B VEERABHADRA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially Accused Nos.1 to 10 were tried by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District in Sessions Case No.54 of 1995 on different charges. The first charge against Accused Nos.1 to 10 was for an offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. The 2nd charge only against A-2 was for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The 3rd charge only against A-2 was for an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w. Sec.149 I.P.C. The 4th charge against A-1, A-3 to A-10 was for an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Sec.149 I.P.C. The 5th charge against A-1 to A-10 was for an offence punishable under Section 427 I.P.C. The 6th charge against A-1 only was for an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. The 7th charge against A-3 was for an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. The 8th charge against A-4 was for an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. The 9th charge against A-5 was for an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. The 10th charge against A-6 was for an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. The 11th charge against A-7 was for an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. The 12th charge against A-8 was for an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and the 13th charge against A-9 was for an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution was not able to establish the charge against any of the accused punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and therefore they were acquitted of the said charge, whereas A-1 to A-10 were found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. Therefore, they were convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years each. A-3 to A-9 were found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and they were convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year each. A-1, A-2 and A-10 were found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Sec.149 I.P.C. and they were convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year each. The accused were in jail and therefore they were given set off for the period of their detention in jail as under-trial prisoners. The substantive sentences were made to run concurrently.

(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the accused appellants in both the appeals have approached this Court in appeals on the various grounds as stated in the appeal memorandums.

(3.) Accused Nos.l, 3 to 7, 9 and 10 have filed Criminal Appeal No.843 of 1996 whereas A-2 and A-8 have filed Criminal Appeal No.984 of 1996. Both these appeals arise out of Sessions Case No.54 of 1995 and therefore they are disposed of by a common judgment.