PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. GUDDETY VENKATA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh has preferred this Criminal Appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1964 acquitting the 16 respondents (A-1 to A-16 in the case) of the various charges framed against them for the murder of one Arisireddy of Nelampad Village. The respondents were charged with the offence of rioting armed with deadly Weapons under section 148, Indian Penal Code, and further charged under section 302 Indian Penal Code, for casusing the death of Ponnathota Arisireddy in the course of the same transaction at about 9-30 A.M. on 5th January, 1964, in the v illage of Nelampad, Kurnool District. Under the next charge they Were made ( onstructively liable under section 302 and 149, Indian Penal Code, A-13 was charged with having caused grievous hurt to P.W. 2 under section 326 Indian Penal Code, and the rest of the accused were made constructively liable under section 326 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code A-8, A-10, A-n, A-I5 were all further charged under section 324, Indian Penal Code for having caused simple hurt with deadly weapons to P.W.2 and the rest of the accused were made constructively liable under section 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. Similarly, A-g was charged with an offence under section 324, Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to PAY. 1 and the rest of the accused were made constructively liable under section 324 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) All the accused denied having committed any offence and stated that they were falsely implicated due to party factions. A-1's defence was that he belongs to another village Uppalur in Jammalamadugu Taluk of Cuddapah District and that he was not present in the village of Nelampad in Allagadda Taluk, Kurnool District when the occurrence took place and that he has been falsely implicated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the evidence of P.W. 3, the mother of the deceased who came to the scene of occurrence while the accused was still at the scene and the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 8, who were said to have seen A-1, A-2 and A-3 and 15 other persons armed with deadly weapons going from Nelampad village to Gotlur village side immediately after the occurrence, held that the testimony of the two eye-witnesses is very artificial and unbelievable and smacked of interestedness and disbelieved the presence of P.W. 3, the mother of the deceased at the scene of occurrence and also the evidence of P..Ws. 6 and 8. He has also found that P.W. 1 was not the author of Exhibit P-1 the report given to the Village Munsif at about 11 A.M. the same day and that P.W. 1 was made to sign the report the authors of it being, P.W. 4, and P.W. 5 and some other persons. The learned Judge also opined that there was conflict between the opinion expressed by the Medical Officer, P.W. 10 as regaras the head injuries and the evidence of the eye-witnesses and that therefore the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was not acceptable. The learned Judge has also commented on the investigation of the three investigating officers, P.Ws. 15, 17 and 18 and disbelieved the version of P.W. 15 that on receipt of the news of occurrence from P.W. 7 at 11 A.M. he made an entry in the general diary and then proceeded to the scene of occurrence reaching the scene by 1-30 P.M. In short, the finding of the learned Judge is that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not inspire any confidence and it was very hazardous to rely upon their evidence and convict the accused without corroboration from distinterestcd witnesses. Before stating the grounds on which the learned Additional Public Prosecutor rested the case of the prosecution in this appeal against acquittal of the accused, the story of the prosecution, as emerges from the evidence of the witnesses, may be outlined.

(3.) Nelampad and Jangalapalli villages of Allagadda Taluk and Uppalur village of Jammalamadugu Taluk which are all situate within a radius of 3 or 4 miles are seething with factions for several years. The leaders of the two rival groups in each village have formed their own alliances with their counterparts in the other villages with the result that each party or group has its own following in all the three villages. The first accused belongs to Uppalur village in Jammalamadugu Taluk and the rest A-2 to A-16 belong to Nelampad village. The deceased Arsireddy, P.Ws. 1 and 2, the two eye-witnesses, P.W. 3 the mother of the deceased belong to Nelampad. It is the prosecution case that, although A-1 belongs to Uppalur village, he is the leader of the faction of which A-2 to A-16 of Nelampad are members. P.W. 5 of Jangalapalli village and Narsireddy who married the maternal aunt of the deceased Arsireddy are the leaders of the faction of which the deceased was a member. There have been factions in Nelampad village ever since 1946. In the year 1949, one Solomon who belonged to A-2's party in Nelampad was murdered and the deceased Arsireddy and others had to face the trial which ended in their acquittal. In 1956, on a complaint filed by A-8 for attempt to murder, the deceased and P.W. a and some others were tried under section 307, Indian Penal Code and were acquitted. In 1962 one Rajaratnam belonging to the party of the deceased was murdered and A-2 to A-8 and A-10 were charged with the said murder. In that case, the deceased and P.Ws. 2 and 4 in the present case figured as prosecution witnesses. That case also ended in acquittal. In the same year the son of A-11, belonging to A-2's party was murdered and the deceased and P.W. 2 and others were tried and acquitted. In addition to the series of murders there were panchayat elections between 1956 and 1959 which added fuel to the fire to the already existing bitter enmity. A-2, who intended to contest for the Presidentship of Nelampad Panchayat, gave up the idea for want of sufficient strength and P.W. 4 his enemy was elected. The police had instituted security proceedings against both the parties and they