KUDUMULA PRATAP REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of A-1 to A-4. A-1 is convicted under S. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under S. 302 read with S. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under S. 302 read with S. 109 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A1 to A3 are also convicted under Ss. 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under S. 201 I.P.C. was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. A1 to A5 and the deceased and P.Ws. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of A1, A3 is the dayadi of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of A1. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of A1 and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of A1 and his cousin were murdered and at that time, A1 was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, P.W. 2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, A1 and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while P.W. 3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with country made bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and A1 hurled a bomb which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that P.Ws. 1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to the scene and P.W. 3 also came out and P.Ws. 1 and 2 informed P.W. 3 about the details of occurrence. P.W. 4 also stated that he saw A1 to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that P.W. 5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw A1 to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and P.Ws. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by P.W. 7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, he went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of P.W. 7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying veyyandira discloses that A1 instigated and abetted the crime. Though the evidence of P.W. 2 can be eschewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by P.Ws. 1 and 2. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for P.W. 3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of P.W. 3 corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of P.W. 3 corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of P.W. 1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying veyyara which means attack the deceased. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with A1 to A3.

(3.) The final contention of the learned counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex. P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under S. 294 Cr.P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of 1 1/2 feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial. Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3" came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An 1/2" deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Ss. 293 and 294 Cr.P.C. which are as follows :-