Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 717 (AP)

Anisetti Veerabhadra Rao v. State of A. P.

2008-09-02

A.GOPAL REDDY, B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-06-2006 passed in S.C.No.93 of 2002 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge found A1-Anisetti Veerabhadra Rao and A2-Anisetti Venkata Ramana guilty for the offences under sections 448 and 302 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced each of them to suffer RI for 6 months for the offence under section 448 IPC and imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer SI for one month for the offence under section 302 IPC. 2. Four accused persons viz., A1-Anisetti Veerabhadra Rao, A2-Anisetti Venkata Ramana, A3-Anisetti Ramulu and A4-Anisetti Sesharatnam were put on trial before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada for the offences punishable under sections 448 r/w 34, 302 and 302 r/w 114 IPC. More precisely the charges framed are: Charge No.1: Against A1 to A4 for committing the offence of house trespass punishable under section 448 r/w.34 of IPC; Charge No.2: Against A1 and A2 for causing the death of Yanamandra Subba Rao intentionally punishable under section 302 IPC; Charge No.3: Against A3 and A4 for abetting A1 and A2 to commit murder of Yanamandra Subba Rao punishable under section 302 r/w 114 IPC. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood harged, prosecution examined 22 witnesses, proved 25 documents and exhibited 8 material objects. The plea of the accused is that the deceased was attacked in darkness by the husband of Bhagyavathi and his associates since he developed illicit intimacy with Bhagyavathi and taking advantage of the deceased sustaining injuries in the incident, the case was foisted against them. Contradictions in the statements of P.Ws.1 and 3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C were marked as Exs.D1 and D2 respectively. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found A1 and A2 guilty for the offences under sections 448 and 302 IPC and convicted them accordingly by judgment dated 4.12.2003 while recording acquittal of A3 and A4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found A1 and A2 guilty for the offences under sections 448 and 302 IPC and convicted them accordingly by judgment dated 4.12.2003 while recording acquittal of A3 and A4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, A1 and A2 filed Crl.A.No.1324 of 2003 and whereas aggrieved by the acquittal of A3 and A4, the brother of the deceased namely Yanamandra Venkateswara Siddhanti, who has been examined as P.W.2 filed Crl.R.C.No.442 of 2004. The Criminal Appeal and the Crl. Revision Case came to be heard together and a Division Bench of this court by a common judgment dated 27.1.2006 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of A1 and A2 and remitted the matter back to the trial court for examination of A1 and A2 under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the contents of Exs.P.12 and P.18 dying declarations while dismissing Crl.Revision Case filed by P.W.2. The penultimate para of the common judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court reads as under: " 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for the examination of A1 and A2 only with regard to putting the contents of Ex.P.12 and P.18 and thereafter the trial Court shall pass appropriate judgment in accordance with the law basing on the evidence on record duly taking note of the explanation given by A1 and A2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the appellants/A1 and A2 were on bail during the trial of the case before the trial court, they shall be released forthwith on the same terms and conditions as were imposed by the trial court. All the contents raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants can be as well argued before the trial court. Crl.R.C.No.442 of 2004: In view of the fact that absolutely there is no evidence for the offence under section 302 read with section 114 of IPC against A3 and A4, we feel it is appropriate to confirm the acquittal of A3 and A4. Crl.R.C.No.442 of 2004: In view of the fact that absolutely there is no evidence for the offence under section 302 read with section 114 of IPC against A3 and A4, we feel it is appropriate to confirm the acquittal of A3 and A4. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed." After remand, the trial Court examined A1 and A2 on 17.5.2006 by putting the content of Ex.P.12 and P.18 dying declarations. A1 pleaded that he is the fourth issue to their parents whereas A2 pleaded that he is the second issue to their parents. In a way they pleaded that they are fourth and second issues respectively and not first and third issues to their parents. According to them, Anisetti Subrahmanyam is the first issue and Anisetti Eswara Rao is the third issue to their parents. They placed on record the birth extracts of second, third and fourth issues of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and transfer certificates of Anisetti Venkataramana (A2). Neither the prosecution nor the accused chose to adduce any further evidence. The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused and considering the material placed on record, found A1 and A2 guilty for the offences under sections 448 and 302 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced them as stated supra. