Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1160 (AP)

Shaik Basha @ Bashi v. State Of AP Rep PP

2024-08-21

K SREENIVASA REDDY, K SURESH REDDY

body2024
JUDGMENT : K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.186 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. Vide judgment dated 09.01.2017 in the aforesaid Sessions Case, the appellant was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The substance of charges as against the accused is that on 26/27.09.2015 at about 1.30 AM at D.No.2-224, Velampeta, Seetanagaram mandal, the accused committed murder by intentionally causing death of his brother’s son Shaik Razi (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’), by hacking him with an axe indiscriminately on his head, face and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and that on the same date, time and place mentioned above, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to his mother Shaik Haleema Beebi by fisting on her mouth, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the material prosecution witnesses and the accused are resident of Velampeta of Seethanagaram mandal. P.W.1 is nephew of the accused and brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is grandmother of the deceased and mother of the accused. Father of P.W.1 Shaik Baji died 16 years ago. The accused is junior paternal uncle of P.W.1. The deceased is natural brother of P.W.1. The accused has been residing in Rampachodavaram for the last 10 years. P.W.2 has a thatched house in Velampeta and the deceased used to live with P.W.1 as a helper. He used to look after her welfare. The accused used to conduct iron scrap business. P.W.2 gave her property documents to P.W.5 to raise money for the purpose of marriage of his daughter. On coming to know about the same, the accused went to house of P.W.2 and quarrelled with her. He used to look after her welfare. The accused used to conduct iron scrap business. P.W.2 gave her property documents to P.W.5 to raise money for the purpose of marriage of his daughter. On coming to know about the same, the accused went to house of P.W.2 and quarrelled with her. He used to go to the house of P.W.2 and quarrel with her frequently. He used to ask her either to convey the property to him or to sell away the property and give him money. On 26.9.2015 at about 1.00 PM, the accused went to house of P.W.2 and raised a quarrel with regard to house property as property documents were given to P.W.5. The deceased intervened. On that the accused proclaimed that he would do away with life of the deceased and would teach a lesson to P.W.2. The deceased informed the same to P.W.1, and on the advice of his mother, P.W.1 slept in the house of P.W.2. P.Ws.1 and 2 slept in one room and the deceased slept on mat on the pial outside the house. The accused also slept on a cot along with them in the same room. At about 1.00 AM or 1.30 AM, P.W.1 heard a loud voice of the deceased from the pial and then, P.Ws.1 and 2 went outside and saw the accused stabbing the deceased with an axe. They intervened to prevent, and on that, the accused fisted P.W.2 on her month. She received a bleeding injury and blood oozed. The accused threatened them to kill if they intervene. On that, P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside and bolted the door. The accused left the axe there and fled away. P.Ws.1 and 2 alerted the neighbours and later informed P.W.10. On 27.09.2015 at about 6.30/7.00 AM, P.W.1 went to P.W.10 and requested him to draft a complaint stating that the deceased was murdered. Accordingly, P.W.10 prepared a report as per the information given by P.W.1. On 27.09.2015 at about 8.00 AM, P.W.13-Sub Inspector of Police, Sithanagaram police station received the complaint and basing on the same, a case in crime No.116 of 2015 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 IPC under Ex.P9-FIR. P.W.13 along with his staff went to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. P.W.13 along with his staff went to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. P.W.13 found the dead body of the deceased in veranda in front of the house. P.W.13 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During inquest, he examined blood relatives, witnesses and panchayatdars, and recorded their statements. All the panchayatdars opined that the accused caused death of the deceased with an axe in the midnight of 26/27.09.2015 while the deceased was sleeping. Ex.P5 is the inquest report. On 27.09.2015 at about 2.50 PM, P.W.12-Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Rajahmahendravaram conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P8- postmortem report. According to the Doctor, the cause of death of the deceased is shock and haemorrhage due to head injury and multiple injuries. After completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed the charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 11. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/sole accused, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is delay in lodging the complaint in police station. According to her, the incident is alleged to have taken place at 1.30 AM in the intervening night of 26/27.09.2015, but the complaint was lodged on the next day at 8.00 AM, and there is absolutely no explanation with regard to the delay caused. She further submitted that there are number of discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and those discrepancies would go to the root of the case as to whether the incident is said to have taken place, as suggested by the prosecution. She submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective and erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 8. She submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective and erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgment. