KEMMA NEELAKANTHA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated Aug. 3, 1973, by which their acquittal has been set side and they have been convicted and sentenced for the commission of various offences. Both the Courts have referred to the accused and the prosecution witnesses with reference to their serial numbers, and as arguments before us have also been advanced with reference to those numbers, it will be convenient to adhere to that method of describing them.

(2.) The incident which has given rise to this appeal relates to village Kasanur, within the jurisdiction of Simhadripuram police station in Pulivendla Taluka of Cuddapah District. It is alleged that there was long standing enmity between the group of the accused led by A-1, and the group of the prosecution witnesses led by Harishchandra Reddy. The High Court has mentioned the cause of the enmity and the disputes which preceded the present incident. It is alleged that on the morning of Jan 11, 1970, deceased Ramkrishna Reddy and P. W. 16 went to Simhadripuram to make some purchases and were beaten up by A-6 and A-21. They returned to Kasanur some time thereafter. At about 4 p.m. while P. Ws. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 were standing at the house of Subbi Reddy, the deceased went there and reported that incident. P. W. 5 also came running there and intimated that he had been chased by the members of the other party who were armed with spears and guns. All of them then went up the terrace of the house of Subbi Reddy and challenged the other party (i.e. the party of the accused) to a fight. The accused came to the terrace of the house of one Somi Reddy which was at some distance from the house of Subbi Reddy. A-2, A-4 A-6 and A-9 were armed with guns and the other accused were armed with spears. Both sides indulged in throwing stones at each other. It so happened that in those days a police party had been stationed in the village because of the strained relations between the two factions. P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were members of the police party. They had received intimation from P. W. 21, who was the village Munsif, about the likelihood of a breach of the piece and dispatched report Ex. P-1 to police station Simhadripuram for obtaining reinforcement. In the meantime, the three policemen reached the place of the incident and found the two parties on the terraces of the two houses. The policemen warned both the sides, but to no effect and it is said that they saw the two factions hurlingstones at each other. It is further alleged that A-2, A-4, A-6 and A-9, who were armed with guns, fired at the party of Harishchandra Reddy on the terrace of Subbi Reddy. Ramkrishna Reddy received gun shot injuries and died. Several other persons belonging to his party received gun shot injuries. The policemen tried to apprehend the accused, but they ran away. The party of the deceased was asked to make a report but as they were not willing to do so, report Ex. P-2 was drawn up by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and was sent to the police station. A case was registered and investigation was commenced by P. W. 30. The dead body of Ramkrishna Reddy was sent for postmortem examination, and so also the injured persons. The case was ultimately tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, who did not find it possible to place reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused by his judgment dated April 21, 1971. An appeal was filed against the acquittal. Appellants A-1 and A-2 died thereafter. As has been stated, the High Court has set aside that judgment in respect of the acquittal of A-3 to A-9, A-11, A-12, A-13 and A-19, but has confirmed the acquittal of the remaining accused. This is how those who have been convicted have come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) As has been stated, P. Ws. 1 to 3 are the policemen. The first two of them were responsible for the lodging of the first information report Ex. P-2 within an hour of the incident. P. W. 1 was a constable belonging to the police station and was familiar with the names of the accused. P. W. 2 was the "naik" of the armed police and P. W. 3 belonged to his force. The High Court has relied heavily on the testimony of these witnesses and the question is whether it has committed any error of law in doing so. or has misread the evidence in any respect.