METTU PENTAYYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case out of which these appeals arise, has had a long and checkered career. Two persons, father and son, by names Mettu Danayya and Rajeswar, were done to death on the night of the 1 4/11/1954, in the village of Venkatapur by a large number of Bhois of that village. After investigation, the Police laid a charge-sheet against 25 persons out of whom two persons, Kalchetti Danayya and Gaddam Muttayya, were shown as absconding. Three out of the 23 were discharged by the Committing Magistrate and the remaining 20 persons stood their trial before the Court of Session, Hyderabad District. The then learned Sessions Judge convicted 9 persons and acquitted the remaining 11. The convicted persons appealed to the erstwhile High Court of Hyderabad, while the State appealed against the acquittal of the 11 persons. The High Court ordered a retrial of the case on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr. P. C. which as it stood then, dealt with the form in which the opinion of the assessors had to be taken. The High Court, however, maintained the Order of acquittal concerning three of the accused. The result was that the 17 persons were tried again by the learned Sessions Judge of Hyderabad District in Sessions Case No. 8/8 of 1957. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the same 9 accused as were convicted at the previous trial and has acquitted the same 8 accused. The consequence has been that the 9 convicted accused have been in jail for over 4 years without their guilt being finally adjudicated upon. The convicted accused are; Mettu Pentayya (A-5); Gaddam Lachmayya (A-6); Kuntam Narsayya (A-8); Mettu Jangayya (A-9); Mettu Balayya (A-11); Pill Sattayya (A-12); Pilli Sukkayya (A-13); Pallela Balayya (A-15); and Yelugula Pedda Balayya (A-16); and their appeals are respectively Criminal Appeals Nos. 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243 and 244 of 1958. As against the acquittal of the remaining 8 accused viz. A-1,2,3,4,7, 10, 14 and 17, the State Government has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1958.

(2.) At the trial, a charge which had been framed by the Committal Court in the following terms as against each of the 17 accused, was adopted and the accused were tried on that charge. The charge reads :

(3.) Further, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, a mass of inadmissible documentary evidence has been brought on record, as for example, former statements of witnesses not called at the trial; written communications not duly proved; proceedings of identification parades held by the Police; and statements of a confessional nature not falling within the ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In judging this case, we have scrupulously eschewed from our consideration all such inadmissible documents.