AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Hanumanthu, J.—This appeal is directed against the Judgment in Sessions Case No.120 of 1996 dated 10-8-1998 whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, convicted these appellants who are four in number (A1 to A4) for the offence u/s 302 IPC read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to pay the fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each.
These appellants and another by name Nimmakayala Nagamuni Reddy (A5) were tried for the murder of one Nimmakayala Ranga Reddy of Gopalapuram village and for causing hurt to Nimmakayala Muni Reddy (PW1) on 16-5-1995 at about 4.40 p.m. near Machupalli Bus Stand in Cuddapah Town.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
(i) All the accused belong to Khajipalli village in Sidhout Mandal, Cuddapah District. A1 and A5 are brothers, A2 and A4 are the brothers-in-law (sisters'' husband) of A1, A3 is the son of the maternal uncle of the first accused. The daughter of the 4th accused is the second wife of the first accused. Nimmakayala Ranga Reddy (deceased) also, originally, belonged to Khajipalli village. The deceased Ranga Reddy and Al belonged to rival groups in the village. Because of that faction the deceased Ranga Reddy shifted his residence to Gopalapuram village which is at a distance often miles from Khajipalli about 18 years ago. Gopalapuram and Khajipalli are in the same village Panchayat. PW 1 -Nimmakayala Muni Reddy is a resident of Degalavandlapalli and he is the co-brother of the deceased. PW3-Raju Venkata Subba Reddy is doing commission business in turmeric in the market yard at Cuddapah. PW1, the deceased Ranga Reddy and his uncleaned father used to supply turmeric to the shop of PW3 and thus they were the customers of PW3.
(ii) On 16-5-1995 PW1 came to Cuddapah with bags of bitter guard vegetables and sold them in the market and returned to Machupalli Bus Stop at about 4.00 p.m. to go back to his village. At that time, Ranga Reddy (deceased) came to that place on a cycle from Krishna Theatre side and took PW1 to the market yard to enquire about the price of the turmeric. They went to the shop of PW3 and after enquiring about the turmeric price, both of them returned to Machupalli Bus Stop. It was then 4.40 p.m. While they were standing in front of the cassette shop of the 3rd accused, all the accused came there, armed with deadly weapons and attacked the deceased Ranga Reddy. It is also the case of the prosecution that A5 instigated the other accused, A2 hacked the deceased Ranga Reddy on the head with a small axe (Bechu Goddali), A1 beat Ranga Reddy on his mouth with a sharp pointed iron rod and on account of it his lip was cut and tooth broken. A4 beat Ranga Reddy twice on the right and left eye brows, when PW1 intervened, A3 tried to hit him with a stick PW1 withdrew and the blow fell on the head of the deceased Ranga Reddy. After receiving the injuries Ranga Reddy fell down. On seeing the persons gathering at the scene of offence all the accused ran away. PW1 carried the injured Ranga Reddy in a rickshaw to the Government Hospital, Cuddapah, and admitted him in the Hospital.
(iii) The Doctor (PW4) examined the injured Ranga Reddy at about 5.20 p.m. On examination he found the following injuries:
(1) Laceration on right frontal area 10 x full scalp depth. Transversely from mid-line to the right side, edges irregular, bleeding present.
(2) Laceration on right frontal area just above the right eye brow 8 cm x 1 cm full depth of skin, bleeding present fracture of frontal bone.
(3) Laceration of left eye brow 6 cm.
(4) Fracture of nasal bones.
(5) Fracture both maxilla. Contusion present, skin intact, bleeding in mouth.
(6) Fracture mandible right side;
(7) Laceration of the lower limbs completely present left side i.e., sharp injury, lower lip hanging.
Ex.P5 is the wound certificate issued by him for the injuries found on the person of the injured Ranga Reddy. PW4 also gave his opinion that injuries 1 to 6 could have been caused by blunt objects like Iron Rods or sticks and injury No.7 could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. Ex.P6 is the carbon copy of entry in the accident register, and Ex.P7 is the original of Ex.P6 relating to the injured Ranga Reddy.
