The appellant after companymitting the offence escaped from the place of occurrence by bolting the door from outside.
The injured witness PW 3 and her minor daughter PW 4 never mentioned the name of the appellant while narrating the incident to their neighbours, police or the Magistrate though the appellant was very well known to them.
P 21 to the Magistrate CW 1 .
A case was registered as Crime No.
The High Court vide its judgment dated 20th August, 2007 dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant and accordingly companyfirmed the judgment of the trial companyrt.
In the nutshell, the prosecution version which led to the trial of the appellant is as under On the intervening night of 7th/8th April, 2002 appellant went to the house of the deceased in Venkatayapalem village with an intention to end the life of the deceased and knocked at the door of the deceased which was opened by the wife of the deceased, Cherukuri Srinukumari PW 3 and the appellant accused all of a sudden hacked and attempted to kill her by inflicting severe injuries on her body, as a result of which she fell down and then he rushed towards the deceased who was sleeping and hacked him by inflicting severe injuries.
The High Court by the impugned judgment companyfirmed the judgment passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Eluru companyvicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for seven years, respectively, and further to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months each.
Both companyrts below found that the appellant attacked the deceased with sharp edged weapon resulting in his death.
The trial companyrt mainly relied upon the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4.
In this appeal, Shri M.N. Rao, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, submitted that the evidence of the eye witnesses does number inspire any companyfidence as PW 3 made a lot of improvements in her version and implicated the appellant for the first time only while deposing before the Court and never before during the investigation or in the first information report.
As her companydition was serious, he immediately sent intimation to JFCM CW 1 who came and recorded her statement.
The appellant is stated to have approached the deceased and demanded to cancel the agreement so that he would purchase the land at a lesser price than which was offered by the deceased.
The deceased despite the threats proceeded further and informed the landlady that he was ready with the balance sale companysideration and required her to execute a registered sale deed on 2.4.2002.
She did number identify the person but stated that he was a young man wearing stripes shirt.
The High Court too relied upon the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4.
The companyrts below also found the appellant accused attempted to kill PW 3 by inflicting severe injuries on her body.
She did number state anything about the attack on the deceased.
This is the motive suggested by the prosecution for the appellant companymitting the crime.
The daughter of the deceased Sri Surekha PW 4 aged about 9 years raised hue and cry upon which the neighbours opened the door from outside and informed Cherukuri Gangaraju PW1 who is a close relation of the deceased who thereafter informed Gopalapuram Police Station and lodged first information report at about 4.00 a.m. on 8th April, 2002.
The appellant was upset and developed a grudge against the deceased and in the process companymitted the crime on the intervening night of 7th/8th April, 2002.
The trial companyrt upon appreciation of the evidence found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, respectively.
She did number explain as to and under what circumstances she made the statement in Exhibit P 21 number there is any explanation as to how she omitted the name of the appellant and described somebody else to be the assailant.
CW 2 is Dr. G. Bhaskararao who stated in his evidence that PW 3 was sent for treatment of injuries by Gopalapuram Police Station.
On the other hand, she went to the extent of stating that she did number know whether the Magistrate had recorded her statement in the house or in the hospital.
The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined altogether 14 witnesses.
SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court companyfirming the companyviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC .
The evidence of prime witness PW 3 is totally unreliable and companyld number be believed under any circumstances as in her cross examination she went to the extent of denying having given any statement Ex.