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, as unfolded by the witnesses examined on its behalf is as under: A1-Anisetti Veerabhadra Rao and A2-Anisetti Venkata Ramana are sons of A3 Anisetti Ramulu and A4 Anisetti Sesharatnam. The house of A1 to A4 and the house of Yanamandra Subba Rao are intervened by a rasta. Yanamandra Subba Rao owned a tractor. A3 engaged the tractor of Yanamandra Subba Rao on hire about 5 or 6 years prior to the date of occurrence and thereby he became indebted to a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards hire charges. A panchayat was held with regard to payment of hire charges. P.W.10 Kona Bapiraju acted as an elder and settled the dispute and in pursuance of the settlement, A3 paid Rs.3,000/- to Yanamandra Subba Rao. A1 to A4 nourished grudge against Yanamandra Subba Rao for placing the dispute over hire charges before the elders. They suspected Yanamandra Subba Rao that he propagated in the village that their family indebted to several people. A1 and A2 allegedly threatened Yanamandra Subba Rao with dire consequences for damaging the reputation of their family. A1 to A4 nourished grudge against Yanamandra Subba Rao for placing the dispute over hire charges before the elders. They suspected Yanamandra Subba Rao that he propagated in the village that their family indebted to several people. A1 and A2 allegedly threatened Yanamandra Subba Rao with dire consequences for damaging the reputation of their family. On 12.8.2001 at about 6 P.M. Yanamandra Subba Rao was sitting on a payal in front of his house. A1 and A2 came upon him, A1 pulled him from the payal and attempted to hack him. He attempted to ward off the blow by raising his right hand. The blow fell on his right hand and consequently his palm portion upto wrist got severed. A1 dealt a further blow on his shoulder and whereas A2 hacked on his head, left shoulder and left cheek. P.W.1 Yanamandra Surya Prakasamma, mother of Yanamandra Subba Rao, rushed to the payal and made hue and cry. A3 and A4 were stated to be standing outside the house of Yanamandra Subba Rao. P.W.3 Kada Subrahmanyam, who is a farm servant of Yanamandra Subba Rao, witnessed the occurrence. He brought P.W.5 Vithanala Ganiraju to the scene. P.W.5 learnt from Yanamandra Subba Rao that A1 and A2 attacked him. P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 shifted the injured- Yanamandra Subba Rao to Government Hospital, Kakinada by a car bearing No. AP 5 X 7159 owned by P.W.11 Madhavarapu Ramachandrarao @ Rajababu. On the way to the hospital at Jagamnaikpur new bridge, P.W.2 Yanamandra Venkateswara Sidhanthi, who is the brother of the injured- Yanamandra Subba Rao, joined them. It is stated that PW.2 enquired the injured-Yanamandra Subba Rao as to how he sustained injuries and thereupon the injured stated to have told him that A1 and A2 attacked him and caused injuries. P.W.16 Dr.K.Appalacharyulu, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Kakinada sent Ex.P.15 hospital intimation to the Outpost Police Station, Government Hospital, Kakinada. P.W.19 K.V.Raghavulu, H.C., of Outpost Police Station, Government Hospital, Kakinada received Ex.P.15 hospital intimation at 8.20 p.m. He rushed to casualty ward of the hospital and recorded statement of the injured-Yanamandra Subba Rao, which has been exhibited as Ex.P.18. He read over the contents of the statement and obtained thumb impression of the injured-Yanamandra Subba Rao thereon. He sent Ex.P.15 hospital intimation to Gollapalam Police Station. He read over the contents of the statement and obtained thumb impression of the injured-Yanamandra Subba Rao thereon. He sent Ex.P.15 hospital intimation to Gollapalam Police Station. P.W.20 K.Ch.S.Reddy, H.C., Gollapalam Police Station received Ex.P.18 statement of the injured-Yanamandra Subba Raoand Ex.P.15 hospital intimation on 13.8.2001 at about 3 A.M. He registered a case in Cr.No.65 of 2001 under sections 448 and 307 r/w 34 IPC and issued Ex.P.19 FIR. P.W.17 Dr.B.Rangarao, Casualty Medical Officer sent Ex.P.11 intimation to the concerned Magistrate to record the statement of the injured-Yanamandra Subba Rao. P.W.14 K.Chandrasekhara Rao, Special Mobile Magistrate, Kakinada, received Ex.P.11 requisition and proceeded to hospital. He recorded the statement of the injured-Yanamandra Subba Rao on certifying by the duty doctor about his fit state of mind. He also put some preliminary questions to the injured and satisfied himself with regard to fit state of mind of the injured to give statement. The injured-Yanamandra Subba Rao stated before P.W.14 that the first son and the third son of A3 attacked him. He read over the statement to the injured-Yanamandra Subba Rao who admitted the contents to be true and correct and affixed his left thumb mark thereon. Ex.P.12 is the statement of the injured-Yanamandra Subba Rao. He forwarded Ex.P.12-statement of the injured- Yanamandra Subba Rao under Ex.P.13 covering letter to the III Additional JFCM, Kakinada. P.W.20 K.Ch.S.Reddy, H.C., Gollapalem Police Station after dispatching the FIR to the concerned court and marking copies of the same to the concerned officials rushed to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada and examined the injured-Yanamandra Subba Rao and recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C which has been exhibited as Ex.P.20. He examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.19 and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. He reached the scene on 13.8.2001 at about 9.30 a.m. and prepared Ex.P.6 scene of offence panchanama in the rpesence of P.W.13 and L.W.19 L.Tirupathi Rao. He also prepared rough sketch, which has been exhibited as Ex.P.21. He got the scene of offence photographed through P.W.12. Ex.P.4 is the positive photographs numbering four and Ex.P.5 is the strip of negatives. Yanamandra Subba Rao (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was shifted to Care hospital on 13.8.2007 where he succumbed to the injuries on 14.8.2001 at 10 a.m. P.W.18 sent Ex.P.17 death intimation to II Town Police Station, Kakinada. Ex.P.4 is the positive photographs numbering four and Ex.P.5 is the strip of negatives. Yanamandra Subba Rao (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was shifted to Care hospital on 13.8.2007 where he succumbed to the injuries on 14.8.2001 at 10 a.m. P.W.18 sent Ex.P.17 death intimation to II Town Police Station, Kakinada. P.W.20 received Ex.P.17 death intimation from Care Hospital, Kakinada through II Town Police Station, Kakinada and altered the section of law from Sections 448, 307 r/w 34 to Sec.448, 302 r/w 34 IPC and issued altered FIR. P.W.21 took up investigation and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.13 Paningapalli Venkata surya Subrahmanya Sai Sree Rama Chandramurthy and two others. Ex.P.7 is the inquest report. After inquest, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. P.W.15 Dr.T.Rama Rao held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 15.8.2001 from 9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m and issued Ex.P.14 post mortem report opining that the deceased died of hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries. P.W.22 K.Raghuveera Reddy, Inspector of Police, Kakinada (Rural) Police Station, arrested A1 and A2 on 23.8.2001 and interrogated them in the presence of P.W.13 P.V.S.S.S.Ramachandra Murthy and L.W.22 K.Yesuratnam. He recovered MO.1 knife in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by A1 and MO.2 knife in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by A2 under the cover of Ex.P.10 panchanama. Ex.P.8 is the relevant portion of the confession statement of A2 and Ex.P.9 is the relevant portion in the confessional statement of A1. He sent the incriminating material to RFSL, Visakhapatnam. Ex.P.25 is the RFSL report. After completing investigation he laid the charge sheet before III Additional JFCM, Kakinada. 