GUNTUKA NARAYANA SURYAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-4-1993 rendered in S.C.No. 366 of 1992 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar under which A-6 was convicted under Section 304-II IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years; A-5 to A-17 have been convicted under Section 201 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: The deceased Narayana was the son of P.W.1-Munuguri Narsaiah. Narayana was working as a Farm Servant under one Tatipelli Pedda Rajam.The said Tatipelli Pedda Rajam's younger brother Chinna Rajam has a daughter by name Radha. It appears that there was some affair between the deceased and the said Radha. Whereas other witnesses deposed that the deceased has seduced the said Radha. P.W.11, however mentions that the deceased had raped her. It is not clear from the evidence whether the allegations against the deceased are that he raped or of some lesser allegations like misbehaviour or assault. Anyway on the allegation against the conduct of the deceased the village elders appear to have been approached and accordingly on 5th August, 1998 a Panchayat was said to have been called in the village Venkataraopet to decide the complaint of misbehaviour by the deceased against one Radha. P.W.1, and his wife and the deceased went to that Tanchayat'. P.W.I was asked to give a security deposit of Rs. 1,000/- in the 'Panchayat'. Next day the deceased, P.W.1 went to the Panchayat. There P.W.1 was asked to deposit another sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards deposit. He accordingly made the said deposit. The 'Panchayat' was postponed for the next day i.e., to Tuesday 7-8-1998. On that day P.W.I his son and P.W.2 attended the Panchayat. According to P.W.1, the elders abused his son and tried to assault him. It is stated that A-6-Sudavani Bhoomaiah pulled his son and took him away from that 'Panchayat' to 'Vorregadda'. P.W. 1 and 2 accompanied him. At 'Vorregadda' five extremists ('Annalu') were there, having guns with them. They asked about the offence committed by P.W.1's son. P.W.1 replied that his son did not commit any offence. Then the extremists beat him. Then the extremists and other villagers and all the accused together beat his son with sticks causing serious injuries. Then the accused brought his son to the bus stand. P.W.1 took him to his house where he died in the evening on the same day. As the deceased was unmatried, P.W.1 and their family members wanted to dispose of the dead body by burial. But it is stated that the accused, all belonging to the same village i.e., Venkataraopet, did not permit him to do so and got the dead body of the deceased burned, presumably with a view to cause disappearance of the evidence of the death of the deceased, by violence at the hands of the accused. The dead body was accordingly burnt. Subsequently, three days after the incident, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave his statement under Ex.P-1, which was recorded by Circle Inspector of Police-P.W.16. P.W.16 registered a case in Crime No. 54/1990 under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. P.W.16 took up the investigation and he visited the scene of offence i.e., the Hanuman Temple area at the outskirts of Venkatraopet village. He drew the rough sketch of the scene of the offence- Ex.P-11, in which place original Panchayat appears to have taken place. He also visited the place where the deceased was beaten by the extremists and also the place where the dead body was burnt. He seized burnt bones in the presence of mediators which is M.O.No. 1. On 18-8-1990 he arrested A-6 to A-17 at the Mango Garden of Gajula Anjaiah at Venkatraopet village and sent them to judicial remand. M.0.1 was sent to Judicial First Class Magistrate along with a letter of advice whosent them to the Chemical Examiner. Besides P.W.1 Munuguri Narsaiah, P.W.2-Munuguri Rajamma, P.W.6-Bangari Pochaiah and P.W.12 who are said to be eye-witnesses, P.W.3-D. Gangaram, P.W.4 S. Hanmanthu, P.W.S-Chittala Pochaiah, P.W.8-Kanuganti Veeramallaiah, P.W.9-Mudigonda Gangaram and P.W.l0-Ravikanti Shanker, P.W.13 Kaniganti Devarajam, P.W.14-Erra Hanmanthu were also examined by the prosecution as witnesses, but they did not choose to support the prosecution version and they were permitted to be cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.11- Thadipalli Radha has been examined with regard to misbehaviour she sufferred at the hands of the deceased, but she has not supported the version of the prosecution.

(3.) It is apparent that the case of the prosecution hinges on the evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws. 1,2,6 and 12.