatched house in Velampeta and the
deceased used to live with P.W.1 as a helper. He used to
look after her welfare. The accused used to conduct iron
scrap business. P.W.2 gave her property documents to
P.W.5 to raise money for the purpose of marriage of his
daughter. On coming to know about the same, the
accused went to house of P.W.2 and quarrelled with her.
He used to go to the house of P.W.2 and quarrel with her
frequently. He used to ask her either to convey the
property to him or to sell away the property and give him
money. On 26.9.2015 at about 1.00 PM, the accused went
to house of P.W.2 and raised a quarrel with regard to
house property as property documents were given to
P.W.5. The deceased intervened. On that the accused
proclaimed that he would do away with life of the deceased
and would teach a lesson to P.W.2. The deceased
informed the same to P.W.1, and on the advice of his
mother, P.W.1 slept in the house of P.W.2. P.Ws.1 and 2
slept in one room and the deceased slept on mat on the
pial outside the house. The accused also slept on a cot
along with them in the same room. At about 1.00 AM or
1.30 AM, P.W.1 heard a loud voice of the deceased from
the pial and then, P.Ws.1 and 2 went outside and saw the
accused stabbing the deceased with an axe. They
intervened to prevent, and on that, the accused fisted
P.W.2 on her month. She received a bleeding injury and
blood oozed. The accused threatened them to kill if they
intervene. On that, P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside and bolted
the door. The accused left the axe there and fled away.
P.Ws.1 and 2 alerted the neighbours and later informed
P.W.10. On 27.09.2015 at about 6.30/7.00 AM, P.W.1
went to P.W.10 and requested him to draft a complaint
stating that the deceased was murdered. Accordingly,
P.W.10 prepared a report as per the information given by
P.W.1.
On 27.09.2015 at about 8.00 AM, P.W.13-Sub
Inspector of Police, Sithanagaram police station received
the complaint and basing on the same, a case in crime
No.116 of 2015 was registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 323 IPC under Ex.P9-FIR.
P.W.13 along with his staff went to the scene of offence
and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. P.W.13
found the dead body of the deceased in veranda in front of
the house. P.W.13 conducted inquest over the dead body
of the deceased. During inquest, he examined blood
relatives, witnesses and panchayatdars, and recorded their
statements. All the panchayatdars opined that the
accused caused death of the deceased with an axe in the
midnight of 26/27.09.2015 while the deceased was
sleeping. Ex.P5 is the inquest report. On 27.09.2015 at
about 2.50 PM, P.W.12-Civil Assistant Surgeon, District
Hospital, Rajahmahendravaram conducted autopsy over
the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P8-
postmortem report. According to the Doctor, the cause of
death of the deceased is shock and haemorrhage due to
head injury and multiple injuries. After completion of
investigation, P.W.14 filed the charge sheet.
5. In support of its case, prosecution examined
P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19, besides case
properties M.Os.1 to 11. After completion of prosecution
side evidence, the accused was examined under Section
313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances
appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. The accused denied the same. No oral or
documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the
defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciation of
the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the
appellant/sole accused, as stated supra. Challenging the
same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
there is delay in lodging the complaint in police station.
According to her, the incident is alleged to have taken
place at 1.30 AM in the intervening night of
26/27.09.2015, but the complaint was lodged on the next
day at 8.00 AM, and there is absolutely no explanation
with regard to the delay caused. She further submitted
that there are number of discrepancies in the evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 2 and those discrepancies would go to the root
of the case as to whether the incident is said to have taken
place, as suggested by the prosecution. She submits that
the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the
evidence on record in right perspective and erred in
convicting and sentencing the appellant. Hence, he prays
to set aside the impugned judgment.
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State contended that
the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent and there is
absolutely no discrepancy in their evidence so as to tilt the
case of prosecution. According to him, there is absolutely
no delay that had taken place in giving the complaint to
police, and that the Judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge is well reasoned one and calls for no interference.
9. Now, the point that arises for determination is
whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of
the appellant/sole accused for the charges levelled against
him, beyond reasonable doubt ?