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent and there is absolutely no discrepancy in their evidence so as to tilt the case of prosecution. According to him, there is absolutely no delay that had taken place in giving the complaint to police, and that the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is well reasoned one and calls for no interference. 9. Now, the point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/sole accused for the charges levelled against him, beyond reasonable doubt ? 10. P.Ws.1 and 2, who is none other than nephew and mother respectively, of the accused, categorically deposed to the extent that it is the accused who hacked the deceased with an axe. The accused is none other than close relative of the eye-witnesses. Therefore, identifying the accused even in the darkness cannot be doubted. The evidence of P.W.2 can be put on a high pedestal as she is injured witness. Right from initiation of the complaint, it is the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 that there is a dispute with regard to the property between the accused and P.W.2 on the ground that the said property has to be alienated and the proceedings have to be handed over to the accused. On the date of the incident, at 1.00 PM, an altercation took place between the accused and P.W.2. When the deceased intervened and pacified the same, the accused is said to have yelled at the deceased that he would do away with the life of the deceased. 11. P.W.3, who is mother of the deceased, deposed that on coming to know about the said altercation, she suggested to P.W.1 to sleep in the house of P.W.2 apprehending that there would be some danger to P.W.2 from the accused. The entire incident is said to have taken place at the house of P.W.2 and there cannot be much doubt with regard to presence of P.W.2 or P.W.1 at the house. The said incident took place in the mid night between 1.00 AM and 1.30 AM. The entire incident is said to have taken place at the house of P.W.2 and there cannot be much doubt with regard to presence of P.W.2 or P.W.1 at the house. The said incident took place in the mid night between 1.00 AM and 1.30 AM. The accused is not a stranger to the prosecution witnesses and he is closely related to the material prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the night hours and in the absence of any streetlight, it would be difficult for the prosecution witnesses to identity the assailant. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the accused cannot be accepted for the reason that the accused is well known to the prosecution witnesses since he is none other than son of P.W.2. 12. Apart from it, when the prosecution witnesses intervened when the accused was hacking the deceased, the accused dealt a blow on the mouth of P.W.2, wherein she sustained injury on her mouth. This Court perused the evidence of P.W.11, who is Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Rajamahendravaram. She examined P.W.2 and found swelling of upper lip on left side. She opined that the injury received by her is simple in nature. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate. The evidence of the Doctor corroborates the evidence of P.W.2. 13. The prosecution examined neighbours P.Ws.6 to 8 to prove the fact that after hearing cries, they came to the scene of offence. Though P.Ws.6 to 8 are not eyewitnesses as per their evidence, their evidence cannot be brushed aside for the reason that immediately after hearing the cries, they went to the scene of offence and saw the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood. Their evidence would lend support to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as they were present at the scene of offence at the relevant point of time of the incident. 14. Another incriminating circumstance is that during course of examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, though the accused denied committing murder, he admitted about other things deposed by P.W.1 and further stated that he was taken away by the police at 6.00 AM on that day and dried clothes were seized. This circumstance supports the case of prosecution that the accused was present at the scene of offence in the morning as well. This circumstance supports the case of prosecution that the accused was present at the scene of offence in the morning as well. Though he did not give any explanation as to what happened on that night, he admitted that what all stated in the evidence of P.W.1 happened, except committing the murder. The accused, being elder male member, admitted his presence during that night, which corroborates evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and hence absence of any explanation is another incriminating circumstance against him. 15. Blood stained clothes of the accused were seized by P.W.13-investigating officer in the presence of P.W.10. As per Ex.P19-report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, human blood was detected on the pant of the accused, pant of the deceased and the mat. In the absence of any explanation from the accused with regard to presence of blood on his pant, it is another incriminating circumstance proved by the prosecution. 16. From the foregoing discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution is able to establish its case as against the accused for the charges levelled against him. The learned Sessions Judge, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant/sole accused, and this Court is of the opinion that the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is well reasoned and calls for no interference by this Court. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 09.01.2017 in Sessions Case No.186 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.