BANDELA AILAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the accused No. 3 in SC No. 259/93 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. He along with five other accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 148, 302, 506 and 149 IPC, Section 27 of Indian Arms Act and Sections 3 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA'). The case abated as against accused Nos. 1 and 2 as they died pending trial. The case was split up as between A4 and others as he was absconding. Thus, only accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 were tried for the charges as stated above. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and made the prosecution to produce occular evidence of PW1 to 16, documentary evidence of Exs.P 1 to P 36 and material objects 1 to 19. They were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and called upon to enter defence. The defence evidence did not come in. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the sides and on the material mentioned supra, acquitted the accused Nos. 5 and 6 of all the charges, accused No. 3 of the charges under section 27 of Indian Arms Act and Sections 3 and 6 of the TADA, but convicted Accused No. 3 for the offences punishable under sections 148,302 r/w 149 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life regarding the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment regarding the offence under section 148 of IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment regarding the offence under section 506 r/w 149 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 30-6-1991 at about 8.15 p.m. armed with deadly weapons with the common object of causing the death of Madireddi Bhaskar Rao son of Paparao, that they were also armed with fire arms without licence and in furtherance of their common object, intentionally caused the death of Madireddi Bhaskara Rao and thus committed the offence as stated above. The accused 1, 3 and 4 were the members of Singareni Karmika Samakhya party affiliated to CPI (M.L.) Peoples War Group. They were expelled from the party. The accused No. 1 formed a new party called as CPI (M.L.) Praja Seva Group and accused 2 to 6 joined him in that party. The deceased Madireddi Bhaskar Rao was a labour leader and was the Deputy General Secretary of AITUC at Godavari Khani. Thus due to rivalry between the two groups, the accused had the motive to murder Madireddi Bhaskar Rao who belonged to the other group. It appears that the deceased was always carrying a pistol, with him. It appears that accused No. 1 wanted to murder the deceased, snatch away the pistol with him and thereby get wide publicity and acquire popularity to his party in the coal belt area and scare away the people there. On 30-6-1991 accused Nos. 1 to 6 were waiting in front of the AITUC office at Godavarikhani. Then the deceased came out of the office at about 8.15 p.m. and went near his car when accused 1 to 3 held him and took him to some distance on the pretext of talking to him when accused No. 2 stabbed the deceased with a knife indiscriminately and caused him injuries leading to his death. The accused 1 to 3 threatened the employees of AITUC with a revolver and a toy-revolver whereas accused 4 to 6 kept watch at the place to facilitate accused 1 to 3 to commit the offences. It appears that PWs 1 and 2 - Shaik Vazeer and Mohammed Yakub, the driver and the office-boy in the AITUC office took the deceased to Singareni Collieries Hospital in a car where the Doctor examined him and pronounced him dead. On the first information report given by PW 1 - Shaik Vazeer, the Inspector of Police, Godavarikhani Town registered a case and investigated and on finding the accused guilty of the alleged offences, filed the charge sheet.

(3.) The case of the defence is one of total denial. As already pointed out, the learned Sessions Judge found only accused 1 to 3 to be guilty of the charges as stated above and passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence as against them.