Garlapati Krishna Vs.
State of A.P Rep. by Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
This appeal is directed
against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra
Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1113 of 2004 dated 11th August, 2006. By the impugned
judgment and order, the High Court has affirmed the findings and the conclusions
reached by the II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II) in S.C.No.159
of 2001 dated 21.04.2004.
The Trial Court, after
ignoring the minor contradictions, has come to the conclusion that the Prosecution
has proved the case against the accused person. Accordingly, it has convicted and
sentenced the accused person to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.').
We have heard Mr. A. T.
M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the appellant. The learned
senior counsel would contend that the finding and conclusion reached by the
Trial Court is fully perverse and, therefore, requires interference of this Court.
In support of this contention, the learned senior counsel would take us through
the evidence of P.W.Nos.1,2,6, 16 and 17. We have carefully perused the
evidence that was read to us by Shri Ranga Ramanujam.
After reading the evidence,
we cannot agree with the submission that the findings of the Trial Court as well
as the High Court suffers from the vice of perversity. In that view of the
matter, we cannot accept the submission of the learned senior counsel Shri
Ranga Ramanujam. The learned senior counsel would further contend that there is
enormous delay in lodging the First Information Report before the jurisdictional
In the present case, the
incident took place at 10.30 p.m. on 10.02.2000. On the next date i.e. on 11.02.2000
at 7.00 a.m. F.I.R. was lodged. This aspect of the matter has been taken note of
by the High Court and the High Court has stated as under : "In the case covered
by the above decision, the incident occurred opposite to the police station.
When there was a delay
of 12 hours in giving the complaint, the Court entertained a doubt about the genuineness
of the version given by the prosecution at a belated stage and made the above observation.
But in the present case, the offence took place at about 10.30 p.m. Immediately,
they took the deceased to the hospital and the doctor on examining the deceased
declared dead and they remained at the hospital till the morning and the report
was presented to the police at about 7.00 a.m. on the next day morning. This is
a case against the sole accused.
There was consistency
in the version of the prosecution from the beginning that the accused was
responsible for the death of the deceased. The accused is no other than the
neighbour of the deceased and related to them. If there are number of accused
and if overt acts are attributed to such accused, one can apprehend that the
people who have not participated in the commission of offence were also arrayed
as accused after due deliberations by taking sufficient time.
But here there was only
one accused who was inimical towards the deceased, therefore, the delay in
preferring the complaint by itself is not a ground to threw away the prosecution
case when there is sufficient material to establish that 3 the accused is responsible
for the commission of the offence, the above decision is not applicable to the
facts of the case.
carefully seen the conclusions reached by the High Court. In our opinion, this
is the only conclusion that could have been taken by the High Court keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of the case. The view that is taken by the High
Court cannot be characterized as a perverse finding.
In that view of the matter,
the submission of the learned senior counsel cannot be accepted by us. Accordingly,
we do not see any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court
which is affirmed by the High Court. Therefore, confirming the order and judgment
passed by the High Court, we reject the appeal filed by the appellant. Ordered accordingly.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)