HARI OBULA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment, dated December 21, 1976, of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reversing the judgment of the Sessions Court, Anantapur, whereby he had acquitted the six accused of offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149, Penal Code. The prosecution case, as it emerges from the record, is as follows :

(2.) On November 15, 1973 at about 12 noon, the deceased was proceeding in a bicycle-rickshaw peddled by P. W. 4 (Murad) from the Court of the J. S. C. Magistrate at Cuddapah to his house. Before the deceased boarded the rickshaw his maternal uncle (P. W. 1), who had come to him for borrowing a sum of Rs. 1,000, met him and asked for the loan. The deceased asked P. W. 1 to come to his house where they would talk about it. When the rickshaw with the deceased reached near Nagamalalla Reddy's Hotel, accused 1 to accused 6 emerged from a place in between a tea stall and the hotel. All the six accused were carrying daggers. One of them shouted : "Gangi Reddy Gadu is going, kill him". Thereafter all the six appellants surrounded the deceased, pulled him out of the rickshaw and repeatedly stabbed him, causing numerous injuries. The rickshaw-puller (P. W. 4) got down and stood aside for a moment. When the six appellants started stabbing the deceased. P. W. 4 got frightened and then, ran to the deceased's house raising an out-cry that the deceased was being murdered. P. W. 2 was also present there at the spot and witnessed the occurrence. The deceased fell to the ground but the assailants continued to stab him till he died. The assailants then ran away. In the Meantime, on reaching the deceased's house, P. W. 4 informed the deceased's wife, Veeramma (P. W. 5) about the occurrence. P. W. 5 then rushed to the scene of offence followed by P. W. 4. The deceased was lying dead in a pool of blood at the spot. P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 were present there. P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 took P. W. 5 (Veeramma) to her house. Leaving Veeramma, under the care of P. W. 2, P. W. 1 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint, orally. Thereafter, he handed over the written complaint (Ex. P1) to the Sub-Inspector. By that time, it was about 1 P. M. P. W. 1 then returned to the scene of occurrence and saw that the Circle Inspector of Police and some Constables were already present there. The Inspector examined P. W. 1 and recorded his statement during the inquest which was held on the same day between 2 p. m. and 4.30 p. m. A copy of the F. I. R. lodged by P. W. 1 was received by the Magistrate, the same day at 4 p. m. Post-mortem examination of the dead-body of the deceased was performed on the following day at 6 a. m.

(3.) The trial court found that the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 did not inspire confidence, and it was most unsafe to convict the accused persons on the basis of their testimony, particularly when the evidence of P. Ws. 3 to 5 who were examined to corroborate them, was itself unreliable.