(iv) PW4 also examined PW1 Munireddy on the same night i.e., 16-5-1995 at 8.00 p.m. in the hospital, but he did not find any external injury and to that effect he issued the certificate Ex.P2. Ex.P3 is the entry in the accident register maintained in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddapah, Ex.P4 is the carbon copy of Ex.P3. The entries relating to the examination of the injured are to be first noted in the accident register and based on those entries, the wound certificates will be issued.
(v) The Hospital authorities also issued an intimation Ex.P8 with regard to the admission of the injured who was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at the outpost Police Station situated at Government Hospital, Cuddapah, received the said intimation Ex.P8 at 5.45 p.m. Immediately he went to M.S. II Ward where the injured Ranga Reddy was admitted, and finding Ranga Reddy unconscious, he recorded the statement of PW1 who was by the side of the injured Ranga Reddy between 5.50 to 6.50 p.m. Ex.Pl is the said statement of PW1 recorded by PW6. The lady Medical Officer PW10 who was present at that time, endorsed on Ex.P1. PW6 forwarded Ex.P1 and P8 to the II Town Police Station, Cuddapah. PW7 the S.I. of Police received Ex.P1 and P8 at 8.30 p.m. and registered the same as Crime No.40 of 1995 u/s 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 read with 149 IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P11 is the FIR sent to the Court. PW7 took up the investigation immediately, he visited the Government Hospital at Cuddapah at 9.20 p.m. and found the injured unconscious. He examined and recorded the statement of PWl. He also seized the blood stained clothes of PW1 and injured Ranga Reddy (MOs. 1 to 5) under panchnamas Ex.P12 and P13.
(vi) At about 7.35 p.m. on the same day i.e., 16-5-1995 PW5 the Civil Assistant Surgeon examined the injured Ranga Reddy and advised to get him examined by a Neuro Surgeon at SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi. The injured was discharged at 9.30 p.m. While he was being taken to Tirupathi he died on the way and his dead-body was brought back to the Government Hospital, Cuddapah at 13.00 p.m. At 3.30 a.m. on 17-5-1995 PW7 the S.I. of Police received the death intimation (Ex.P14) and he altered the Section of law in the FIR to Section 302 IPC and issued altered FIR Ex.P15, Thereafter, the Inspector of Police-PW8 took up further investigation in the case on the instructions from Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Cuddapah, as the concerned Inspector of Police was on leave. PW8 held inquest over the dead-body of the deceased Ranga Reddy from 8.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and Ex.P19 is the inquest report drafted at that time. He visited the scene of offence and has drawn the sketch-Ex.P20. He also examined PW2 and recorded his statement on 18-5-1995.
(vii) PW5 (the Doctor) conducted autopsy over the dead-body of Ranga Reddy at 1.40 p.m. on 17-5-1995. On examination he found the following injuries:
(1) A transverse incised wound 10 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on scalp frontal bone fracture present.
(2) A contusion on left temporal region of scalp 6 x 4 cms. On dissection underline tissue contused, fracture of temporal bone present. Blood clots present in the brain.
(3) An incised wound on right eye brow 5 x 1 x 1/2 cms.
(4) An incised wound on left eye brow 4 x 1 x 1/2 cms.
(5) Two abrasions on right knee 1 cms. each covered with dust.
(6) An incised wound on lower lip 2 x 1 x 1/2 cms. loosening of incissor teeth present. Fracture of maxilla present.
He also found fracture of frontal and temporal bones. He gave his opinion that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the deceased would appear to have died about 12 to 24 hours prior to post-mortem examination. He further opined that injuries I, 3, 4 and 6 could have been caused by sharp edged weapon. Injury No.2 could have been caused by a rod or stick and Injury No.5 could have been caused by a fall. Ex.P9 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him.
