STATE OF A P Vs. S RAYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 23 accused in all were put to trial before the Trial Court under Sections 148/302/149 IPC. A-21 died before the Trial commenced. A-1 to A-20, A-22 and A-23 faced the trial. The Trial Court convicted A-2, 3, 6, 12 and 14 under Section 148 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The Trial Court also found A-2, 3, 6, 12 and 14 guilty under Section 302 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default three months rigorous imprisonment. Being aggrieved, two appeals were preferred before the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 1727 of 1997 was preferred by Sathuluri Rayappa A-2, Sathuluri Chalapathi A- 3, Sathuluri Dibbaraju A-6 and Garapati Mastan A-12. Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1998 was separately preferred by Satuluri Milke Raju A-14. By the impugned order the High Court acquitted all of them. Hence these appeals by special leave by the State of Andhra Pradesh.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The accused and the material prosecution witnesses were the residents of village Chilakaluripeta. The deceased Pilli Mohan Rao was also the resident of the same village. Eye-witness P.W. 1 Pilli Subba Rao is the brother of the deceased. The deceased Pilli Mohan Rao is the brother-in-law of another eye-witness P.W. 2. The village Malapalli of Chilakaluripeta is a faction-ridden village. One group was led by A-6 who belonged to C.P.M party and the deceased who also belonged to C.P.M party led another group. Since 1984 there were several criminal cases against each other among these groups. On 7-4-1992 A-1 and two others stabbed the son of the deceased. After the said incident, the deceased shifted his family from Malapalli to Sanjeeva Colony in Chilakaluripeta to his sisters house. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24-7-1992 at about 7.00 a.m. all the accused persons passed in front of the house of P.W. 1 stating that they had killed Pedda Sambaiah and they would kill the deceased Pilli Mohan Rao. P.W. 1 having heard the conversation went to his sisters house where the deceased and his family were residing. P.W. 1 narrated the story to the deceased and asked him to escape. P.W. 1 and the deceased then came to Narsaraopet bus stop of Chilakaluripeta. Then they saw all the accused coming towards them armed with deadly weapons. On seeing the accused they started running and the accused chased the deceased. It is the prosecution case that Sathuluri Dibbaraju A-6 axed on the back of the deceased, Sathuluri Rayappa A-2 hit him on the left side of the chest, Sathuluri Milke Raju A-14 also axed on the back of the deceased, Sathuluri Chalapathi A-3 beat on the back side of neck of the deceased and Garapati Mastan A-12 speared on the back of the deceased. All the other accused meanwhile watched to prevent others from coming there. On hearing hue and cry of the deceased the neighbours came out, by that time all the accused ran away. It is further stated that after the incident P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 went near the body and found the deceased dead. Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged the report with Head Constable P.W. 8 at Town Police Station. P.W. 9 the C.I. took up the investigation and in course of the investigation, statement of prosecution witnesses were recorded, documents collected and having found that prima facie case was established against the accused, submitted the charge-sheet. Later, on appreciation of evidence and documents collected during the course of the investigation and having found the case established against the accused during the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellants as aforesaid.

(3.) The High Court doubted the presence of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 who are eye-witnesses to the occurrence and discarded their testimony. The High Court, in our view, erroneously discarded the evidence of P.W. 2 merely on the ground that in inquest report (Ex.P. 2) it does not disclose the name of P.W. 2 as an eye-witness. In Ex. P. 2 a very detailed statement of P.W. 1 has been recorded. In cross-examination P.W. 1 categorically stated that P.W. 2 Valleru Devadanam was present at the scene during the time of inquest and until the dead body was taken to the hospital. The High Court, has failed to take note that in the first information report the name of P.W. 2 prominently figures as an eye-witness. This apart, P.W. 2 in his deposition clearly stated that he was present at the spot at the time of inquest report. He has also stated that he was examined by the police at the scene during the time of inquest and his statement was recorded. The statement of P.W.2 that he was present at the spot at the time of inquest report prepared by the police was corroborated by the statement of P.W.3 Kondamuthi Bulli Kotamma. He has categorically stated that P.W. 2 was present at the spot at the time of inquest report. The statement of P.W. 2 was further corroborated by P.W. 4 Challa Venkata Hanumanthu Vijaya Kumar, who is a village Administrative Officer and a panch witness to the inquest report. He has stated that two witnesses were examined at the time of inquest report. Further P.W. 5 Rama Chandra Prasad also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2 that P.W. 2 was present at the time of the inquest report. In view of the direct evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the presence of P.W. 2 at the spot at the time of the inquest report the finding recorded by the High Court is clearly perverse.