JALDULA PENTAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A-l, A-2, A-5 to A-8 in Sessions Case No. 126/1999 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, filed Crl.A.No. 1591/2001, while A-3 and A-4 filed Crl.A.No. 796/2002, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 1-10-2001. By the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused, and sentenced A-l to A-8 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 148 IPC, A-l to A-8 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 324 IPC, A-l and A-3 to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 302 IPC, and A-2, A-4 to A-8 to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, with a direction to run the substantive sentences concurrently.

(2.) P.Ws. 1 and 2 are brothers of the deceased and P.W. 4 is the father of the deceased. All the accused are related to each other. P.W. 4 was the Sarpanch of the village of which A-2 was the member of the Panchayat. There were disputes between them with regard to the construction of an overhead tank in the village. On 24-12-1998, a Surveyor visited the village for taking measurements of the tank. In that connection, an altercation took place between P.W. 4 and A-l. On 25-12-1998 at about 7.00 p.m., P.W. 1 went to Church along with P.W. 2. On the eve of Christmas, a film was to be screened in the Church. A mike with speakers was arranged in the Church on that occasion. By the time P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the Church, screening of the film had not yet begun. Therefore, P.W. 1 requested A-l to give the mouthpiece of the mike to P.W. 2 so that the latter would sing a sing in the meanwhile. A-l did not accept the request of A-l. A-l and A-3 fisted P.W. 2 on his chest and pushed him forcibly. As they did not want to further the trouble, P.Ws. 1 and 2 returned their home. They and the deceased were discussing the incident that had taken place in the Church. A-l to A-8 came there armed with sticks and sticks and attacked them. A-l, A-2, A-5, A-8 and A-7 attacked P.W. 1. P.W. 3 tried to rescue him. A-2, A-7, A-3 and A-4 beat P.W. 3. Then P.W. 2 intervened. A-3 and A-7 beat P.W. 2 too. Therefore, the deceased tried to rescue them. A-l and A-3 hacked him. Then the deceased ran away. A-l to A-8 chased him and attacked him. As the accused felt that the deceased died, they left the scene of occurrence. P.W. 1 lodged a report with the pol; e. P.W. 10 registered a case. P.W. 11 took up investigation. He observed the scene of occurrence, drafted rough sketch thereof, got the dead body photographed, conducted inquest over the dead body, sent the dead body for conducting post-mortem examination, and after completion of investigation of usual investigation, he filed a charge-sheet. Six charges were framed against the accused. They pleaded not guilty. To support its case, Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 33 documents, besides M.Os. 1 to 19-case properties. The defence marked Exs.D-1 to D-10. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, questioning the legality of which the accused preferred the present appeals as stated above.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for appellants in Crl.A.No. 1591/2001 and the learned counsel appointed by the Legal Services appearing for the appellants in Crl.A. No. 796/2002 contended that the interested testimony of P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 cannot be relied upon, that though the incident was witnessed by several independent witnesses, not even a single independent witness was examined, that the circumstances indicate that the manner of incident as spoken to by Prosecution witnesses was not the actual incident that had taken place, that in the same transaction, A-l, A-4 and A-6 sustained injuries which was not explained by the Prosecution, that on a report given by the injured accused a report was lodged by the police against P.Ws. 1,2 and 4, that the time of offence and the manner of assault in both the cases was the same, that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. in the present case and also reaching the FIR to the Magistrate's Court, that these aspects indicate that the FIR was brought into existence after due deliberations, that the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses would disclose that the incident took place while P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 were taking dinner, but the post-mortem Doctor found 500 gms. Of partly digested food, that it was the Prosecution witnesses who attacked A-l and his party while A-l was going to his house, and that there were so many improvements and contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 and 4, and so the order of conviction and sentence should be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the incident in question took place in front of the house of P.W. 4, and therefore P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 were natural witnesses to be present there, that P.Ws. 3 and 5 are independent witnesses, but unfortunately they did not support the Prosecution case, that to some extent their evidence which inspires confidence of the Court can be taken into consideration to corroborate the evidence of the other witnesses, that due to the fear of the accused P.W. 1 did not go to the police station immediately and the delay in lodging the FIR was explained properly, that the delay in reaching the FIR to the Magistrate's Court is not per se fatal to the case of the Prosecution, that the contradictions and improvements had occurred due to the lapse of time which do not affect the substratum of the main Prosecution case, and therefore the appeal should be dismissed.