THATHANNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thathanna, Gopal and Gopalappa. (original accused Nos. 3, 4 and 7) are the appellants. They along with 27 others were tried for offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 302, 302 read with 149 and 324, IPC. The Trial Court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal and a Division Bench of the High Court after reappreciating the evidence of the eye-witnesses and subjecting the same to a close scrutiny confirmed the acquittal of the other accused but convicted the present appellants only under S. 326, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 7 years' Rigorous Imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows There are three deceased in this case and some injured witnesses. All of them belonged to Village Narasapuram in Anantapur District. The deceased Hanumanthappa became the Vice-President of Local Panchayat and he had been residing with his family in Kottam erected by him in his garden. One Rajasekhatareddy was the successful bidder for sale of arrack. The deceased entered into the sub-contract with him for the sale of arrack in Narasapurain Village limits, for which he was assisted by PW 1. A3 and some other accused were desirous of obtaining the sub-contract. There was bitter enmity between the two groups. A day prior to the occurrence i.e. on 12-10-78, PW 1 and the deceased went to Kalyandrug to talk to the main contractor and to apprise him about the challenges made by A3, A6 and 22. There was a quarrel. In the course of the said quarrel A3 declared that if Hanumanthappa returned to the village he would be killed. On the following day, namely, 13-10-78 he came to know that there was illicit distillation detrimental to the contract held by Hanumanthappa. The deceased and PW 1,3,4,8 and 9 gathered together and proceeded to Beluguppa hills where the illicit distillation was said to be going on. That was on the night of 12-10-78. In the morning of 13-10-78 PW 1, 3,4, 8 and 9 along with three deceased got up and were proceeding to the fields. PW 1 and 4 also joined them. While so, accused 1 to 8 came opposite to them raising cries. When the deceased, PW 1, 4, 7, and 8 reached the field they were chased and were attacked by the accused persons who were armed with deadly weapons like axes and sticks. In the course of the same occurrence the other two deceased persons, namely, Hanumantharayudu and Hanumanthudu were also done to death. PW 3, 8 and 9 also received injuries. PW 1 gave a report Exh. P1. PW 15 registered the crime and along with the Constables reached the scene of occurrence in the night. The Inspector of Police came into the scene later as he was away to Anantapur in connection with the 'Band obast Duty' of the Village. The injured were taken to the Hospital and they were treated and the three dead bodies were also sent for post-mortem. The doctor found several incised injuries on all the three dead bodies. PWs 3, 8 and 9 were medically treated and the doctor who examined them found several lacerated wounds and contusions which could have been caused by blunt weapons. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation the charge was framed. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 3, 8 and 9, the injured witnesses and a so on the evidence of PWs 1,2 and 4 who witnessed the occurrence. For the purpose of the present appeal it may not be necessary to consider the evidence of other witnesses.

(3.) The Trial Court acquitted all the accused holding that the eye-witnesses including the injured witnesses have given different versions and to a large extent they differed with the version given in the First Information Report and to some extent the medical evidence also does not support the testimony regarding the alleged crime. In the appeal against the order of acquittal the High Court considered the evidence of PWs 1, 4 and 8 in detail. In view of the discrepancies and the omissions, the High Court did not find it safe to convict any of the accused for inflicting injuries on PWs 3, 8 and 9 themselves. While considering the same aspect the High Court has taken into consideration the medical evidence and the nature of the weapons and the injuries. The High Court has given the benefit of doubt to the acquitted accused.