MULKURI DAMODARA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have with the assistance of Shri K. Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, gone through the judgment of the High Colirl. We agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the High court and find no justification to interfere with the conviction of the 7 appellants before us for having committed an offence punishable under S. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As many as 37 persons including the 7 appellants belonging to the CPI (M) party were arraigned in different sessions trials for causing the death of the deceased Jali Reddy and injuries to some of his companions who were ail members of the Congress (1) party. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 4 years. The learned counsel contends that there were frequent quarrels, between the two groups out of political rivalry and in the unfortunate incident on the fateful day, the appellants and their companions assaulted the deceased Jali Reddy and some of the prosecution witnesses resulting in his death and multiple injuries to them. According to him, none of the injuries suffered by the deceased were on a vital part of the body. We find from the judgment that the deceased had as many as 22 injuries on his legs and hands and the assailants apparently wanted to cripple him for life. According to Dr V. Chandranan Goud who performed the post-mortem, the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the multiple injuries suffered by him. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years was unduly excessive or harsh. However, looking to the fact that the occurrence took place on 6/05/1979 i. e. some seven years back, and the unfortunate incident was due to political rivalry resulting in the death of the deceased for which as many as 37 persons had to face a protracted trial on a charge of murder, we think a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years would meet with the ends of justice. We are informed that the appellants have each undergone rigorous imprisonment for a period of is years.

(2.) Subject to the modification in sentence, the appeals fail and are dismissed.