4. Heard Sri.C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 and A2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 5. Learned senior counsel submits that the names of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 do not find place as eye witnesses to the occurrence in the dying declarations of the deceased which have been exhibited as Exs.P.12 and P.18 recorded by P.W.14 and P.W.18 respectively and therefore their very presence at the scene is very much doubtful. He further submits that the deceased made reference to his assailants in Ex.P.12 dying declaration recorded by P.W.14 as eldest sons of A3 and whereas the accused put on trial are second and fourth sons of A3. He further submits that the deceased made reference to his assailants in Ex.P.12 dying declaration recorded by P.W.14 as eldest sons of A3 and whereas the accused put on trial are second and fourth sons of A3. He took us to the birth extracts of second, third and fourth issues of A3 which have been filed during 313 examination of A1 and A2, after remand, and also the evidence of P.W.4 who stated in the cross-examination that A1 is fourth son and A2 is the second son of A3. 6. Though A1 and A2 placed on record the birth extracts of second, third and fourth sons of A3, they did not chose to prove the same either summoning the Birth Registers or the person who issued those certificates. They did not even choose to mark them as exhibits on their behalf. They simply produced the birth extracts of second, third and fourth issues of A3 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajuluru dated 16.5.2006. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor seriously disputed the genuineness of the certificates produced by A1 and A2 during 313 examination. 8. In view of the serious dispute as to the genuineness of birth certificates produced by A1 and A2 during 313 examination in the trial Court, we felt it appropriate to exercise the powers under Sec.391 Cr.P.C and summon the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajuluru mandal and Head Master, Zilla Parishad High School, Kajuluru, West Godavari District to produce the admission register of the year 1986 which formed the basis for issuance of the certificates produced by A1 and A2 in 313 examination. Accordingly, we passed the following order on 29.4.2008: "During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel strenuously contended, by placing reliance on the birth certificates and transfer certificate filed by the accused during the course of 313 Cr.P.C examination after remand, that A1 and A2 are second and fourth sons of A3 and A4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor seriously disputed the genuineness of date of birth certificates filed along with 313 Cr.P.C statement and more particularly, the birth certificate of Venkata Ramana who has been arrayed as A2. Learned Senior Counsel raised serious objection for the contention advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground that no such argument has been advanced before the trial Court. Learned Senior Counsel raised serious objection for the contention advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground that no such argument has been advanced before the trial Court. We have perused the birth certificates of the sons of A3 and A4 filed during the course of 313 Cr.P.C examination in the trial Court. The main dispute is with regard to the identity of the assailants of the deceased as to whether they are the second and fourth sons or first and third sons of A3 and A4. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to exercise power conferred under Section 391 Cr.P.C and summon the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajuluru Mandal to produce the original registers wherein the entries relating to birth of sons of A3 and A4 are recorded and also the Head Master, Zilla Parishad High School, Kajuluru, West Godavari District to produce the admission register of the year 1986 wherein the date of birth of Anisetti Venkata Ramana is indicated, along with the declaration given by the parent at the time of admission of the pupil in the school. Post on 13.6.2008." 9. Sri. K. Ravindranath, Head Master, ZP High School, Kajuluru is examined as CW.1 and Sri.Kanaparthi Venkata Madhava Rao, Incharge Tahsildar, Kajuluru Mandal, is examined as CW.2. CW.1 produced admission register of Z.P. High School, Kajuluru for the year 1986-87. With reference to the entries in the admission register, he placed on record an attested copy of the relevant entry in the admission register in respect of A2, which has been exhibited as Ex.C1. The accused cross-examined CW.1 and marked the transfer certificate issued by the Gazetted Head master, Z.P. High School, Kajuluru in respect of A1 as Ex.D1. (hereinafter referred to as Ex.D1A since contradiction in 161 statement of P.W.1 has already been marked as Ex.D1 in the trial Court). CW.2 produced the Registers of Births and Deaths of Seela village for the years 1974, 1975, 1979 and 1981 and of Bandanapudi village for the years 1976 and 1978. Ex.C2 is the Register of Births and Deaths of Bandanapudi village for the year 1976. Ex.C3 is the relevant entry in respect of birth of second issue of A3 and A4. Ex.C4 is the relevant entry in respect of five births recorded in the month of August, 1976. Ex.C2 is the Register of Births and Deaths of Bandanapudi village for the year 1976. Ex.C3 is the relevant entry in respect of birth of second issue of A3 and