10. P.Ws.1 and 2, who is none other than nephew
and mother respectively, of the accused, categorically
deposed to the extent that it is the accused who hacked
the deceased with an axe. The accused is none other than
close relative of the eye-witnesses. Therefore, identifying
the accused even in the darkness cannot be doubted.
The evidence of P.W.2 can be put on a high pedestal as she
is injured witness. Right from initiation of the complaint,
it is the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 that there is a dispute
with regard to the property between the accused and P.W.2
on the ground that the said property has to be alienated
and the proceedings have to be handed over to the
accused. On the date of the incident, at 1.00 PM, an
altercation took place between the accused and P.W.2.
When the deceased intervened and pacified the same, the
accused is said to have yelled at the deceased that he
would do away with the life of the deceased.
11. P.W.3, who is mother of the deceased, deposed
that on coming to know about the said altercation, she
suggested to P.W.1 to sleep in the house of P.W.2
apprehending that there would be some danger to P.W.2
from the accused. The entire incident is said to have
taken place at the house of P.W.2 and there cannot be
much doubt with regard to presence of P.W.2 or P.W.1 at
the house. The said incident took place in the mid night
between 1.00 AM and 1.30 AM. The accused is not a
stranger to the prosecution witnesses and he is closely
related to the material prosecution witnesses. Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that during the night
hours and in the absence of any streetlight, it would be
difficult for the prosecution witnesses to identity the
assailant. The said submission made by the learned
counsel for the accused cannot be accepted for the reason
that the accused is well known to the prosecution
witnesses since he is none other than son of P.W.2.
12. Apart from it, when the prosecution witnesses
intervened when the accused was hacking the deceased,
the accused dealt a blow on the mouth of P.W.2, wherein
she sustained injury on her mouth. This Court perused
the evidence of P.W.11, who is Civil Assistant Surgeon,
District Hospital, Rajamahendravaram. She examined
P.W.2 and found swelling of upper lip on left side. She
opined that the injury received by her is simple in nature.
Ex.P7 is the wound certificate. The evidence of the Doctor
corroborates the evidence of P.W.2.
13. The prosecution examined neighbours P.Ws.6 to
8 to prove the fact that after hearing cries, they came to
the scene of offence. Though P.Ws.6 to 8 are not eye-
witnesses as per their evidence, their evidence cannot be
brushed aside for the reason that immediately after
hearing the cries, they went to the scene of offence and
saw the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood.
Their evidence would lend support to the evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 2 as they were present at the scene of offence
at the relevant point of time of the incident.
14. Another incriminating circumstance is that
during course of examination of the accused under Section
313 CrPC, though the accused denied committing murder,
he admitted about other things deposed by P.W.1 and
further stated that he was taken away by the police at 6.00
AM on that day and dried clothes were seized. This
circumstance supports the case of prosecution that the
accused was present at the scene of offence in the morning
as well. Though he did not give any explanation as to
what happened on that night, he admitted that what all
stated in the evidence of P.W.1 happened, except
committing the murder. The accused, being elder male
member, admitted his presence during that night, which
corroborates evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and hence absence
of any explanation is another incriminating circumstance
against him.
15. Blood stained clothes of the accused were
seized by P.W.13-investigating officer in the presence of
P.W.10. As per Ex.P19-report of the Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory, human blood was detected on the
pant of the accused, pant of the deceased and the mat. In
the absence of any explanation from the accused with
regard to presence of blood on his pant, it is another
incriminating circumstance proved by the prosecution.
16. From the foregoing discussion, this Court has
no hesitation to hold that the prosecution is able to
establish its case as against the accused for the charges
levelled against him. The learned Sessions Judge, upon
proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellant/sole accused, and
this Court is of the opinion that the judgment passed by
the learned Sessions Judge is well reasoned and calls for
no interference by this Court.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed,
confirming the judgment dated 09.01.2017 in Sessions
Case No.186 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions
Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
21.08.2024.
DRK
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
JUDGMENT IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.194 OF 2017
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
21.08.2024
DRK
