HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Hyderabad High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the murder accused against their conviction as the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt about the commission of offence by the accused. The bench, however, set off the period of detention/imprisonment undergone by the appellants-accused before trial and after trial, against the term of imprisonment.
In the same case, the bench dismissed another appeal filed by the de facto complainant (wife of the deceased) against the acquittal of two other accused who are daughter and son of accused number one and two, respectively.
The bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice P Keshava Rao was recently dismissing the two appeals challenging the judgment of VI Additional district and sessions judge (fast track court), Markapur, Prakasam district in convicting and sentencing the three accused-appellants (A1 to A3) to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and acquittal of two other accused (A4 and A5).
The case of the prosecution is that with an intention to settle scores with the deceased Bandla Chinnaiah in connection with a land dispute, on the evening of Oct 9, 2006 the accused Appani Venkateswarlu (A1), Venkata Subbaiah (A2), Venkataiah (A3), Vijayamma (A4) and Yedukondalu (A5) attacked the deceased with lethal weapons before sprinkling chilli powder on the latter's face. The deceased succumbed to injuries instantly. On seeing the same, Bandla Jayamma, wife of the deceased, went to rescue him and she was beaten by one of the accused. The police registered the cased based on a complaint by Jayamma against all the accused and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet before the trial court. In Dec 2010, the sessions court convicted the first three accused and acquitted the remaining two who were not found guilty of the said offence. Aggrieved with the same, the above two appeals were filed before the High Court.
The counsel for appellants-accused urged the court to acquit the appellants as the prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses, who were present at the time of commission of offence, from the same street. The evidence given by the interested witnesses being the wife and relatives cannot be relied upon for giving conviction. The lower court failed to appreciate that the reasons given for acquitting the two accused of all the charges would equally apply to the appellants, he argued.
On the other hand, the state public prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the de facto complainant/witness had witnessed the commission of offence and was attacked when she interfered. As for the delay in lodging the FIR, the complainant was constrained to lodge the complaint with the police on the next day early hours due to fear of the accused. There was no truth in the contention of the appellants that FIR was filed belatedly only to implicate them, he added.
As for the acquittal of two accused (A4 and A5), the public prosecutor supported the version of the counsel for appellants that there was no possibility to identify as to who really sprinkled chilli powder on the face of the deceased as the incident took place at 7 pm. Though no specific overt acts were attributed at both the accused, omnibus allegations were made against them.
After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the bench said that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt about the commission of offence by A1 to A3 (appellants-accused). The bench upheld the judgment of the trial court saying that there was no irregularity or illegality in the order given by the court below in convicting them for the offence under Section 302 IPC (punishment for murder) and 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons). The bench, however, set off the period of detention/imprisonment undergone by the appellants before trial and after trial against the term of imprisonment.
While upholding the order of the trial court in acquitting the other two accused (A4 and A5), the bench said that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution was not inspiring confidence with regard to the presence and participation of these two accused at the scene of occurrence and was doubtful, and hence it was a fit case to give benefit of doubt to both of them.