A4. Ex.C4 is the relevant entry in respect of five births recorded in the month of August, 1976. Ex.C5 is the birth certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajuluru Mandal in respect of third issue of A3 and A4. Ex.C6 is the Register of Births and Deaths of Seela village for the year 1979. Ex.C7 is the relevant entry of the third issue of A3 and A4. Ex.C8 is the extracts of the total births in Seela village during the year 1979. Ex.C9 is the birth extract issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajuluru with regard to the fourth issue of A3 and A4 based on the Register of Births and Deaths for the year 1979. Ex.C10 is the Register of Births and Deaths of Seela village for the 1981. Ex.C11 is the relevant entry with regard to the fourth issue of A3 and A4. CW.2 stated that the Registers of Births and Deaths for the years 1974 and 1975 are not available. In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused, it is elicited that he has no personal knowledge with regard to the entries in the birth registers. For better appreciation we may refer the cross-examination of CW.2 in his own words and it is thus: " I am working as incharge Tahsildar of Kazaluru Mandal from 7.5.2008. I am giving evidence basing on the birth registers of the villages Bandanapudi and Seela. If no one informs of the birth of any issue, entry with regard to that issue does not find in the Register. There are no entries in the Register (Ex.C2) with regard to the births in the year 1976. I do not know as to who corrected in the abstract of the births of issues in the year 1979. There is no possibility of tampering the entries in the Registers of births and deaths, which are in the custody of the Revenue Authority. I have no personal knowledge with regard to the entries in the birth registers, which have been referred to above. The present population of Seela village is about 3000. There is no possibility of tampering the entries in the Registers of births and deaths, which are in the custody of the Revenue Authority. I have no personal knowledge with regard to the entries in the birth registers, which have been referred to above. The present population of Seela village is about 3000. I do not know as to what was the population of Seela village in the year 1981." The evidence of CWs.1 and 2 would be adverted to in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment while dealing with the identity of the assailants of the deceased. 10. P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 are the direct witnesses to the occurrence. Ex.P.12 is the dying declaration recorded by P.W.14 K.Chandrasekhara Rao, Special Mobile Magistrate, Kakinada on 13.8.2001 at 10.17 p.m. Ex.P.18 is the dying declaration recorded by P.W.19 K.V.Raghavulu, HC, Outpost Police Station, Government General Hospital, Kakinada recorded on 12.8.2001 at 8.20 P.M. The prosecution also relied on the oral dying declarations of the deceased made to P.Ws.2 and 5. 11. Before dwelling on the rival contentions of the parties, we deem it appropriate to refer the scene of offence. It is within the compound of the house of the deceased. Ex.P.6 is the scene of offence panchanama prepared by P.W.20 on 13.8.2001 at 9.30 a.m. in the presence of P.W.13 and L.W.19 N.Tirupathi Rao. He also prepared a rough sketch, which has been exhibited as Ex.P.21. He got the scene of offence photographed through P.W.12. Ex.P.4 is the bunch of positive photographs numbering four. Ex.P.5 is the strip of negatives. While observing the scene, P.W.20 lifted blood stained earth and controlled earth (Mos.5 and 6). The incriminating material seized during the course of investigation including Mos.5 and 6 came to be sent to RFSL, Visakhapatnam under a cover of Ex.P.23 letter of advice and Ex.P.24 letter of request. Ex.P.25 is the RFSL report. Blood came to be detected in MO.5. Nothing is suggested to any of the eyewitnesses by the accused in the cross-examination disputing the scene of offence. Even otherwise the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was assaulted at his house. Ex.P.25 is the RFSL report. Blood came to be detected in MO.5. Nothing is suggested to any of the eyewitnesses by the accused in the cross-examination disputing the scene of offence. Even otherwise the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was assaulted at his house. The plea of the accused is that the deceased had illicit intimacy with one Bhagyavathi and he was attacked by the husband of Bhagyavathi and his associates in the darkness on the date of incident and that the prosecution witnesses falsely implicated them in the case. 12. Prosecution examined PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 as directed eyewitnesses to the occurrence. PW.1 is the mother and PW.3 is the farm servant of the deceased. The ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently a partisan witness should not be relied upon has no substance. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. - vide decision of the Supreme Court in Gangadhar Bahera v. State of Orissa1. 13. The prosecution is able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the incident occurred within the compound of the house of the deceased. PW.1 being the inmate of the house of the deceased is a natural witness to the occurrence. PW.3 testifies that at the time of incident, he was supplying water to the garden in front of the house of the deceased. His presence at the time of occurrence is also quite natural since he happened to be a farm servant of the deceased. PW.1 and PW.3 categorically stated that A1 and A2 assaulted the deceased and caused serious injuries to him. It is also stated by them that when A1 hacked the deceased, the deceased tried to ward off the blow and thereby the blow landed on his right hand severing his right palm up to wrist. PW.1 testified that she carried the severed right palm of the deceased in a plastic cover along with the deceased to the hospital. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 is cogent and convincing. PW.1 testified that she carried the severed right palm of the deceased in a plastic cover along with the deceased to the hospital. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 is cogent and convincing. In spite of incisive and searching cross-examination, their evidence is unshaken. There is no reason to discard their testimony. 