GONDAVELLI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gundavelli Baliah, aged 20 years, and Tupudu Ramaiah, aged 21 years, have preferred Criminal Appeals Nos. 339 and 340 of 1964 respectively from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Medak, in Session Case No. 3 of 1964, convicting them under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life. Baliah figured as accused No. 1 and Ramaiah figured as accused No. 2 in the Court below. Both the appeals will be disposed of by a common judgment and the accused will be referred to according to their rank in the suit below. The charge against them was that they, along with one Baki Ramiah, aged about 18 (who was taken as approver and was examined as P.W. 1 in the case), had conjointly and in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of two persons named Azimuddin and Bogum Raghavulu, by mixing endrin in 'sendhi' knowing that those persons would consume the 'sendhi' and had thus rendered themselves liable under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. The ohence was stated to have been committed on 24th September, 1963 at about sunset time at the cattle-shed of Balakishta Reddy, their master, (who was examined as P.W. 4), which was situate near a well, known as ' Manchineella bhavi' at the outskirts of the village of Duddeda.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is briefly as follows. The two accused, P.Ws. 1, 5, 8 and two others by names Durgiah and Parka Pochiah in all seven persons were at the material time the farm-servants of P.W. 4 (Balakishta Reddy) who was a substantial land owner. Besides other lands, he owns a land near ' Manchineela bhavi' near Duddeda Village. The two deceased persons Azeemuddin and Bogum Raghavulu were employed by P.W. 4 to supervise the work of his farm-servants. Azimuddin (who will be referred to hereafter as D-1) was looking after the agricultural operations whereas Raghavulu (who will be referred to as D-2) was iooking after the pasture lands. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 4 that A-2 was committing petty thefts and was also negligent in the performance of his duties and D-1 had complained to P.W. 4 against A-2 with the result that P.W. 4 had on one or two occasions deducted some amounts from the salary due to A-2. D-1 had also complained to P.W-. 4 against P.W. 1 that the latter was not working properly.

(3.) So also D-1 had complained against A-1. P.W. 4 had reprimanded A-1 and A-2 and P.W. 1 for not attending to their work properly. It further appears from the evidence of P.W. 4 that D-2 had complained also against A-1, A-2 and P.W. 1 saying that they used to let in cattle belonging to outsiders into the grazing lands of P.W. 4 at nights and were taking money from the owners of those cattle. On that score P.W. 4 deducted some amounts from the salary due to these three persons. So it was said that these three farm-servants of P.W. 4 had joined together, as they had a common grouse against the two deceased, and some twenty days before the occurrence they had conspired to do away with the two supervisors and were waiting for an opportunity to execute their plan. About a week prior to the day of occurrence, P.W. 4 left Duddeda to go to some other village. Before he left, he gave a tin of endrin to D-1 to be used for spraying the crops and at the same time warned all the farm-servants that it was a poisonous substance and that after spraying it, they should carefully wash their hands, and directed D-1 to keep the endrin tin in the engine room.