Telangana High Court
Paritala Satyanarayana, vs State Of A.P., on 29 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1579 of 2008 and 148 of 2009
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2009 is filed by Accused No.2 and
Criminal Appeal No.1579 of 2008 is filed by Accused Nos.3 and 4.
The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 304-II
of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge in
S.C.No.525 of 2007, dt.24.11.2008.
2. Briefly, the case against the appellants/A2 to A4 is that
these appellants along with Accused no.1 committed murder of
husband of PW5. According to the complaint lodged by PW1, there
was an altercation in between appellants 2 to 4 and also A1, a day
prior to the incident. It is alleged that the deceased called A1
disrespectfully for which reason, A1 got enraged and beat on his
cheek. On the basis of complaint regarding the assault by A1 on
the deceased, Crime No.72/2004 was registered under Section
324 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the said Babar-A1
absconded. Then, the deceased went to the house of A1 and asked
the wife of A1 to disclose the location of A1. Again he went to the
house of A2 and peeped into bath room while the mother of A2
was taking bath. For the reason of the indecent behavior of the
deceased, he was attacked by A1 to A4 on 03.05.2004 with knives
and sticks.
3. The deceased received 9 injuries in all resulting in his death.
According to the doctor, the injuries were inflicted with a sharp
weapon. After conclusion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet
against A1 to A4. During the course of trial, the other eye
witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case. However, PW3
who is the son of deceased and PW5 the complainant and wife of
the deceased deposed regarding the attack by the appellants in
front of the Kirana shop in the village which is two houses away
from the house of the deceased.
4. The learned Judge came to conclusion that the appellants
were guilty having examined PWs.1 to 15 and having marked
Exs.P1 to P19 on behalf of the prosecution. Exhibits D1 to D13
were marked during the course of trial which are portions of
statements of PW3, PW5 and PW8 recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C.
5. Though, charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, the learned Sessions Judge deemed it appropriate to
convict the appellants for the offence under Section 304-II of the
Indian Penal Code.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that the very version of the prosecution that A1, namely Babar
who was involved was not spoken to by PW3 and PW5. They have
selectively deposed against these accused. When the case is that
A1 along with these accused attacked and nothing was stated
against A1 during the course of trial, that itself would go to show
that the witnesses have given a false version during the course of
trial and accordingly such selective evidence cannot be made basis
to convict the appellants. In Ex.P1-complaint lodged by PW5, she
did not state that these appellants had inflicted injuries with
knife. According to the doctor, all the injuries were possible only
by sharp edged weapon. When PW5 at the earliest point of time in
her complaint-Ex.P1 did not state about any kind of injuries being
inflicted by these appellants with the sharp edged weapon, the
prosecution case has to be dismissed and appellants have to be
acquitted.
7. He relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in
Ram Laxman v. State of Rajasthan 1. In the said Judgment, the
Honourable Supreme Court dealt with appeals filed by co-accused.
The sole eye-witness in the said case had deposed against co-
accused which resulted in conviction. However, the case of the
(2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 389
main accused was split up and he was later sent for trial. The sole
eye-witness turned hostile to the case. In the said circumstances,
the Honourable Supreme Court held that the witness cannot give
two different versions and selectively state that A1 in the said case
had not committed any offence. When such is the case, the High
Court ought to have extended the benefit to the co-accused also
and the High Court erred in relying by such selective evidence and
convicting the accused. In the said circumstances, the Honourable
Supreme Court extended the benefit of doubt to the co-accused.
8. The present case on hand differs on facts. Though, the name
of A1 namely Babar was mentioned in Ex.P1-complaint, however,
his name was not mentioned during the course of trial by PWs.3
and 5 who were eye-witnesses. The other eye-witnesses have
turned hostile to the prosecution case. Not stating regarding the
presence of A1 during trial in itself cannot form basis to
completely discard the other circumstances and events and overt
acts attributed to the other accused. The maxim "falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus" has been disapproved by the Honourable
Supreme Court long ago.
9. As already stated to the extent of not mentioning A1's
participation in the crime as stated earlier by the witnesses PW3
and PW5 resiling from their 161 CR.P.C. statements, will not
entitle the appellants herein to seek benefit and exoneration of the
charge against him. It is specifically stated by PWs.3 and 5 and
also in Ex.P1-complaint that these three appellants were present
and when PW5 had seen her husband, these appellants were
throwing stones at him and her deceased husband was soaked in
blood. All the events narrated by PWs.5 and 3 before the Court
stand corroborated with the earliest version alleged in the
complaint. However, for the best reason known to PWs.3 and 5,
they did not speak anything about A1 during trial.
10. The ground raised that the entire version of PWs.3 and 5 has
to be disbelieved is not acceptable. To the extent of the reliable
evidence of eye-witnesses, the Court can come to a conclusion
regarding accused participation in the offence.
11. According to PW5, she did not state in her complaint that
any of these appellants in fact stabbed the deceased, however
their participation was stated regarding their beating with stones
and bottles. All the nine injuries in the Post Mortem Report,
according to the doctor was by a sharp edged weapon.
12. In the said circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate
that the sentence of imprisonment of Accused No.2 to 4 can be
reduced to two years under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal
Code.
13. Accordingly both the Criminal Appeals are partly allowed.
The trial Court is directed to cause appearance of A2 to A4 and
send them to prison to serve out their remaining period of
imprisonment.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 29.02.2024
tk