(viii) After returning from leave, the regular Inspector of Police, PW9, took up further investigation from PW8. He arrested A2, A4 and A5 on 23-5-1995, and A1 and A3 on 30-6-1995. After completing the investigation, he laid the charge-sheet.
To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P21 and MOs.1 to 5. PWs.1 and 2 are the eye-witnesses to the incident. The accused denied the offence. The accused 1 and 3 pleaded alibi. The plea of the first accused is that at the time of incident in this case he was with the Senior Branch Manager, LIC at Rajampet which is at a distance of about 55 kms. away from the scene of offence in Cuddapah. The plea of the third accused is that at the time of incident in this case he was in his office i.e., Department of Computer Science of Engineering, KSRM Engineering College, Cuddapah, where he was working as Junior Assistant and that he also signed in the Attendance Register on that day. DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D1 to D18 were marked on behalf of the accused.
The learned Sessions Judge gave benefit of doubt with regard to the presence and participation of A5 in the commission of the offence in this case and acquitted him. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of PWs.1, 2 and 3. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the alibi set up by Al and A3 and testimony of DWs.1 to 3. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty of the offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and convicted them for the said offence and sentenced them as stated supra,
Challenging the said findings of the learned Sessions Judge, and the conviction and sentence imposed on them, the accused 1 to 4 have come up with this Appeal.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants took us through the impugned Judgment and also the entire evidence on record. He raised the following contentions:
(i) PWs.1 and 2 have not witnessed the occurrence in this case and they have been set up as eye-witnesses as nobody came forward to prefer any complaint in this case and as the assailants were not identified by anybody.
(ii) As seen from the wound certificate, Ex.P5, issued by PW4, it was Nimmakayala Pulla Reddy who brought the deceased to Hospital for treatment and not PW1 as spoken to by him.
(iii) PW2 was examined at a belated stage i.e., on 18-5-1995 and it is not known how PW8 came to know that PW2 is an eyewitness to the incident in this case for examining him. It is also contended that PW2 has been set up as eye-witness at instance of one Narapweddy Pulla Reddy who is closely related to the deceased and that PW1 is no other than a co-brother of the deceased and as such he is an interested witness.
(iv) PW3 is also an interested witness as the deceased, his father and his uncles were the customers of PW3.
(v) No injuries were found on the person of PW1 when he was examined by Medical Officer, PW4 and that PW1 was not examined on the night of the incident. Hence, the testimony of PW1 is not worthy of credence.
(vi) The Investigating Officer, PW8, who prepared the sketch of the scene of offence-Ex.P20 showed the scene of offence different from as spoken to by PWs.1 and 2 and thus there is ample doubt with regard to the actual scene of offence.
(vii) Accused 1 and 3 were not present at the time of occurrence at the scene of offence and DWs.1 to 3 have deposed to the effect that Al and A3 were with them at the time of occurrence and that the trial Court rejected the testimony of DWs.1 to 3 without giving any valid reasons.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted his arguments in support of the impugned Judgment.
At the outset, it may be stated that there was no challenge before the trial Court as welt as before us on behalf of the appellants that Nimmakayala Ranga Reddy (since deceased) died due to injuries sustained by him on vital parts at about 4.40 p.m. near Machupally Bus Stand in Cuddapah Town on 16-5-1995. It is, therefore, needless to refer to the evidence of PW5-the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead-body of the deceased-Ranga Reddy and his autopsy report, Ex.P9. We have gone through the evidence of PW5 and see no hesitation in holding that the deceased-Ranga Reddy died because of ante-mortem injuries sustained by him. Hence, the death of the deceased-Ranga Reddy was homicidal.
We have carefully considered the submissions urged on behalf of the appellants and in our opinion they deserve to be rejected.