14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the incident occurred after darkness set in and therefore, there was no possibility for PW.1 and PW.3 to identify the assailants of the deceased. The same contention was advanced before the trial Court. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 with regard to the time of occurrence, came to the conclusion that there was no total failure of sunlight. The trial Court also perused the Panchangam (ALMANAL) for the year 2001-2002 published by Vasundara Publications, Rajahmundry complied by Pandit Sri Butte Veerabhadra Dyvagna, with regard to the time of sun set on 12.08.2001. For better appreciation, we may refer the conclusion recorded by the trial Court with regard to the time of occurrence and it is thus: "23. Now it is to be seen, whether at 6.30 p.m. on 12.8.01 there was failure of sun light so as to make it impossible for the eye-witnesses to identify the assailants and therefore, there was mistaken identity. PW.1, the mother of the deceased, PW.3 their farm servant, PW.4 M.Dhanaraju and both the accused (A1 and A2) are residents of Seela village since several years prior to the incident. Thus, the eye witnesses to the occurrence have acquaintance with A1 and A2 by their faces, names and even by voice. The above said eye witnesses and both the accused are not strangers to each other. Added to that A1 and A2 are no other than neighbours residing opposite to the house of the deceased Subbarao and his mother PW.1. Touching this aspect of the case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strenuously contended that there is no possibility for mistaken identity since both the accused and eyewitnesses were known to each other since a long time and in support of his contention placed strong reliance on the decision in the case of SURJIT SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2855. In the above said case, the assailants attacked in the house of the prosecution party at 7 p.m. The Apex Court taking into consideration that all the accused were known to the witnesses since long time, therefore, there was no question of any mistaken identity, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Here, in this case also, the incident proper occurred at about 6.30 p.m. at the house of the deceased. Added to that, from a perusal of Panchangam for the year 2001-2002 published by Vasundara Publications, Rajahmundry complied by Pandit Sri Butte Veerabhadra Dyvagna, the sunset on 12.8.01 was at 6.27 p.m. It is quite but natural for the darkness to set in, it requires another minimum half an hour after sunset. The incident occurred at 6.30 p.m. at the time of sunset and therefore, it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that there was failure of sunlight at 6.30 p.m., and therefore, it is impossible for the eyewitnesses to identify the assailants and that there is possibility for mistaken identity." We are not persuaded by the learned senior counsel to come to a different conclusion than that of the trial Court. Indisputably, A1 and A2 resided opposite to the house of the deceased. There is no question of mistaken identity of the assailants of the deceased in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 15. PW.4 testifies that he reached the scene on hearing the cries of the deceased and by the time he came, the deceased sustained injuries on right hand. The learned Senior Counsel heavily commented on the evidence of this witness on the ground that his name does not figure in the inquest report as an eyewitness and he did not choose to inform any one of his witnessing the incident and that he came to be examined by the police after 15 days of the incident. Though he claims to be present when the police came to the house of the deceased, he did not choose to inform the police of his witnessing the incident. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW.4 in his own words and it is thus: "Police examined me and recorded my statement 15 days after the incident. I have not informed the incident to anybody till I was examined by the police. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW.4 in his own words and it is thus: "Police examined me and recorded my statement 15 days after the incident. I have not informed the incident to anybody till I was examined by the police. Gollapalem police also came to the house of Subbarao along with me. The deceased Subbarao was not in a position to speak after the incident. The mother of Subbarao did not inform the police how the incident occurred. Suryaprakasamma (PW.1) and Subrahmanyam (PW.3) came to the spot after Subbarao fell down on the ground from the pial. The incident took place at about 6.30 p.m. by that time sun was set "KANNU CHEEKATI PADINDHI". The distance between my house and Suryaprakasamma's (PW.1) house is half K.M. But for visiting of the house of Pilli Suryanarayana there was no necessity for me to sit on the bridge." A close reading of the evidence of this witness indicates any amount of doubt with regard to his very presence at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused and accordingly, the evidence of PW.4 is liable to be eschewed from consideration. 16. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously contended that the ocular testimony of PW.1 and PW.3 does not tally with the medical evidence and therefore, the ocular evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 is liable to be rejected. 17. We do not want to burden the judgment by referring to various authorities on the aspect of the conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. In a case of solitary eyewitness, inconsistency between ocular testimony and medical evidence gains some importance. Here it is not a case resting on solitary testimony. The case rests on not only the ocular evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 but also dying declarations of the deceased. Even with regard to the dying declarations, there are two written dying declarations and two oral dying declarations coming out through the evidence of PW.2 and PW.5. 18. