LexPOLAMURI CHANDRA SEKHARARAO @ CHINNA@ BABJI versus STATE OF A.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 581
POLAMURI CHANDRA SEKHARARAO @ CHINNA@
BABJI
.V.
STATE OF A.P.
{Criminal Appeal No. 2168 of 2009)
JULY 23, 2012
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.)
PENAL CODE, 1860:
s. 302 - Accused committing murder of his elder sister's
son - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction and sentence of
A
B
c
life imprisonment-by courts below - Held: Trial court has
rightly held that though the two eye-witnesses fumed hostile,
0
their presence at the police station was admitted and
correctness of the report given by one of them at the police
station could not be questioned - The said reporl disclosed
that the deceased went to the house of accused who got
enraged by the conduct of the deceased in his attempt to
develop close relationship with his daughter - He stabbed E
repeatedly th~ deceased and went to police station along with
the said two eye-witnesses and handed over the knife to the
police - The SFL report supported the prosecution case - The
fact that the dead body was found in the compound of the
accused is not in dispute - The overall consideration of the
F
evidence available on record only substantiates the guilt of
the accused in the killing of the deceased f'lnd consequently
the conclusion reached by trial court and upheld by High
Court does not call for any interference - Evidence -
Testimony of hostile witnesses - Evidentiary value of related
G
witnesses - Circumstantial evidence.
The appellant was prosecuted for committing the
murder of the son of his elder sister (PW-3). The case of
581
· H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 6 S.C.R.
A the prosecution as stated in Ext. P-1, the statement of PW-
1, the daughter of the accused, was that on the stated
date and time, the deceased went to the house of the
accused and on latter's asking, the deceased stated that
he would marry both his daughters (PWs 1 and 2).
B Enraged by the statement of the deceased, the accused
brought a knife from his bed room and stabbed several
times the deceased. The accused along with PWs 1 and
2 went to the police station and handed over the knife
there stating that he had killed the deceased. The
c statement of PW 1 (Ext. P-1) was registered. Before the
trial court, PWs 1 and 2 turned hostile. However, the trial
court relying upon the other evidence convicted the
accused u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to life
imprisonment. The High Court declined .to interfere.
D
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the
accused-appellant that the so-called eye-witnesses,
namely, PW-1 and PW-2, having turned hostile, Ext P-1
could not be acted upon; and that PWs 3, 4, 6 and 7 were
closely related to the deceased and, as such, their
E version could also not be relied upon.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The fact that the dead body of the
F deceased with a number of bleeding injuries was found
in the compound of the appellant is not in dispute. It is
also not in dispute that the said fact was reported to the
Police Station by PWs-1 and 2 along with the accused.
The knife (M.0.-10) was seized in the presence of PW-10
by PW-14 under Ext. P-5. The FSL report also confirmed
G that human blood was found on the weapon (M.0.-10)
though the origin of the blood group was stated to be not
traceable. The doctor (PW-13) also confirmed that the
incised cut injuries could have been caused by a weapon
like Ext M.0.-10. Further, the appellant also admitted that
H
POLAMURI CHANDRA SEKHARARAO@ CHINNA@ BABJI v. 583
STATE OF A.P.
he was not in talking terms with his wife and that is why A
she was living with her parents; and that the deceased
used to stay in the same house in which his wife and
PWs-1 and 2 were also staying. Every circumstance
noted by the trial court goes to show that it was the
appellant who got enraged by the conduct of the
B
deceased in his attempt to develop close relationship with
his daughter (PW-2) which was not to his liking, inasmuch
as he was not in good terms with the mother of the
deceased (PW-3). [para 14, 16 and 18] (588-C-E; 590-F-H;
591-A-B]
C
1.2 The trial court held that though PWs-1 and 2
turned hostile, they deposed that they saw the dead body
bf the deceased in the house of the appellant; that they
went to the police station along with the appellant; and
that Ext. P-1 report was given by PW-1. The presence of D
PWs-1 and 2 in the police station was admitted and the
correctness of Ext. P-1 cannot beExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.