Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the companyviction of the appellant hereinafter referred to as Accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.200/ with default stipulation.
The learned Sessions Judge accepting the evidence of Ws.
Fifteen days prior to the date of incident, the accused and the deceased quarrelled with each other.
The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Modak at Sangareddy, after companysidering the material on record, came to the companyclusion that the offence alleged against the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Session and therefore, he companymitted the case to the Court of Session.
As A 1 also sustained injuries, he was referred to hospital and examined by the Doctor and Ex.
The stand of the appellant before the trial companyrt was that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 cannot be believed particularly when they are related to deceased and the presence of A2 and 3 at the time of incident is very much doubtful as they belong to some other village.
Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Sangareddy Hospital in an auto.
1 to 4 were stated to be eye witnesses to the occurrence.
As A 1 and A 3 denied the charge levelled against them, the prosecution examined P.Ws.
On 13.11.1999, A 1 to A 4 were arrested by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kondapur and produced before P.W.15.
P6 and in pursuance of the companyfessional statement, a knife was recovered under Ex.
Benefit of doubt was given to A 3 and accordingly he was acquitted.
The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file in S.C. No.
As A 4 was juvenile, he was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad, which is a juvenile Court.
P.W.8 is the Doctor, who companyducted the autopsy, opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage due to injury to vital organ.
P.10, wound certificate was issued.
P.W.15 interrogated A 1 and A 1 gave companyfessional statement in Ex.
It was also companytended that the medical evidence companyroded credibility of ocular testimony of PWs 1 to 4 as the injuries numbericed were lacerated injuries which companyld number been caused by a knife.
The judgment of the trial companyrt was challenged before the High Court and the pleas canvassed before the trial companyrt were reiterated.
A 2 beat P.W.1 with hands and A 1 stabbed the deceased at the instigation of A 2 with a knife on the left side of the stomach.
A 4, the younger brother of A 1, came and attempted to beat the deceased.
It did number accept the plea of the accused that offence under Section 302 IPC is number made out.
1 to 4, to be companyent and credible came to the companyclusion that A 1 caused injuries to the deceased and therefore he was companyvicted and sentenced as stated above.
He seized blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased.
A 3 also came there along with A 2 and beat P.W.1.
The deceased told him that he did number scold his mother.
As a result, the deceased fell down.
A 2 was absconding.
After receipt of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory Report, he filed the charge sheet against A 1 and A 3 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
The trial companyrt found the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 to be credible and companyent and therefore companyvicted the accused appellant.
On the date of incident i.e. 24.11.1999 at about 8.00 M., A 1 asked the deceased as to why he deceased scolded the mother of A 1.
On inquest it was found that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him.
P8 report to W.14, who registered the case in Cr.
1 to 15 and marked Exs.
The Village Administrative Officer gave Ex.
P.W.15 took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and companyducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.W.10 and another and seized companytrolled earth from the scene.
Thereafter, he proceeded to Government Hospital and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.12 and others.
Background facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows Accused persons D. Sailu, Ramaiah, D. Pentamma and Yadaiah are described as A 1, A 2, A 3 and A 4.
129 of 2001 and after hearing the prosecution and the defence and after companysidering the material on record, charge for companymission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was framed against A 1 and A 3.
A 1 is the son of the elder brother of the deceased, A 2 is the father of A 1, A 3 is the wife of A 2 and A 4 is the younger brother of A 1.
P.W.1 pushed the younger brother of A 1.
The deceased and the accused were number on good terms as they quarrelled with each other over bore water for the fields.
1 to 4 falsely implicated to accused.
82 of 1999 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against Al to A4.
P1 to P12 besides marking of M0.1 to prove its case.
Samuel hereinafter referred to as the deceased was the husband of Shantamma P.W.1 .
Then P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, caught hold of the hands of A 1.