PWs.1 and 2 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They have categorically stated on oath that it was these appellants who attacked the deceased-Ranga Reddy and inflicted injuries and after inflicting injuries they left the scene of offence. PW1 is no other than the co-brother of the deceased. It is in his evidence that at about 4.00 p.m. while he was at Machupally Bus Stand to catch a bus to go to his village, Ranga Reddy (deceased) came there on a cycle and took him to Market Yard to the shop of PW3 and there they enquired the price of turmeric and thereafter they returned to Bus Stand at about 4.40 p.m. It is also in his evidence that while they were standing in front of the cassette shop of A3, all the accused came there and beat the deceased Ranga Reddy and inflicted injuries. It is also in his evidence that after receiving the injuries Ranga Reddy fell down and that he took the injured Ranga Reddy in Rickshaw to the Government Headquarters'' Hospital, Cuddapah and that his statement was recorded by the police in the Hospital. He further stated that he was also examined by the Doctor in the hospital along with the injured. Much comment has been made by the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants against the presence and witnessing of the incident by PW1 at the time of occurrence in this case. He further commented that PW1 is closely related to the deceased and as such he is an interested witness and that he was pressed into service as an eye-witness at a belated stage as nobody came forward to give a complaint. The term ''interested'' postulates that the person concemed must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused persons is some how or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that PW1 is the co-brother of the deceased. Simply because he is closely related to the deceased he cannot be regarded as an interested witness when his presence cannot be doubted on consideration of other circumstances in this case. Further nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination why PW1 has resorted to implicate these appellants as the assailants. There is nothing on record to show that there was animus on the part of PW1 against these appellants. Further, it is common knowledge that, ordinarily, a close relative of the deceased would be the last person to screen the real culprits and falsely implicate innocent persons.
The presence of PW1 at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted under the following proved circumstances in this case:
(i) PW3 who is doing business in turmeric at the market yard, Cuddapah, has categorically stated an oath that PW1 and the deceased-Ranga Reddy came to his shop at about 4.00 p.m. on 16-5-1995 and enquired about the price of turmeric and after enquiring about the price, both of them left his shop. Thus, PW3 has categorically stated on oath that PW1 was in the company of the deceased-Ranga Reddy just half an hour before the occurrence in this case. PW3 is an independent witness and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony.
(ii) PW2 who is another witness to the incident, also stated an oath that while he was waiting at bus stand to go to his village, he saw the deceased and PW1 coming to bus stand on a cycle and after getting down the cycle, PW1 and the deceased were standing in front of the shop of A3 and thereafter all the accused surrounded the deceascd-Ranga Reddy and inflicted the injuries and after receiving the injuries Ranga Reddy fell down and PWl brought a rickshaw and took the injured Ranga Reddy to Hospital and that he left to his village. Thus, the presence of PW1 at the scene of offence has also been spoken to by PW2 at the time of occurrence. He further categorically stated that it was PW1 that took the injured in a rickshaw to the Hospital.
(iii) PW6 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in-charge of out-post Police Station located at Government Hospital, Cuddapah. He speaks about the presence of PWl by the side of the injured Ranga Reddy in the Hospital at 5.45 p.m. when he visited the Hospital on receipt of the intimation, (Ex.P8), from the Medical Officer. He also deposed that he recorded the statement (Ex.P1) of PW1 in the Hospital from 5.50 p.m. to 6.50p.m. and sent Ex.Pl and Ex.P8 to II Town Police Station, Cuddapah for registration of the crime. Thus, the presence of PW1 in the Hospital along with the injured-Ranga Reddy at 5.45 p.m. was spoken to by PW6.
(iv) PW4 is the Medical Officer who examined injured-Ranga Reddy as soon as he was brought to the Hospital at 5.20 p.m. It is in his evidence that he examined PW1 at about 8.00 p.m. and issued the certificate Ex.P2 for the examination of PW1. Ex.P3 is the entry in the accident register maintained in the Headquarters Hospital, Cuddapah, relating to the examination of PW1. As and when medico-legal cases are brought to the Hospital, the details of the said cases will be noted in the said accident register by the concerned Doctor who examine the injured. Ex.P4 is the carbon copy of Ex.P3 in the accident register, PW4-the Medical Officer identified PW1 in Court with reference to the identification marks noted by him in Exs.P3 and P4 as the person who was examined by him on that night.
