IRLAPATI SUBBAYA Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged, with his three brother-in-law, Bayyarapu Butchiah, Bayyarapu Chandriah, and Bayyarapu Kotayya, for offences punishable under Ss. 302, 325 and 323 Indian Penal Code each read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, for having murdered Irlapati Ramayya and causing grievous hurt to Ankayya, P.W.2, and simple injury to China Veerayya, P.W.1, at about 4.30 p.m. on 15-6-1969, in front of the house of Vipparla Peda Veerayya in Village Vipperla, District Guntur in the State of Andhra Pradesh. They were tried and acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of Guntur who attached considerable importance to the supposed delay in lodging the First Information Report of the alleged occurrence at 10.30 p.m. on 15-6-1969 at Police Station, Sattanapalli, 13 miles away from the scene of the incident. The prosecution had a sufficiently good explanation for the supposed delay inasmuch as the wife and other relations of the deceased were busy trying to get adequate medical attention for the deceased before thinking of making the F.I.R. The High Court had, on an appeal to it, considered this and other questions involved in the case and convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 to life imprisonment and awarded other appropriate sentences under Ss. 325 and 323 I.P.C. to him. The High Court had convicted the three other, co-accused under Ss. 323 and 324 I.P.C. only and has sentenced them to a fine of Rupees 150/- only and; in default of payment of fine, to three months rigorous imprisonment. Consequently, the appellant, had his right to appeal to this Court against the reversal of the order of his acquittal. The co-accused,not being in that advantageous position, could not obtain any special leave to appeal.

(2.) As this is an appeal, in exercise of a newly created right of appeal to this Court, we have examined the evidence on record. The points raised on behalf of the appellant, on this evidence are mentioned below.

(3.) Firstly, it is pointed out that page No. W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, as well as P.W.10, and P.W.11, are relations of the deceased, highly interested in securing the convictions of the appellant on account of partnership. It was urged that page No. W.5 and P.W.6, were wrongly treated as alleged "independently witnesses" by this High Court. It was suggested to the prosecution witnesses in the course of their cross-examination, that the real occurrence took place elsewhere and consisted of long drawn out stone pelting by two sides during the day in the course of which both sides were injured. In support of this version, reliance was placed upon several telltale, or, at least, highly suspicious circumstances which were not adequately explained by the prosecution. Secondly, no blood was found anywhere near the Neem tree in front of the house of P.W.3, Peda Veerayya, where the occurrence is said to have taken place. Thirdly, it was established, from the statement of the investigating Offier, that the trunk of the Neem tree under which the alleged occurrence took place was about 5 to 6 ft. high so that o lathis could be lifted and brought down to beat the injured without obstruction by branches as was admitted by Lakshmayya. P.W.4, and China Veerayya, P.W.1, fourthly, the site plan showed quite a number of stones lying at some distance from the scene of occurrence. Fifthly, a number of independent witnesses, apart from the ones examined, (who are all characterised by the appellant's Counsel as "partisan witnesses"), were said to be available but not examined. Although this was admitted as a fact in the Committing Magistrate's Court by P.W.1, a new version was, it was submitted, given at the trial. Sixthly, there were injuries upon the appellant's body which had not been explained by the prosecution version although a belated attempt had been made by Lakshmayya, P.W.4, at the trial, to explain these injuries by alleging that the four injuries, all on the head of the appellant, which, according to the Doctor, could be caused by stone throwing also, were caused by P.W.4. This new version was, it was urged, incredible in view of the prosecution case of the aggressiveness of the accused and youthfulness of P.W.4 aged 22, who admitted that he had run away as he was afraid of being beaten and was chased. It was pointed out that this attempt to explain the injuries on the head of the appellant was neither consistent with the earliest prosecution version nor with statements of other prosecution witnesses where no such incident is mentioned. It was, therefore, submitted that this belated attempt was not an explanation at all but only an indication of falsehood and fabrication in the case. Seventhly, we were taken trhrough the statements of prosecution witnesses, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, as to the time of the occurrence which was variously stated by them to have taken place at different times between noon and just before sunset. This was certainly a most unusual variation which could not be explained by mere inability of villagers to give the exact time. The villagers had described the time by reference to "baras" before sunset and the colour of the sun which was described as red by one witness so that it was nearing sunset, according to him at the time of the occurrence. This feature of the evidence was more consistent with some long drawn out occurrence such as stone throwing or with the fact that all the alleged witnesses could not be there. In any case, they could not be there at the same time. Their versions, therefore, appear highly suspicious. Eighthly, there were variations in the statements of witnesses about the time and place at which China Veerayya, P.W.1 and Ankayya, P.W.2, were said to have have been beaten. Sayamma, P.W.10, for example had stated that Ankayya, P.W.2 was beaten at a distance of 10 to 15 yds. from the house of Peda Veerayya, P.W.3 at the junction of North, South streets and East West street. Sub-Inspector Perayya, P.W.22, stated that this junction was about 60 to 70 yds. from the house of Peda Veerayya. Venkamma, P.W.12, had stated that the place where Ankayya, P.W.2 fell was at a distance of only 1 or 2 yds. from the house of Peda Veerayya, P.W.3. According to the appellant's Counsel, the cumulative effect of the features mentioned above and of even minor discrepancies which would, in a different context, be quite unimportant, was to indicate that the witnesses had not really seen or described the occurrence as it took place but were putting forward a substantially incorrect version.