GUNJA YESU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RUDRAKSHAPALLY , a village situated at a distance of 10 KMs., towards east of Sathupally, Khammam District, was witness to a horrendous evening on 21 -12 -2005. When the villagers just retired to their homes, the heartrending incident committed by persons of maniac manifestations and beyond human comprehension of a diabolical nature, was unleashed. The ghastly incident, which spanned just over few minutes, left behind trail of six deaths and injuries to as many as nine persons. The perpetrators of this ghastly crime are alleged to be the three appellants in the company of a heartless and a docier criminal viz., Thatiparthi Rama Rao, who was originally arraigned as A.1, but the case against whom was not committed since he remained absconding, during trial. Through its Judgment, dated 15.12.2009 in S.C. No. 199 of 2008, the III -Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam, found the appellants guilty of committing the crime punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 of I.P.C., and sentenced them as under: - -

(2.) AGAINST that Judgment, the appellants/A2, A3 and A4 preferred these appeals. The case arises out of one of the most gruesome and deadliest attack by a gang of robbers. It was lead by the notorious robber in the State, A.1 -Thatiparthi Rama Rao. The most disturbing feature is that the attack was resorted to as a frightening and revengeful measure. Innocent persons including those from Scheduled Tribes, were brutally killed or were injured. The persons who were killed are:

(3.) THE contention of Smt. Gayatri Reddy, learned Counsel for the accused is that the evidence on record does not establish that the accused committed the crime, and that the appellants -A.2 to A.4 have no motive, whatsoever for that. She contends that the identification of the Accused by the villagers is based on the wide publicity given about them, through print and electronic media. She further submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and it ought to have seen that A.2 to A.4 did not accompany A.1 on the date of the incident, and that the Judgment under appeal cannot be sustained in law or on facts.