Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2006 · High Court · 2012

trial Court found A3 not guilty of the charges under Sections 302, 307, 324 read with Section 34 IPC and accordingly acquitted her from the said charges; and found A1 and A2 guilty of the charges under Sections 304-II and 324 IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 304-II IPC; and further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each in default to undergo three months imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/A1 and A2 filed the present appeal.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6. P.W.1, the wife of the de facto complainant, stated in her evidence that her husband died about three years back and on the date of incident, she slept at their agricultural fields, but she does not know the reasons for the death of her mother-in-law and there were no disputes between their family and the accused. P.W.2 also deposed that she does not know the reasons about the death of her grandmother at their agricultural fields. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 were declared hostile. P.W.3, the granddaughter of the deceased Sayamma and eyewitness stated in her evidence that on the date of incident, A1 and A2 came to their fields, beat her father and mother with sticks and they took their two bulls to their fields and again they came back and beat her mother and father. She stated that while rescuing her father, her grand mother sustained injuries, but she has not stated specifically who beat her father and grandmother. She stated that she did not observe whether A3 beat her parents and grandmother. The other eyewitnesses, circumstantial witnesses and panch witnesses i.e., P.Ws.4 to 11 also have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile.

7. Admittedly, both parties are close relations. During the pendency of the case, the de facto complainant died. The material witnesses-P.Ws.1,2,4 to 8 and 10 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. The panch witnesses P.Ws.9 and 11 were also declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.3, who was aged about 13 years on the date of incident, only stated about the galata that took place at their fields. She stated that her paternal uncles-A1 and A2 came to their fields, beat her father and mother and when her mother climbed at manche in the hut, they started beating her father and when her grandmother tried to rescue him, she received injuries. Then, herself, her parents and her younger sister Sujatha went to their village and her grandmother remained at the fields. She admitted that due to darkness she could not identify the persons, who beat her parents. She has not stated about the disputes between their family and the accused prior to the incident. Though P.W.3 stated about the injuries sustained by her parents and the deceased in the galata, she did not identify the persons, who beat them, on the other, she stated that A1 and A2 were responsible for the death of her grandmother. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 is not consistent and corroborative in support of the case of the prosecution. In the absence of any corroborative evidence that A1 and A2 were responsible for the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant and P.W.1 and the death of the deceased, it is unsafe to convict them for the charges under Sections 304-II and 324 IPC.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances and in the absence of any corroborative evidence in support of the case of the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the petitioners/A1 and A2 are entitled to benefit of doubt. In that view of the matter, the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioners/A1 and A2 by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 304-II and 324 IPC are set aside and consequently, A1 and A2 are acquitted for the said charges. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties are discharged.

9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment impugned. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 19th December, 2012 _______________ RAJA ELANGO, J