(v) PW7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who took up investigation immediately after registration of the crime in this case. It is in his evidence that he visited the Hospital at 9.20 p.m. on that night and examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and that he also seized the blood stained shirt (MO1) from the person of PW1 under the panchnama, Ex.P13.
The evidence of these witnesses conclusively established the presence of PW1 at the time of occurrence. We do not entertain any iota of doubt with regard to the presence of PW1 in the company of the deceased-Ranga Reddy at the time of occurrence and his witnessing the assault on the deceased by these appellants-accused.
Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-accused vehemently contends that PW4-the Medical Officer who examined the deceased, basing on the certificate (Ex.P5) issued by him, deposed that the injured--Rango Reddy was brought to the Hospital by one Nimmakayala Pulla Reddy and therefore the testimony of PWl (Muni Reddy) that he brought the injured-Ranga Reddy to the Hospital cannot be accepted and as such his presence at the scene of offence is highly doubtful. It is true that as seen from the deposition of PW4 (page 19 in the paper book) he stated thus:
"On 16-5-1995 at 5.20 p.m. I examined Nimmakayala Ranga Reddy aged 43 years accompanied by Nimmakayala Pulla Reddy who came to Government Hospital..... Ex.P5 is the wound certificate issued by me."
PW4 also admits that he issued the certificate, Ex.P5, based on the entries made by him in the accident register relating to the examination of the injured-Ranga Reddy. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances in this case, we are of the opinion that Ex.P5 is a false certificate issued by PW4 to mis-guide the Court during the course of the trial in the case. PW4 himself admits that Ex.P7 is the original and Ex.P6 is the carbon copy of the entries in the accident register relating to the examination of the injured-Ranga Reddy. PW4 also admits on seeing Ex.P7, that there is an alteration in Ex.P7 with respect to the name found in it. He also admits that there is no such alteration in the carbon copy, Ex.P6. He himself categorically admits that the original name "Muni Reddy" as the person who accompanied the injured-Ranga Reddy to the Hospital has been altered as "Pulla Reddy" in the original Ex.P7 and that there is no such alteration in the carbon copy, Ex.P6. Thus, an attempt had been made to alter the name "Mini Reddy" (PW1) as that of "Pulla Reddy" in Ex.P7 and based on that altered name in Ex.P7, PW4 issued the certificate, Ex.P5, so as to create a doubt in the mind of the trial Court that it was not PW1 (Muni Reddy) that had brought the injured-Ranga Reddy to the Hospital. PW4 admits that such an alteration in Ex.P7 is conspicuous even to the naked eye. PW4 himself admits in his evidence thus:
"Ex.P7 is the original of Ex.P6 which is in case sheet. In Ex.P7 original accident register regarding to Ranga Reddy the letter ''Pulla'' are re-written. 1 did not do it. There is no tallying of words Pulla Reddy in Ex.P7 and Ex.P6 as there is gap between ''Pulla'' and ''Reddy'' which is absent in Ex.P6."
It is clear from this that PW4 himself deliberately issued the certificate Ex.P5 with false entry mentioning the name of ''Pulla Reddy'' instead of the name of ''Muni Reddy'' (PW1) to help the accused in this case. If really, PW4 had no such an intention, definitely he would have brought that fact of alteration of entries in the accident register-Ex.P7 to the notice of the Superintendent of the Hospital, but on the contrary, he issued the certificate, Ex.P5, with a false recital incorporating the name of "Pulla Reddy" instead of the name of "Muni Reddy" so as to create a doubt with regard the presence of PW1 along with the injured-Ranga Reddy. This would not have come to light but for the deligent action on the part of the learned Public Prosecutor in marking the original entries in the accident register, Ex.P7, and the carbon copy, Ex.P6. We deprecate this attitude of the responsible Medical Officer, PW4, to mis-guide the Court in dispensation of justice. The medical officer-PW4 is supposed to assist the Court in getting out the truth in the matter but, in the instant case, PW4 had deliberately issued a false certificate, Ex.P5, to mis-guide the Court during the course of trial in this case.
