GANGAVARAM SANKARAIAH Vs. SAKAMURI NARAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appeals arise out of the same case, and may be dis posed of by a common judgment. Ten persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of \ellore for alleged offences under sections 147, 148, 302 read with 34, 302 read with 149 etc. Indian Penal Code A-1 to A-8 and A-10 Were acquitted of all charges while the ninth accused Was convicted of an offence under section 304, Indian Penal Code, but acquitted of other charges. The 9th accused who was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 304 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 1967 While all ten accused are respondents in Crimi nal Appeal No. 676 of 1967, which is an appeal filed by the State against the seve ral acquittals recorded by the learned Sessions Judge on various charges.

(2.) The facts of the case are briefly as follows : P.W. 6, Sakamuri Chinnamma is the widow of Venkatasubbaiah, brother of the 1st accused. Soon after her husband's death about ten years prior to the occur rence Chinnamma went to live with her parents in Cuddapah District leasing out her properties in her husband's village to the 1st accused. As she Was experiencing considerable difficulty in realising from the 1st accused the maktha due to her she returned to her husband's village about one and a half years prior to the occur rence. She lived for a short time in the house of the 1st accused, but later lived separately by herself. There Were dis putes between P.W. 6 and A-1 regarding possession of the lands belonging to P.W. 6. In particular there Was a dispute in res pect of i J acres of garden land. P.W. 6 complained to A-6 and A-7, elders of the village, that A-1 was giving her trouble with regard to possession of 1 acres of garden land. She Was asked by them to pay a sum of Rs. 30 to A-1 as compensa tion for the cultivation operations done by him and take possession of the land. Thereafter P.W. 6 leased the garden land to the deceased, Chandra Chinna Venkatasubbiah, Who sowed horsegram in the land. Nonetheless A-1 and A-2 ploughed away the land ignoring the lease in favour of deceased. The deceased, thereupon gave up the lease presumably because he did not want any trouble from A-1 and A-2. P.W. 6 herself cultivated the land and about a Week prior to the occurrence she and the wife of A-1 exchanged words when she found A-1's wife in the garden land removing grass. A-1's wife Went home and returned with A-1 and A-2 and they beat P.W. 6. P.W. 6 preferred a complaint to the First-class Magistrate at Atmakur against A-1 and A-2 and the wife of A-1, and on 3oth November, 1966, the learned Magistrate recorded her sworn statement in connection with her com plaint.

(3.) P.W. 6 is admittedly entitled to a half share in a pasture land known as Sakamurivari Beedu in which the 1st accused owns the other half share. According to P.W. 6 and other prosecution witnesses the Beedu was partitioned even during the lifetime of the husband of P.W. 6 and the southern half share of the ex tent of 4 1/2 acres fell to the share of P.W. 6's husband. It is the case of the prosecu tion that there is a row of babul and other trees demarcating the shares of P.W. 6 and A-1, while the case of the accused is that the beedu was never partitioned by metes and bounds. While it is the case of the prosecution that on 19th November, 1966, P.W. 6 leased the pasturage rights in her share of the Beedu to the deceased Chandra Chinna Venkatasubbiah. for a sum of Rs. 40, it is the case of the 1st accused that he has been the lessee of P.W. 6's undivided half share in the pasture land for several years paying an annual rent of Rs. 20. On the morning of 1st December, 1966 at about 10 A.M. the deceased and his younger brother Chandriah, P. W. 2, took their five bulls to the Sakamurivari Beedu for grazing. At about 12 noon the ten accused came to the Beedu, A-2 being armed With an axe, A-1 and A-6 to A-10 with spears and A-3 to A-5 with sticks. It may be men tioned here that A-2 is the undivided son of A-1, while the rest of the accused are also closely related to him. As soon as they arrived in the field they began to drive away the bulls from the field and the deceased protested claiming that he had purchased the pasture and that he was therefore entitled to graze his bulls in the field. Thereupon it is alleged that A-6 exhorted the others to stab him. A-9 speared the deceased in the chest, while A-8 and A-1 respectively speared him on the right thigh and hand. A-6 and A-7 also beat the deceased with sticks. P.W. 2, who was at a short distance rushed towards the accused waving a stick which he had with him and hurling stones against them. He Was also attacked, various overt acts being attributed to A-1, A-4, A-7 and A-10. P.W. 1, another brother of the deceased who had seen the accused going towards the field armed with deadly wea pons and who followed them apprehending injury to his brother also witnessed the attack and rushed forward to save his brother, Waving a stick which he had in his hands when he was also attacked by accused 2, 3, 4 and 5. P.Ws. 1 and 2 claim that as a result of their attacking the accused With sticks to rescue their brother, accused 1 to 5 received some injuries. Kaluva Penchalaiah P.W. 3 a Madiga Who Was grazing his sheep near the Beedu, Mallineni Kondaiah, P.W. 4, a brother-in-law of the deceased who happened to pass along the Beedu and Kante Subbaramiah, P.W. 5 who also happened to be passing along the Beedu in search of a lost buffalo also claim to have witnessed the occurrence. It is stated that after P.Ws. 2 and rfell down the accused ran away from the scene, A-9 throwing his spear at the scene itself. After the accused left, P.W. 1 Went near his brother Venkatasubbiah and found him dead. Ghandraiah, P.W. 2 was conscious then, but soon thereafter he also lost consciousness. The Village Munsif of Go Wravaram, P.W. 10 heard from his Thalayari that accused 1 to 5 on one hand and the deceased, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 on the other had beaten each other at Sakamurivari Beedu and that one person had died and others had received injuries. He went to the Beedu and found Chinna Venkatasubbaiah dead and P.W. 2 lying unconscious. He asked P.W. 1 who was also injured and who was Weeping near his brothers to give a report, but P.W. 1 re fused to do so saying that they would not give a report then, but would give it later after consideration. In an adjoining field the Village Munsif found accused 1 to 5 lying injured and of them A-2 was un conscious. He asked A-1 to give a report, but he also refused to give a report saying that he would do so later and not then. The Village Munsif prepared his report Exhibit P-8 and despatched it to the Police station at Dharmarao Gheruvupalli where it was received next morning at 6 A.M. Meanwhile P.W. 1 arranged to take his brother Chandriah Who was uncons cious to the hospital at Atmakur eighteen miles from GoWravaram. They reached the hospital at about 10 P.M. The Medi cal officer, P.W. 13 treated both of them and sent intimation of accidents to the Sub-Inspector of Police of Atmakur Police Station. On receiving the intimation of accidents P.W. 16 the Sub-Inspector of Atmakur proceeded to the hospital and re corded Exhibits P-3 and P-4 from P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively. He forwarded Exhi bits P-3 and P-4 to the Sub-Inspector of Dharmarao Cheruvupalli as Gowravaram is within the jurisdiction of that police station. The Sub-Inspector of Dharmarao Gheruvupalli received Exhibits P-3 and P-4 while he was on his way to Gowravaram having in the meanwhile received Exhibit P-8 from the Village Munsif. P.W. 19 proceeded to the village, held the inquest at which he examined P.Ws. 3, 4,5, 6, 9 and 10 and sent the corpse to the Medical Officer at Atmakur for post-mortem. He found accused i to 5 in their houses with injuries and arranged to send them to the hospital for treatment of their injuries. After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the ten accused. Accused 6 to 10 surrendered before Court on 9th January, 1967.