BANDI GOPALAKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25-01-2002 passed in S.C.No. 447 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in which, the learned Sessions Judge found A-1-Bandi Gopalakrishna, A-2-Kota Rajagopala Rao, A-3-Kota Haribabu, A-4-Kota Chalapati Rao, A-5-Vallabhadasu Venkata Rajagopala Rao and A-6-Kota Subba Rao guilty for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 IPC, convicted them accordingly and sentenced each of them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC and imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

(2.) The appellants herein are A-l to A-6 in S.C.No. 447 of 1996 on the file of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. They were put on trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 IPC.

(3.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under: P.W. 1-Kota Gopalakrishna is the elder brother of A-4. There were disputes between them in respect of field boundaries. They belong to different groups in the village. P.W. 1 belongs to Telugu Desham Party and A-l belongs to Congress-I party. A-2 to A-4 are the supporters of A-l. Deceased Venkata Ranga Rao is the son of P.W. 1. He contested for the post of M.P.T.C. against A-l and won the election. As the Panchayat elections to the Gram Panchayat were scheduled to be held, A-l to A-6 apprehended that the deceased would contest in the elections and in which event; it would be difficult for them to win. Therefore, they decided to eliminate the deceased. On 21-5-1995, P.W. 1-B. Gopalakrishna, P.W. 2-B. Rajagopal Rao, P.W. 3-Kota Saibabu, P.W. 4- Muralikrishna and deceased Venkata Ranga Rao went to Kanagala village to attend Thirunalla. After offering prayers to Ganganamma, they were returning on cycles to their village Pedavaram from Kanagala. P.Ws. 3 and 4 were coming on one cycle i.e., P.W. 4 was pillion rider and whereas P.W. 3 was rider of the cycle. Others were coming on their respective cycles. After crossing Allavaripalem and on reaching the field of I. Chandra Sekhara Rao, A-l to A-6 came across P.Ws. 1 and 4 and the deceased and beat the deceased with deadly weapons. It is alleged that A-l and A-4 hacked the deceased with battle-axe on his head and whereas A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 hacked the deceased with curved knives. It is also alleged that the accused threatened P.Ws. 1 to 4 with dire consequences if they venture to come in rescue of the deceased. After assaulting the deceased, all the accused left the scene. P.W. 1 by keeping P.Ws. 2 to 4 at the scene went to Thotapalli and informed the Village Administrative Officer about the incident. P.W. 9-A. Nagendra Rao is the Village Administrative Officer of Pedavaram. On being informed of the incident by P.W. 1, he arrived at the scene. He passed on the message about the occurrence of incident to Nagaram Police Station. He reached the scene and noticed that scene of occurrence falls within the police limits of Bhattiprolu Police Station and informed the same to P.W. 1 who, there upon, went to the Village Administrative Officer of Sivangulapalem and brought him to the scene. P.W. 7- K. Veera Mallikarjuna Rao is the Village Administrative Officer of Sivangulapalem. P.W. 1 got the report drafted by P.W. 7, went to Bhattiprolu Police Station and presented the same to the Station House Officer at about 12.00 midnight. P.W. 10-K.S. Chalapati Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police received Ex.P-1 report from P.W. 1, registered a case in Crime No. 19 of 1995 under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and issued Ex.P-7- First Information Report. He inspected the scene, prepared the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.Ws. 7 and 9 and seized material objects; M.O. 1-cycle, M.O. 2-a pair of chappals, M.O. 3-Leather Hand Bag, M.O. 4-Wedding Card, M.O. 5- Controlled earth, M.O. 6-Blood stained earth and M.O. 7-sample packet of paddy. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is exhibited as Ex.P-8. He got photographed the scene of offence by P.W. 6. Ex.P-3 is the bunch of photographs along with negatives. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws. 7 and 9. He examined P.Ws. 2 to 5 during the inquest and recorded their statements. The opinion of panchas has been incorporated in Column No. 15 of the inquest report. During the inquest, he affected seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. M.Os. 8 to 13 are the wearing apparels of the deceased. After the inquest, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. P.W. 8- Dr. T. Kamalakara Prasad conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 22-5-1995 at 3.45 p.m. and found as many as 16 injuries. He issued Ex.P-6-Post-mortem Report opining that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. P.W. 10 forwarded the material objects seized during the course of investigation to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Vijayawada through Court. Ex.P-9 is the requisition, Ex.P-10 is the letter of advice and Ex.P-11 is the R.F.S.L. report. He arrested A-1, A-3 to A-6 on 6-6-1995 and sent them for remand. After completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Repalle. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as PRC No. 38 of 1995 and committed the case to the Court of Session as the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. On committal the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, took the case on file as S.C.No. 447 of 1996 and made over the same to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur for disposal according to law. On hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 148 and 302 IPC against A-1 to A-6. He read over and explained the same to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 and M.Os. 1 to 13. On behalf of the accused, they marked the contradictions in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W. 1 as Exs.D-1 to D-3. The defence of the accused is that the deceased had many enemies and he was done to death in the dead of night and that the case was foisted against them due to political rivalry. The learned Sessions Judge, on thorough appreciation of the evidence brought on record, found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced them as detailed above. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused have filed this criminal appeal.