The learned senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy further submits that it is for the prosecution to prove how such an alteration has been effected in the accident register and that the accused are no way concerned with it. It is true that the accident register will be in the custody of the Hospital authorities and the entries will be made in that register as and when medico-legal cases are brought to the Hospital and examined them. Definitely the Investigating Officer could not have access for the same. Hence, the Investigation Officer will not be in a position to say who had effected such an alteration. It is common knowledge that such alterations could have been effected only at the instance of the persons who are likely to be benefitted by such alteration. There cannot be any doubt that, in the instant case, it is these appellants that are being benefitted by such alteration for the reason that by altering the name "Muni Reddy" into that of "Pulla Reddy" as the person who brought the injured-Ranga Reddy to the Hospital, it goes a long way in creating a doubt with regard to the claim of PW1 that he was present with the deceased all through and that he brought the injured to the Hospital after the incident.
Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel, also raised the contention that if really PW1 had accompanied the injured-Ranga Reddy to the Hospital and was examined, there would not have been so much of difference in the serial numbers in OP Tickets in the accident register as noted in Ex.P6 and Ex.P4. As seen from Ex.P6 the examination of the injured-Ranga Reddy is noted at serial number 8366 while the examination of PW1 is noted against serial number, in Ex.P4, as 8372. Based on this, the learned senior Counsel contends that examination of PW1 was done long after the examination of the injured and not at the same time. We are unable to accept this contention. Admittedly, the deceased-Ranga Reddy had received serious injuries and he was in unconscious state when he was brought to the Hospital by PW1. PW4 examined the injured-Ranga Reddy at 5.20 p.m. and he examined PWI at 8.00 p.m. In this context, we should not forget the fact that PW4 sent the intimation to the police at 5.45 p.m. and PW6, as earlier stated, visited the Hospital immediately and recorded the statement of PW1 between 5.50 p.m. and 6.50 p.m. It was only thereafter PW1 could be examined by the Medical Officer-PW4 at 8.00 p.m. Hence, the difference in the OP serial numbers as noted in the accident register in Exs.P6 and P4. Further that itself cannot be a ground to hold that PW1 was not the person who brought the injured-Ranga Reddy to the Hospital.
As against PW2 it is commented that his name does not find place in the complaint petition, Ex.P1, and PW1 also did not speak about his (PW2) presence at the time of incident and that how the Inspector-PW8 came to know that PW2 was an eye witness to the occurrence when he recorded his statement on 18-5-1995. It is not the law that simply because the name of an eye witness does not find place in the first information report, his evidence should be disbelieved or to hold that he was not present at the time of occurrence. Further, it is not for the Investigating Officer to disclose the source of his information. It is in the evidence of PW8 that he examined PW2 on 18-5-1995 coming to know that he was an eye-witness and recorded his statement. Further, PW2 had been subjected to cross-examination but nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. Hence, on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances in this case, we do not find any reason to hold that PWs.1 and 2 have not witnessed the occurrence and that they have been set up witnesses. Further, we do not find any infirmities in their evidence and they withstood the cross-examination. Hence, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of PWs.1 and 2.
