KATTA SURENDERA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). By judgment dated 20th July, 2006 the High Court dismissed the appeal so far as the appellant is concerned, While upholding the conviction of the other appellants before it for offence punishable under Section 324, IPC, custo dial sentence was reduced to one year from three years, fine amount was retained. Two persons, namely, M. Subbarayappa and Y. Ramappa (hereinafter referred to as D-1 and D-2 respectively lost their lives on 9-3-2002. Allegation was that the Appellant and co-accused persons were responsible for their death.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : The deceased and the material witnesses are the residents of Chinnavenkata ramanagari Pale and the accused are residents of Kammavaripalle. Since the time of MPTC elections in 2001, there were disputes between both the villagers. As there was no road facility to approach Chinnavenkataramanagari village, the deceased and material witnesses were trying to lay a road connecting to their village to Mulakalachervu. About six months prior to the incident, they purchased a land from PW- 16 in the name of PW5 and another to lay the road. Against the said purchase, the villagers of Kammavaripalle filed a suit seeking an order of injunction restrain ing the defendants from laying the road and the result of the suit went in favour of villagers of Chinnavenkatramanagaripalli village. On 8-3-2002, on information that the villagers were attempting to lay the road, the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-31) called both the villagers and advised them to wait for one week as the matter was pending. In spite of it, on 9-3-2002 the villagers started laying the road. PW-5 and another, in whose name the land was purchased, requested PW-31 to arrange police protection, on which PW 31 sent PW 17 along with him immediately and also sent PW-18 and three other constables to the scene of offence. Subsequently, PW-5 and PW 17 went and informed the villagers to stop the work, as there was likelihood of some incident. While they were standing, all the accused armed with sickles, knives, daggers and a bag containing bombs and sticks went near them shouting as to how they dared to lay road and they will see their end. So saying, the accused attacked the prosecution party. A-13 hurled a bomb, which exploded and A-2 also hurled a bomb which fell on the ground, but did not explode. They all tried to run away due to explosion of the bombs. A1 stabbed the deceased No. 1 with a dagger on his left chest due to which he fell down and succumbed to the injury on the spot. Then A-2 to A-4 attacked deceased No.2. Immediately, A-2, A-4 to A-11, A-13 to A-18, A-19 to A-24, A-30 and A-32 attacked PWs. 1 to 11. On a complaint given by PW-1, the police registered a crime and took up investigation. After completion of the investi gation, the police laid the charge sheet.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs 1 to 33 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.35 and M.Os. 1 to 25. On defence side, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. D-1 to D-65. Contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were marked. The trial Court, after considering the oral and docu mentary evidence, convicted A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. A7, A9, A 11 and A-17 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sen tenced each to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. All the accused were acquitted for all other offences. The appellant and the three convicted accused persons being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, preferred appeal before the High Court challenging its validity and legality.