EDIGA VENKATANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against conviction by three of the accused out of seven prosecuted. A.7 died on 24-7-1997. As such, A-1 to A-6 were tried of four charges, viz., for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC (against A-2, A-5 and A-6); 302 r/w.34 IPC (against A-1 to A-6); 449 IPC (against A-1 to A-6); and 324 IPC (against A-2 for causing hurt to P.W.2).

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, namely, Muddalapuram Govinda Reddy of Hindupur was running a textile shop, viz., N.T.C. Venkateswara Textiles, in Hindupur town. P.W. 1 is his brother-in -law (wife's brother), who originally belong to karnataka State but had been staying at Hindupur and assisting the deceased in his business. The deceased, apart from textile business, was also having toddy business. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 was employed by the deceased for toddy business. P.Ws. 1 to 6 were projected by the prosecution as material witnesses in support of its case; but excepting P.W.1 other witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 2 to 6, had turned hostile. It may not be out of place to mention that P.W.2 is. an injured-witness as when he tried to ward off a blow on the deceased he had sustained an injury on his right finger by a hunting sickle. This is not a case where the incident of murder did not take place. The murder did occur,but the fact is as to who are the assailants.

(3.) P.W.1 states that just before the attack on the deceased, he went out to the adjoining shop for getting photostat copies of the papers given to him by the deceased; that by the time he was returning he had seen four persons entering into the shop of the deceased armed with hunting sickles and attacking his brother-in-law (deceased) and then they ran away; that he has also seen P.W.2 closing his right hand because of the injury; and that he with the help of others had moved the deceased, who fell unconscious, to the Government Hospital in an auto holding the deceased in his lap. Ex.P-1 has been lodged by him in the Police Station after the deceased was declared dead by the Hospital authorities and basing on the same, FIR-Ex.P-10 was issued and was transmitted to the Magistrate's Court. Ex.P-1 mentions that four persons had attacked the deceased. Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 was recorded on the next day i.e., 14-11-1995 during the inquest and he gave the same statement as in Ex.P-1 that four unknown assailants had attacked the deceased with hunting sickles. The names or the descriptive particulars of the assailants are not stated before the Police either in Ex.P-1 or in 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded during inquest. The other material witness was P.W.2., who did not support the case of the prosecution and even denied of having made any statement to the Police.