BHEEMGONDA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 10, 17, 20, 22, 24 and 29 in Sessions Case No.66 of 2006, on the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Sangareddy, filed this appeal against the judgment, dated 17.06.2010, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted appellant No.1/accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - (Rupees two thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment (S.I.) for six months and also convicted appellant Nos. 2 to 9/accused Nos.2, 3, 10, 17, 20, 22, 24 and 29 respectively for the offences punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Section 148 I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for two years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/ - (Rupees five hundred only) each, in default, to suffer S.I. for three months each.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that all the accused including the appellants belonged to Congress Party and one Babu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') belonged to Telugu Desam Party and there were longstanding political factions between both these groups. All the accused bore grudge against the deceased as he gave evidence against appellant No.1/accused No.1 in a murder case of one Mangali Bheemaiah, who died more than a decade back and further suspected the deceased of causing the death of one Usha Prakash. On 23.05.2004, at around 6.00 p.m., near Ambedkar statue of Chapta(K) Village, the deceased, PWs.1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14 and others were chitchatting. At that time, all the accused, after attending the funeral function of one Prakash, while returning, on their way at Ambedkar statue, picked up quarrel with the deceased and others, saying that they would file a case against the deceased in connection with the death of Usha Prakash and so saying, they have attacked the said prosecution witnesses. Accused Nos.1, 2, 7, 17, 20, 22, 24, 29 and others beat P.W.1 by pelting stones and also with axe, as a result of which, the latter received bleeding injuries over his head and back. Accused No.1 beat P.W.3 on her head. Accused Nos.10 and 22 beat P.W.4 with sticks, as a result of which, the latter received fracture on his right leg below the knee. Accused No.3 beat P.W.6 with stone on his forehead, due to which, the latter received bleeding injury. Accused No.7 caught hold of the deceased and accused No.1 beat him with stone over his head, as a result of which, the deceased fell down with severe bleeding injuries. Immediately after the incident, P.W.10 informed the incident to Kangti Police, by making a phone call. On receiving the information, P.W.20, the then Sub -Inspector of Police, Kangti Police Station, rushed to the scene and found the deceased and nine others with injuries. He immediately shifted the injured to Narayanakhed Government Hospital, wherein they were examined at around 9.15 p.m. by P.W.19, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, who issued Exs.P -9 to P -15 - wound certificates of P.Ws.1, 3 to 7 and 9 respectively. On the same day of occurrence, at about 10.00 p.m., on receiving Ex.P -1 report at the Police Station from P.W.1, he (P.W.20) registered the same as crime No.27 of 2004 and issued Ex.P -19 - First Information Report (F.I.R.). On the next day of occurrence, at around 6.00 a.m., he visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and recorded their statements. That at about 7.30 a.m., he conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.W.16 and seized M.Os.1 to 5, i.e., stone and sticks under the cover of Ex.P -6 - panchanama. He prepared Ex.P -7 - rough sketch of the scene, and thereafter, he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Narayanakhed and recorded the statements of P.Ws.4 to 10. At about 10.00 a.m., he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the hospital in the presence of P.W.17, prepared Ex.P -8 - inquest report and sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination. On 24.05.2004, P.W.19 held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and he opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock, and issued Ex.P -18 - post mortem report. On 26.05.2004, P.W.21, the then Inspector of Police, Narayanakhed, took over the investigation, examined P.Ws.11 to 15 and recorded their statements. On 30.05.2004, he arrested all the accused and sent them for remand. He forwarded all the material objects to R.F.S.L. and obtained Ex.P -21 - F.S.L. report. After receiving the relevant documents and on completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and marked Exs.P -1 to P -21, besides marking M.Os.1 to 5. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.D -1 was marked. P.Ws.2, 5, 8 and 13 did not support the prosecution case and accordingly, they were declared hostile.