GOURA VENKATA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Different political ideologies may be followed in a democratic set up; that is but natural. But when differences become physical and lead loss of life by violent acts it reflected sadly on the political maturity of people and the citizens at large. The present case, as the prosecution version shows, is one of those large number of instances where physical violence has led loss of lives of two persons.

(2.) The appellants who faced trial along with 11 others and two deceased persons, and the prosecution witnesses belong different political parties. The difference between them is said be long-standing on account of political rivalry, and it reached its crescendo on 18th Ocber, 1995 and 19th Ocber, 1995. On the first of the dates, relative of one political leader was allegedly kidnapped and his dead body was found later on the next day i.e 19th Ocber, 1995 which the present case relates. The two deceased persons, namely. Ambi Reddy and Chinna Ramasubbaiah (hereinafter referred as D-1 and D-2) along with PWs 1 4 and two others were traveling by four morcycle with two occupants in each. As the prosecution version shows the 20 persons way laid them. D-1 and D-2 were dragged out of the morcycle and at the Instigation of A-1 Goura Venkata Reddy and one H. Venkateswara Reddy others picked up snes from the way side and threw them causing grievous injuries. After causing injuries, assailants-accused persons went away. The occurrence ok place at 11.45 a.m. The accused persons were traveling in a Jeep and two lorries. The injured persons were taken the hospital; one of them (D-2) was declared dead at the first hospital where he was taken. The docr, however, advised the relative take the other deceased D-1 another hospital for better treatment. At the said hospital in spite of the best efforts his life could not be saved. The first information report was lodged around 1.00 p.m. Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, the charge sheet was placed. It is be noted that during investigation the name of M. Venkateswara Reddy was deleted pursuant the directions of the Sub Divisional Police Officer. As such in tal 19 accused persons were charge sheeted. However, the case of one was separated and 18 accused persons were tried. Out of them A-1 A-8 were convicted, and the rest were acquitted. A-1 was convicted for offence punishable under302 read with109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC), A-2 A-8 were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 147. A-1 was sentenced undergo imprisonment for life, while A-2 A-8 were similarly sentenced for the offence punishable under 302 and two years for offence punishable under 147, The State preferred an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning the acquittal of the; 10 persons and for non-conviction of A-1 under147 and for such non-conviction under148 in relation A-2 A-8. The convicted persons also questioned correctness of the their conviction. The High Court by the impugned order upheld the acquittal of the 10 accused persons. Appeal relating non-conviction under 148 so far as A-2 A-8 are concerned was also dismissed. In case of A-1 conviction was made under 147 and by a modified order sentence of two years was imposed. The convicted accused persons have preferred these, appeals, questioning the common judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. As the appeals related the same judgment, they are taken up gether for disposal.

(3.) According Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, the judgments of the trial Court as well as of the High Court cannot be maintained on more grounds than one. There was delay in lodging, the complaint. In the first information report only 7 names were given out of which name of M. Venkateswara Reddy against whom specific overt acts were attributed by the assailants was deleted from the accused persons. PWs 1 4 did not suffer any injuries, which is unnatural. There was no pre- meditation commit any offence; as is evident from the fact that none of the accused persons were armed. In respect of accused Jaidip the alibi was accepted. Only partisan related and interested witnesses have been examined. It was stated in the first information report that 7 named persons and others whose names were not indicated were the assailants. In respect of A-6 it was stated that his presence came be known. Obviously, PW-1 who was an eyewitness included his name in array of other accused persons. Though his claim in Court is have seen the occurrence, in the first information report a different picture was given and this renders his presence improbable. There were serious laches in investigation and 19 snes pieces were collected as if only 19 snes were lying. This was, obviously cooked up fee in line with 19 injuries found on the bodies of the two deceased persons. The medical evidence i.e. the post mortem report shows that at the time of post mortem it was noticed that the smach of each of the deceased was empty. It is improbable that their smach would be empty at the point, of time the occurrence is claimed have taken place. It is the defence version that two dead bodies were found on the way, it was not known who were the assailants and because of hostility the names of the appellants have been incorporated. The evidence of PW-1 PW-4 is highly unreliable and is contradicry in terms. It was further submitted that there was a police station nearby at which report could have been given by those who had not accompanied the injured persons the hospital. The trial Court and the High Court have not considered the case of the accused in the proper perspective. In any event 302 IPC has no application.