The said companyviction and sentence has been upheld in appeal by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature, A.P. at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.1272/92.
P 2 and thereafter the said doctor referred the deceased to hospital at Tirupati for expert treatment.
P 4 and Ex.
3 to 6 were neighbours who allegedly witnessed the incident while PWs.
In the absence of any other direct evidence, the prosecution had to rely on the two dying declarations Ex.
Sessions Judge, Chittoor who transferred the case in regard to accused Nos.2 and 4 to Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and as stated above, only these two appellants were tried by the Sessions Court.
This altercation turned out to a fight in which members of both the families joined and it is stated that in the said fight the accused persons stabbed the deceased Mahaboob Saheb on the abdomen and chest.
The prosecution before the trial companyrt examined 12 witnesses out of whom PW 1 was the wife of the deceased, PW 2 was the son of the deceased, PWs.
P 13 and the evidence of the doctor, PW 9, who attested the dying declaration Ex.
7 and 8 were panch witnesses for the recovery of the weapon.
When the deceased was still in the hospital at Madanapalle, PW 10, Head Constable of II Town Police Station, Madanapalle who received Ex.
PW 11 who is the Sub Inspector of Mudivedu Police Station on receipt of the information from PW 10 registered a case against the accused under Section 324 IPC.
P 4 to the SHO of the said station on the same night.
They were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC before the Additional Sessions Judge who found them guilty and companyvicted them for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II and sentenced both the accused to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 years.
But these witnesses including the wife and the son of the deceased did number support the prosecution.
P 3 from the doctor went to the hospital and recorded a statement of the deceased which is marked as Ex.
Since the incident in question had taken place in the jurisdiction of another Police Station, P 10 informed Mudivedu Police Station of the incident and sent Ex.
P 4 and after companying to the companyclusion that it is safe to rely on the said dying declaration based a companyviction solely on Ex.
P 3 and Ex.
The trial companyrt rejected the second dying declaration Ex.
P 4 as also the evidence of other police witnesses.
It is stated that as per the advise of doctor, PW 9, the deceased was shifted to Tirupati hospital where another statement of the deceased was recorded by PW 11 which is marked as Ex.
He also issued the certificate to Ex.
P 4 as spoken to by PW 9, the doctor, and PW 11, the S.I., and companyvicted the appellants, as stated above.
P 3 to II Town Police Station Madanapalle.
It is the prosecution case that the deceased died in the said hospital on 27th May, 1991 at about 4.35 a.m. After receiving the said death information, PW 11 changed the offences into 302 IPC and issued a fresh FIR Ex.
All the four accused persons were sent for trial before the II Addl.
P 13 on the ground that the same was dated subsequent to the death of the deceased, therefore, it was number safe to rely upon the same.
It, however, accepted the first dying declaration Ex.
The deceased was then taken to Government hospital at Madanapalle where PW 9, Civil Assistant Surgeon, examined the deceased and sent the intimation of the crime Ex.
SANTOSH HEGDE,J. The appellants were accused Nos.1 and 3 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle in C.No.53/92.
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 25.5.1991 at about 8 p.m. there was an altercation between the wife of the Ist appellant herein and the wife of the deceased in regard to taking water from the tap.