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that the name of PW.3 does not figure as an eyewitness to the occurrence in the inquest report and therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on his testimony. No doubt the name of PW.3 does not figure in the inquest report. 18. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that the name of PW.3 does not figure as an eyewitness to the occurrence in the inquest report and therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on his testimony. No doubt the name of PW.3 does not figure in the inquest report. It is to be kept in mind that the deceased succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital on 14.08.2001 at 10.00 a.m. The inquest was held in the mortuary shed of the Government General Hospital, Kakinada. By that time, PW.20 K.Chandrasekhar Reddy, H.C.1568 of Gollapalem P.S. commenced the investigation and recorded the statement of PW.3 on 13.08.2001 itself. Therefore, mere non- mention of the name of PW.3 in the inquest report as an eyewitness does not in any way affect his testimony. The object of the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is only to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or unnaturally and if so what is the apparent cause of death. The question with regard to the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted appears to be far into the ambit of inquest proceedings. 19. The incident occurred at about 6.30 p.m. on 12.08.2001. The deceased was shifted to hospital by 8.15 p.m. It is the evidence of PW.16 Dr.K.Appalacharyulu, C.M.O., G.G.H., Kakinada, that he gave intimation to outpost police station about the admission of the deceased in the hospital on 12.08.2001 at about 8.15 p.m. Nothing is suggested to this witness in the cross-examination by the accused disputing the time of admission of the deceased in the hospital. Therefore, it can be safely said that within few hours of the occurrence, the deceased was shifted to the Govt. General Hospital, Kakinada, for treatment. 20. The earliest dying declaration of the deceased is one recorded by PW.19 K.V.Raghavulu, Head Constable, Out Post P.S.,GGH, Kakinada. Ex.P18 is the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by him. The time of recording of dying declaration is 9.10 p.m. The time gap between occurrence and recording the dying declaration of the deceased is too narrow to put in any distorted version of the occurrence. Ex.P18 is the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by him. The time of recording of dying declaration is 9.10 p.m. The time gap between occurrence and recording the dying declaration of the deceased is too narrow to put in any distorted version of the occurrence. The deceased stated in Ex.P18 dying declaration that A1 Anisetti Veerabhadra Rao and A2 Anisetti Venkataramana are his assailants and they beat him with knives on right fore arm and left side neck and left cheek. The deceased stated in the dying declaration that his mother-PW.1 and his farm servant-PW.3 shifted him to the hospital. It is suggested to PW.19 in the cross-examination that the contents of Ex.P18 dying declaration were not stated by the deceased. The said suggestion has been flatly denied by him. There is no reason for PW.19 to fabricate Ex.P18 dying declaration of the deceased. Ex.P18 dying declaration formed the basis for registering the case in Crime No.65 of 2001 of Gollapalem Police Station. There is no reason to disbelieve Ex.P18 dying declaration of the deceased. It is crystal clear from Ex.P18 dying declaration that A1 and A2 are the assailants of the deceased and they caused serious injuries to him, for which he succumbed while undergoing treatment in the hospital on 14.08.2001 at 10.00 a.m. 21. The next dying declaration of the deceased is the one recorded by PW.14 K.Chandrasekhara Rao, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kakinada. Ex.P12 is the dying declaration recorded by him. In Ex.P12 dying declaration, the deceased described his assailants as first and third son of Anisetti Ramulu (A3). The learned senior counsel by referring the description of the assailants given by the deceased in Ex.P12 dying declaration contends that the accused stood for trial in the case are not first and third son of A3, but they are second and fourth son of A3 and therefore, there is any amount of discrepancy between the two dying declarations i.e. Ex.P18 and Ex.P12 and in which case, A1 and A2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. To buttress his submissions, learned Senior Counsel placed on record the birth extracts of 2nd, 3rd and 4th issues of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4) and transfer certificate of A2 Anisetti Venkata Ramana issued by the Head Master of Z.P.High School, Kajuluru and certified copy of the Permanent Account Number card issued by the Income-tax Department in respect of Anisetti Subrahmanyeswara Swamy. In elaborating his arguments, the learned senior counsel submits that Anisetti Subrahmanyeswara Swamy and Anisetti Eswara Rao are the 1st and 3rd issues, whose date of births are 12.05.1975 and 26.11.1979 respectively and whereas the accused faced trial before the Court are 2nd and 4th issues, whose date of births are 31.05.1976 and 06.09.1981 of A3 and A4. 22. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that A1 and A2 are 3rd and 1st issues of A3 and A4 and the documents produced by A1 and A2 during the 313 Cr.P.C. examination are concocted for the purpose of this case. 23. We have already indicated in the afore said paras of the judgment that this is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 391 of Cr.P.C and accordingly we summoned the Head Master of Z.P.High School, Kajuluru and the Tahsildar, Kajuluru Mandal and marked Exs.C1 to C11. Whereas, the accused marked transfer certificate issued by the Head Master, Z.P.High School, Kajuluru as Ex.D1A. At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to refer the documents filed by A1 and A2 during the 313 Cr.P.C. examination and they are: 1) Date of birth certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajuluru, relating to Anisetti Veerabhadrarao (A1) S/o.Ramulu of Seela village; 2) Date of birth certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajuluru, relating to Anisetti Eswara Rao s/o.Ramulu of Seela village; 3) Date of birth certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajuluru, relating to Anisetti Venkata Ramana Murthy @ Venkata Ramana (A2) s/o. Ramulu (A3) of Seela Village; 4) Transfer Certificate showing the date of birth of Anisetti Venkata Ramana (A2) issued by the Head Master, Z.P.High School, Kajuluru; and 5) Certified Xerox copy of the Permanent Account Number identity card of AHGPA9689J in respect of Anisetti Subrahmanyeswara Swamy. It is trite to detail the documents marked through CW.1 and C.W.2. It is trite to detail the documents marked through CW.1 and C.W.2. Ex.C1 is the attested copy of the relevant entry in the admission register of Z.P.High School, Kajuluru, wherein the date of birth of Anisetti Venkata Ramana Murthy has been recorded. Ex.C2 is the Register of Births and Deaths of Bandanapudi village for the year 1976. Ex.C3 is the relevant entry of the 2nd issue of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4) showing the date of birth of 2nd issue as 31.05.1976. Ex.C4 is the relevant entries in the Ex.C2 Register of Births and Deaths for the month of August, 1976. Ex.C5 is the birth extract issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajuluru in respect of 3rd issue of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4). Ex.C6 is the Register of Births and Deaths of Seela Village for the year 1979. Ex.C7 is the relevant entry in Ex.C6 Register of Births and Deaths of Seela village in respect of 3rd issue of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4). Ex.C8 is the extract of birth of issues in the year 1979 in Ex.C6 Register of Births and Deaths of Seela village. Ex.C9 is the birth certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajuluru with regard to the 4th issue of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4). Ex.C10 is the Register of Births and Deaths of Seela village for the year 1981. Ex.C11 is the relevant entry in respect of 4th issue of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4). 24. Consolidation of the documents produced by the accused during the 313 Cr.P.C examination and the documents marked through C.W.1 and C.W.2 indicates that the accused produced Exs.D1A, Ex.C5 and Ex.C9 during the 313 Cr.P.C. examination. Apart from Exs.D1A, Ex.C5 and Ex.C9, the accused also produced birth certificate in respect of A2 and Permanent Account Number identity card issued by the Income-tax Department in respect of Anisetti Subrahmanyeswara Swamy. Based on these documents, learned senior counsel strenuously argued that date of birth of A1 is 06.09.1981 and whereas the date of birth of A2 is 31.05.1976 and they are 4th and 2nd issues of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4) respectively. He would also contend that Anisetti Subrahmanyeswara Swamy is the eldest son and his date of birth is 12.07.1975 and whereas Anisetti Eswara Rao is the 3rd son and his date of birth is 26.11.1979. 25. He would also contend that Anisetti Subrahmanyeswara Swamy is the eldest son and his date of birth is 12.07.1975 and whereas Anisetti Eswara Rao is the 3rd son and his date of birth is 26.11.1979. 25. We have considered the documents placed on record by the accused during the 313 Cr.P.C. examination and documents marked through C.W.1 and C.W.2 very meticulously. The accused tried to wriggle out the situation by placing on record the birth certificates to probabilize their defence that they are not the 3rd and 1st sons of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4). Indisputably, A3 and A4 have six sons. A1 claims that he is the 4th issue to his parents and his date of birth is 06.09.1981. Ex.C11 is the relevant entry with regard to the 4th issue of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4). A maiden look at Ex.C11 entry gives an impression that it has been entered very recently. Ex.C11 entry is not certified by the officials of the revenue department. Even CW.2, through whom Ex.C11 is marked, does not claim to be the author of the entries. A2 claims that he is the 2nd issue of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4) and his date of birth is 31.05.1976. Ex.C2 is the Register of Births and Deaths of Bandanapudi village for the year 1976. The entry with regard to the 2nd issue of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4) finds place at Sl.No.10. As per the entries, the total number of births recorded, as on 4-6-1976 are 10. Then coming to the recording of births in August, 1976 it commenced with Serial No.10. Therefore, Sl.No.10 which is a relevant entry is being repeated in the month of June and also in the month of August. A close reading of the entries indicates that Sl.No.10 with regard to the births noted in the month of June, 1976 is an interpolation. When the very entries in the Birth Registers with regard to the 2nd and 4th issues of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4) are suspicious, the only reasonable conclusion is that those entries are pressed into service for the sake of defence. Ex.D1A is the form of transfer certificate issued by the Head Master, Z.P. High School, Kajuluru in respect of Anisetti Venkataramana Murthy (A2). The date of birth as entered in the transfer certificate is 31-05-1976. Ex.D1A is the form of transfer certificate issued by the Head Master, Z.P. High School, Kajuluru in respect of Anisetti Venkataramana Murthy (A2). The date of birth as entered in the transfer certificate is 31-05-1976. The basis for issuing Ex.D1 certificate is entries appearing in the admission register of Z.P. High School, Kajuluru Mandal. The relevant entry in the admission register is marked as Ex.C1. The second letter in the year of date of birth appears to be altered to the naked eye. Even the year in words is recorded as "Thirty May Seventy". The second letter in the year is missing. When the very original entry in admission register is shrouded with suspicion, A2 cannot be permitted to lay much emphasis on Ex.D1A transfer certificate. We are conscious of the proposition of law that it is not necessary for the defence to prove its case with the same rigour as the prosecution is required to prove its case, and it is sufficient if the defence succeeds in throwing a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case, which is sufficient to enable the Court to reject the prosecution version. We have considered Exs.C1 to C11 and D1A and we do not hesitate to record a finding that no credence can be given to the entries made in the Births and Deaths Registers of Bandanapudi and Seela villages. When once the Birth Registers are excluded, there is no other evidence to probabilize the defence of the accused. In view of the above discussion, we are in no doubt to conclude that the accused stood for trial are 1st and 3rd issues of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4). 