The other contention raised by the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that the scene of offence as spoken to by PWs1 and 2 is highly doubtful in view of the fact that in the sketch (Ex.P20) of the scene of offence prepared by the Investigating Officer-PW8 the scene of offence is shown not in front of the cassette shop of A3 but it is at a far off place in front of Nithya Pooja Swamy Rewinding Works belonging to Chandra Sekhara Reddy and Siva Reddy who belong to the group of the accused. The learned senior Counsel further contends that the video shop of A3 is shown in the plan submitted on behalf of the accused (Ex.D1) to the south at a distance of 410 feet from the alleged scene of offence shown in Ex.P20 and thus even according to the Investigating Officer the offence did not take place in front of the video/cassette shop of A3 as spoken by PWs.1 and 2 and as such the appellants-accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.
We are at a loss to understand how the Investigating Officer could show the scene of occurrence in Ex.P20 in front of Nithya Pooja Swamy Rewinding Works when PWs.1 and 2 have categorically stated in their statements and also in the complaint petition, Ex.P 1, that the attack had taken place in front of cassette shop of A3. It is not known how they located it. As seen from the evidence of the Sub-Inspector of Police-PW7 and PW8, they did not take the assistance of PWs. 1 and 2 to locate the actual scene of occurrence. PW7 admits in his cross-examination (page 29 of paper book) that "Nobody accompanied me or was available at the scene of offence to point out the scene of offence". But to utter surprise, he states in his evidence that the scene of offence is situated at Machupally Bus Stand near Nithya Pooja Swamy Rewinding Works. Again in his cross-examination PW7 states that "On that night I visited the scene of offence which is opposite to cassette shop of the third accused" (page 28 of paper book). PW8-the Inspector of Police admits in his cross-examination (page 33 of paper book) that he did not note the cassette shop of A3 in the sketch Ex.P20. He proceeds on the presumption that the scene of offence is near Nithya Pooja Swamy Rewinding Works which is contrary to the statements of PWs.1 and 2. It is obvious that both PWs.7 and 8 purposely noted the scene of offence in the sketch Ex.P20 at a place different from as stated in the complaint petition Ex.P1. We have no hesitation to conclude that this has been deliberately done with a view to help the accused in this case so as to create a doubt with regard to the prosecution version. Therefore, no weight can be given to the sketch of the scene of offence (Ex.P20) prepared by PW8. An eye witness is the competent person to speak about the actual scene of occurrence. No weight can be given to the sketch prepared by an Investigating Officer when it has been prepared contrary to the version spoken to by trustworthy eye witnesses in this case. On facts and circumstances in this case, we are inclined to believe the testimony of PWs. 1 and 2 that the actual scene of occurrence is in front of the cassette shop of A3 near Machupally Bus Stand.
As regards the alibi set up by the accused 1 and 3, the learned trial Judge, by giving cogent and convincing reasons, rightly disbelieved the testimony of DWs.1 to 3. The learned trial Judge discussed at length in his Judgment from pages 134 to 139 in paper book, about untrustworthiness of DWs. 1 to 3 and the documents filed on behalf of the accused in proof of the alibi set up by the accused 1 and 3. The trial Judge categorically held that the testimony of DWs.1 to 3 is not worthy of credence and as such rejected their testimony. We fully agree with the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge in rejecting the testimony of DWs.1 to 3 and the alibi set up by the Accused 1 and 3.
In the light of our above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has established beyond doubt that these appellants, collectively, caused the murder of the deceased-Ranga Reddy and as such they are guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, there are no merits in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction imposed on these appellants-accused for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentences imposed on them by the trial Court are confirmed. A3 who is on bail is directed to surrender to undergo the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. His bail bond is hereby cancelled.
Before parting with this Judgment, we would like to state that it is a fit case where disciplinary departmental action should be initiated against PW4-Dr. Palla Bhaskar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, for issuing certificate-Ex.P5 falsely mentioning the name of "Pulla Reddy as the person who accompanied the injured-Ranga Reddy to the Hospital instead of "Muni Reddy". Registry is directed to send a copy of this Judgment to the Director of Medical Services, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to initiate such action against the said Medical Officer.