BOMMANABOYINA RAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are four appellants in this Criminal ap-peal. All of them were convicted on two counts -- one under Section 148, I. P. C., and two under Section 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C. There were six accused originally in the Sessions Court of whom A-3 and A-4 were acquitted. The appellants are A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6. The case arose out of the death of one Vippala Pamula Reddy, who was a resident of the village of Gummanampad in Guntur District.The village was divided into two rival groups-- one led by the deceased and the other stated to be under the leadership of one Vajrala Peda Venkatareddy. On the morning of 4-5-1957 at about 6 a. m., the deceased was attacked while he went to ease himself into his yard, not far away from his house. A-1 and A-2 along with one China Venkatayya came to the yard carrying spears and proceeded towards the spot where Pamula Reddy was squatting.Seeing them, the deceased got up and ran towards the east. But the pursuers cried "Where are you going? Stop." From the eastern side just then A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and one China Venkatareddy, also armed with spears, approached the deceased. So beset, the deceased tried to jump over the fencing on the southern side into the yard of Peda Appi-reddy but was caught in the fence.Accused 3, 4, 5 and 6 and China Venkatareddy ran towards him and the last of them stabbed the deceased with a spear on the left side of the chest. As the deceased fell down, the 5th accused pierced him with the spear in his hand. Accused 1, 2 and China Venkatayya who by then reached the spot jumped over the fence and stabbed him too. Finally all surrounded the deceased and pierced him indiscriminately. One Mangamma is said to have intervened but was pushed aside by the 5th accused. This is in brief the prosecution account of the incident.

(2.) It may be mentioned that both China Venkatayya and China Venkatareddy were murdered and that A1 and A2 were manhandled on the very same day at about 11 a. m., it is said, by the members of the party of whom the deceased was the leader. Therefore there were only six accused before the Sessions Court and as already stated, A3 and A4 were acquitted.The case against the appellants must stand or fall upon the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6. P. W. 1 is the brother of Lakshmidevemma, widow of the deceased and P. W. 7 in the case. He does not belong to the village but according to his version came there temporarily for medical treatment although he had not started taking any. P. W. 2 is a Harijan who is a farm-servant of the deceased. He also works at the residence of the deceased. P. W. 3 also a Harijan and is a cousin of P. W. 2, being his fathers sisters son.Further, P. W. 2s wife is his paternal uncles daughter. He appears to be a farm-servant of Vajrala Venkata Reddy, an active member of Pamula Reddys party, though at the trial he tried to deny that he was in Venkatareddys service, and also the fact that he had informed the police that Venkatareddy is an active member of Pamulu Reddys party. P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 are members of the Yadava community and are related to one another.P. W. 4 is the brother of P. W. 6 while P. W. 5 is the wife of Kotayya, another brother of theirs. They all admittedly reside in huts put up on a vacant site belonging to Venkatareddy who is a strong supporter of Pamula Reddy. They admit that they are in permissive occupation of the site and are liable to eviction, at the sweet will and pleasure of Venkatareddy.

(3.) Although the learned Sessions Judge was not prepared to act upon the evidence of these witnesses in so far as it concerned, A-3 and A-4 because they were not unanimous in implicating them, he felt however, that their evidence in so far as it related to the present appellants was acceptable.