26. Learned senior counsel submits that the description of the assailants given by the deceased in his Ex.P12 dying declaration gives any amount of doubt, since he did not specifically state the names of the assailants and whereas in the earlier dying declaration, which has been exhibited as Ex.P18, he details the names of the assailants. 27. Indisputably, A3 and A4 have six sons. The deceased probably did not want to commit mistake in mentioning the assailants by names and therefore, he chose to describe the assailants by their array of the sons of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4). It is also pertinent to note that the deceased received serious injuries which might had some impact on his memory power. 28. The deceased probably did not want to commit mistake in mentioning the assailants by names and therefore, he chose to describe the assailants by their array of the sons of Anisetti Ramulu (A3) and Anisetti Sesharatnam (A4). It is also pertinent to note that the deceased received serious injuries which might had some impact on his memory power. 28. The prosecution is able to prove the two dying declarations, which have been exhibited as Exs.P12 and P18, beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled that a dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration. In Khusal Rao v. State of Bombay2, Harban Singh v. State of Punjab3 and Gopal Singh v. State of M.P.4, it is held by the Supreme Court that there is not even a rule of prudence, which has hardened into a rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. The primary effort of the court has to be to find out whether the dying declaration is true. If it is so, no question of corroboration arises. It is only if the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration are not clear of convincing, then the Court may for its assurance, look for corroboration to the dying declaration. In Kanaksingh Rai Singh Rav v. State of Gujarat5, it is held by the Supreme Court that the law is well settled and if a dying declaration is made voluntarily and truthfully by a person, who is physically in a condition to make such statement, there is no impediment in relying such a declaration. 29. Apart from the two written dying declarations, which have been exhibited as Ex.P12 and Ex.P18, prosecution relied on two oral dying declarations. The first oral dying declaration made by the deceased is to PW.5. The second oral dying declaration made by the deceased is to PW.2. PW.2 and PW.5 with stood the test of cross-examination. They categorically stated that they enquired the deceased and thereupon the deceased told them that A1 and A2 are his assailants. There is no reason to disbelieve the oral dying declarations of the deceased made to PW.2 and PW.5. 30. PW.2 and PW.5 with stood the test of cross-examination. They categorically stated that they enquired the deceased and thereupon the deceased told them that A1 and A2 are his assailants. There is no reason to disbelieve the oral dying declarations of the deceased made to PW.2 and PW.5. 30. A contention has been advanced by the learned senior counsel that the conduct of PW.1 and PW.3 in not making attempts to rescue the deceased from the hands of A1 and A2 gives any amount of doubt with regard to their very presence at the time of occurrence. 31. It is well settled principle of law that there is no set rule of natural reaction. Every one reacts in his own special way and in what way the witnesses should react cannot be predicted. In Ratna Pratap and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 680 = 1983 Cri.L.J. 1272, the Supreme Court pointed out as hereunder: "Yet another reason by the learned Sessions Judge to doubt the presence of the witnesses was that their conduct is not going to the rescue of the deceased when he was in the clutches of the assailants was unnatural. We must say that this is most unreal. Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, became speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some became hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the extent of counter attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginary way." 32. PW.1 stated that on seeing the incident she rushed to the pial in front of her house and made hue and cry. She is aged about 74 years. A woman of 74 years old cannot be expected to go near the deceased who was being attacked by A1 and A2 armed with deadly weapons. Any woman situated in such circumstances would react by making hue and cry. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be disbelieved on the ground of her not preventing A1 and A2 from assaulting the deceased. Any woman situated in such circumstances would react by making hue and cry. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be disbelieved on the ground of her not preventing A1 and A2 from assaulting the deceased. PW.3 stated that he did not go in rescue of the deceased due to fear. He is a farm servant of the deceased. By the date of his examination before the Court he was aged about 19 years. The incident occurred on 12.08.2001 and he was examined as a witness on 25.08.2003. By the date of incident, he was only 17 years old. Soonafter seeing the incident, he rushed to his house and informed his father and thereafter, went to the house of PW.5 and brought him to the scene. In the given facts and circumstances, the evidence of this witness cannot be disbelieved on the ground that he did not go in rescue of the deceased. 33. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any flaw in the conviction and sentence of the appellants/A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 448 and 302 IPC recorded by the trial Court. 34. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed.