LAWS(SC)-1955-10-9

MATHURALA ADI REDDY Vs. STATE OF HYDERABAD

Decided On October 07, 1955
MATHURALA ADI REDDY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Hyderabad confirming the conviction under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the death sentence of the appellant for having committed the murder of one Rami Reddy. He was also convicted under S. 307, Indian Penal Code for having attempted to murder P. W. 2, Venkata Reddy, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. He has been charged and tried for having committed and the said offences on the night of the 27th January, 1949, in a village called Alwal, Taluq Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. The case for the prosecution is that the appellant and one Narasimha Reddy along with three or four others alleged to be Communists, all dressed in uniform and armed with guns, came in a body to this village on the night of the 27th January, 1949, at about 10 p. m. and first got hold of one Narayana Reddy, abducted him and kept him in the precincts of the village and thereupon proceeded to the house of the deceased Rami Reddy to get hold of him. The two leaders of the group, i. e., Narasimha Reddy and the appellant, got admission into the house of the deceased and in the neighboring house of his brother, P. W. 1, by threatening the inmates and searched for the deceased and got hold of him from the terrace of the house of P. W. 1. where he was hiding. Meanwhile one Venkata Reddy, P. W. 2., a relation of one of the leaders of the group, Narasimha Reddy, came on the scene having been sent for by the deceased when he found that the appellant and his associates were after him. The appellant and Narasimha Reddy got hold of this P. W. 2., also and both of them were taken hand-in-hand by them towards the east of the house of the deceased. P. W. 1 as well as his mother, and P. W. 7, a brother of the deceased also accompanied them. While so proceeding they passed in front of the house of one Lachayya, from where the wife and two brothers of the previously abducted Narayana Reddy, viz., Narasamma P. W. 5; Govinda Reddy, P. W. 6; and Pratap Reddy, P. W. 4, were coming out. Pratap Reddy and Govinda Reddy were interrogated by the appellant and his associate, Narasimha Reddy, and thereupon the appellant ordered Narasimha Reddy to fire. Narasimha Reddy in response thereto fired at the deceased Rami Reddy as well as at P. W. 2, Venkata Reddy. Rami Reddy died on the spot. Venkata Reddy escaped with a gunshot wound into the house of Lachayya. There after the party left the village. None in the village stirred out of their houses that night. The dead body of Rami Reddy as well as that of the previously abducted person, Narayana Reddy, were found in the village next morning at about 5 A. M. The police came on the scene immediately and post-mortem examination and inquest were held. This was on the 28th January, 1949. First information report for the murder of these two persons was filed showing as the accused Narasimha Reddy and Adi Reddy, leaders, along with 150 Communist persons". Investigation followed and a chargesheet dated the 17th March, 1949, was submitted by P. W.3, Inspector of Police. Meanwhile accused Narasimha Reddy died and the present appellant absconded. For some reason which does not appear clearly on the record, the committal proceedings were taken only in the year 1952. The appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions by order of the Munsif-Magistrate, Miryalguda, dated the 20th October, 1952.

(2.) There can be no doubt that the deceased Rami Reddy of village Alwal died on the night of the 27th January, 1949, as a result of gun-shot wounds. This is shown by the inquest report and by the evidence of the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem examination. (His evidence in the committing Magistrate's Court has been marked as Ex. 3). This indeed is not disputed. Learned counsel for the appellant does not also dispute that there was a raid on this village that night by a party of Communists armed with guns. His main argument is that what occurred was an armed conflict between a group of communists and the police party, which admittedly was stationed in the village at the time, and that some of the villagers may have been present thereat and that the deceased Rami Reddy may have received gun-shot wounds in the course of that conflict and died. It is urged that the police have foisted this case on the appellant since he was admittedly a communist and that the villagers who now figure as eye-witnesses could all be persuaded by the police to speak against the appellant on account of their general hostility to the communists. Learned counsel drew our attention to various features of the case as justifying the view put forward by him and leading to a serious doubt - so it was contended - as to the commission of the alleged offence by the appellant. Evidence of the eye-witnesses has been relied on as indicating he existence of an armed conflict between the police and the communists that night at about the time when the murder is said to have taken place. It is pointed out that the earlier version relating to this case as contained in the inquest report, while showing that some of the present eye-witnesses deposed about the incident before the Panches does not specifically mention the name of this appellant as being in the party who abducted the deceased and murdered him. It is also said that even in the first information report which followed thereupon, the appellant was given only a subordinate position while in the present evidence he is given the leading position. It is also urged that the first informant has not been traced or examined, that no formal post-mortem report has been exhibited or is available, that the material objects said to have been seized in the course of investigation have not been produced, that the night on which the occurrence took place was a dark one, that the appellant was not a resident of this village who could have been easily identified by the villagers, and that there was no previous identification parade. While some of these arguments may not be without force, they are all such as might well have been addressed to and considered by two courts of fact which have dealt with the evidence. Some of these have in fact been dealt with and answered by the High Court. The details of the prosecution case and the part ascribed to this appellant have been clearly and categorically spoken to by six eye-witnesses, P. Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. They have been thoroughly cross-examined with reference to the various points suggested above. Their evidence has been accepted by both the courts below. Though we have heard learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the above contentions and have been taken through the evidence, we are of the opinion that this is not a case in which there is any substantial reason for departure from the normal practice of this Court not to disturb the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. We cannot, therefore, entertain the contention of the leaned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant has been concocted or that there is any serious doubt about the part ascribed to him by the prosecution evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant however urged some further points which call for consideration. It is urged that the High Court misread the evidence when it stated in its judgment "when people began to collect, the accused directed another accused (who is now no more and said to have committed suicide) to shoot at deceased" Admittedly, on the evidence it was the hand of Narasimha Reddy that shot the deceased. Now, it is true that none of the witnesses has stated that the direction of the appellant to Narasimha Reddy to fire was so specific as the learned Judges have assumed. The evidence of each and every one of the eye-witness is somewhat general. P. W. 1 said "Then Adi Reddy ordered to open fire as people are collecting". PW. 2 said "Then Adi Reddy directed that people are now collecting 'Fire without further hesitation'". P.W. 4 said "Adi Reddy then said that people are collecting. Let us fire". P. W. 5 said "Thereupon Adi Reddy warned his comrades that people are collecting there. Let us fire". P. W.6 said "Adi Reddy warned his men that people are collecting. Let us open fire". P. W. 7 said "Adi Reddy ordered to open fire". In view of this evidence an argument has been advanced that what all Adi Reddy could have meant was that some group of persons who were collecting were to be fired at and not either of the two persons, Rami Reddy or Venkata Reddy, who were being abducted. It is urged that his comrade, Narasimha Reddy, may have misunderstood the directions of the appellant and that in such a situation the appellant cannot be held responsible if some person not intended by him was shot at and as a result died. Now apart from the question whether such a view is legally tenable or not, there is absolutely nothing to show that the appellant was in fact misunderstood by his comrade. The argument has been presented as though there was a distinct group of people who were collecting at some distance and that it was they who were meant to be shot at. There is no such indication at all in the evidence. On the other hand the situation at the time when the direction was given as appears from the evidence is as follows. P. W. 2 Venkata Reddy stated thus: