STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. M NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against acquittal at the instance of the State of Andhra Pradesh arises out of the following facts.

(2.) M. Narasimha Rao, the respondent herein, and the deceased T. Subbaiah were residents of village Veknuru. The deceased was married with PW2 and they had two sons PWs.1 and 3. Some two months prior to the present incident, a quarrel had taken place between the respondent and PW1 in which PW1 had suffered a beating. In order to avenge this insult, PW3 went to the house of the respondent and gave him a sound thrashing. On 13th September 1995, PW3 planned to go on a religious journey to Pedakakani and while doing so, he requested his mother 2PW2 and his father to sleep in his house while he was away. Accordingly, the deceased and PW2 went to the house of PW3 to sleep there that night. At about mid night on the night intervening between 13th and 14th September 1995, the accused respondent reached the house of PW3 armed with a knife and on seeing a person sleeping on the cot in the verandah, and believing him to be PW3, attacked him administering several knife blows. On hearing the commotion, PW2 who was sleeping on a mat besides her husbands cot, cried out in alarm and also attempted to intervene to save her husband, but the accused pushed her down. In the meanwhile, PW1 whose house was close by also rushed to spot and he also witnessed the incident and attempted to catch the accused who, however, managed to run away. The accused thereafter went to the house of his maternal uncle PW6 who told him to get out of the house. At 8 a.m. on 14th September 1995 PW1 went to the Village Administrative Officer PW8 and narrated the incident to him. PW8 recorded the circumstances in writing and sent the information to Police Station Avanigadda and a formal FIR was registered in the Police Station. The accused was thereafter arrested and on the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 449 and 302 of the IPC. He pleaded false implication and claimed trial. In3support of its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all, the primary witnesses, being one PW1, the elder son of the deceased, who had come to the place of incident during the occurrence after hearing cries of his mother and had also attempted to apprehend him, PW2, the wife of the deceased and mother of PW1 and PW3, the younger brother of PW1, who had gone on a pilgrimage and was in fact the cause of the attack and PW8 the Village Administrative Officer, who had recorded the first information report. Certain other witnesses, who are not eye witnesses, were, however, declared hostile. The prosecution also relied upon various documents such as the post-mortem report and circumstantial evidence such as the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the accused etc. The trial court relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW2, both eye witnesses, and the closest relatives of the deceased, as corroborated by the statement of PW3 with regard to the motive convicted the accused. It held that though some of the witness had not supported the prosecution story, it was of no consequence as they had no role to play in determining the truthfulness of the eye witness account of PW1 and PW2. The court accordingly held that though PWs 6 and 9 with respect to the extra judicial confession and the recovery of weapon of murder had not supported the4prosecution, this factor would have no effect on the prosecution story. The court also observed that in the light of the fact that the incident had happened at night and PW2 was an old woman 75 years of age and must have been completely traumatized by the events, the mere fact that the FIR had been lodged at about 10 a.m. or the special report had been delivered four hours later, could not detract from the prosecution story. The trial court, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC but did not record any conviction under Section 449 of the IPC. An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 18th April 2002 reversed the findings of the trial court and acquitted the accused. In doing so, the High Court observed that as some of the witnesses, PWs.4, 5, and 6, who had reached the place of incident soon after the incident, had turned hostile and PW9, the witness of the extra judicial confession had also not supported the prosecution, the reliance on the statements of PWs.1 and 2 alone was a matter which needed examination with care. It observed that PW2 was the wife of the deceased and was an eye witness but as PW1 had come to the spot after the occurrence and had not been present at the time of the incident, it appeared 5that he was not an eye-witness, and the court had to be extremely careful before recording a verdict of guilt on the basis of the statement of a solitary witness. The court then held that the incident had been happened at about mid night of the 13th and 14th September and the FIR had been lodged after 8 hours though the Police Station was 7 km. away from the place of incident and in the fact that the special report had been delivered 4 hours later to the Magistrates Court, which was in the same compound as the Police Station was also belated exercise. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the order of the High Court and after the grant of leave, the matter is before us.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant has, first and foremost, pointed out that there was no reason whatsoever to disbelieve PW1 and PW2 as they were eye witnesses to the incident and also the closest relatives of the deceased. It has been further pointed out that only witnesses, who could be expected at the night in a residential house, would be the immediate members of the family and to look for evidence beyond these witnesses was difficult to accept. It has also been pleaded that there was no delay in the lodging the FIR as the statement had been made by PW2 to the Village Administrative Officer at about 8 a.m. and it was his duty to forward the 6information to the Police Station and if in doing so, some time had been taken as the Police Station was 7 km. away from the village, there was absolutely no delay in registration of the FIR. It has been further submitted that the delay in the delivery of the special report would become insignificant in the light of the categoric eye witness evidence.