DUDDUKUNTA CHIRRA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This the judgment of the II Additional District criminal appeal has been preferred against and Sessions Judge, Ongole, dated 30-11-2004 in S.C. No.209 of 2001. The appellants are A.1 and A.2 in the Sessions Case. A.1 to A.17 were charged for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), A.1 to A.4 were charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC, A.5 to A.17 were charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, A.1 to A.4 were charged for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act (for short 'the Act') and A.18 was charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC. All the accused denied the charges and claimed for trial.

(2.) The facts leading to the conviction of the appellants/A. 1 and A.2 is briefly as follows: P.W.1 is the brother and P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased-Varikuti Obula Reddy. In the year 1995, A.1 along with others killed the father of the deceased and the deceased was a witness to the said incident. On 21-2-2000 the case camp up for trial. Therefore, the accused made a proposal of compromise with the deceased through PW.6. About 10 days prior to the date of incident they held a meeting with P.W.7. A.1 to A.4 requested the deceased for compromise and the deceased denied the said proposal. The accused threatened him to face dire consequences. On 20-2-2000 at midnight all the accused conspired to kill the deceased. On 26-2-2000 at about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased was near the house of Gorre Malakondaiah, A.1 and A.2 hurled bombs against the deceased causing injuries to his right shoulder and right hip. A.1 stabbed the deceased with a knife. A.3 and A.4 also hurled bombs, but they did not hit the deceased. PWs. 1, 3 and 4, who were watching the incident, tried to rescue the deceased, but they were threatened by the accused and later the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. The deceased died instantaneously. On the same day at about 9.30 a.m., P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.l complaint and it was registered as a crime. The Inspector of Police observed the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body to post-mortem examination. The Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused and sent them for remand. After completion of the investigation, the police laid the charge- sheet.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P.l to P. 15 and MOs.1 to 10. No oral evidence was adduced on defence side, but Exs.D. 1 and D.2 were marked. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the said evidence, held that the prosecution proved the guilt of A. 1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 of the Act. Further, the learned Sessions Judge found A. 1 and A.2 not guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offence. Further, the learned Sessions Judge found A.3 to A. 18 not guilty of the offences for which they were charged and accordingly they were acquitted. The learned Sessions Judge convicted A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The learned Sessions Judge also convicted A. 1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 3 of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. A.1 and A.2, being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, preferred the present appeal challenging its validity and legality.