ILANGOAN Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of the same judgment, namely judgment dated 06.03.2013, passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Karimnagar. Therefore, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) By the said judgment, the learned judge had convicted Mr. Sandeavna Raju (Accused No.1), Rapalli Rajaiah (Accused No.2), Ilangovan (Accused No.3) for offences under Sections 302 r/w 109 IPC and 302 r/w 34 IPC. While A. 1 was convicted for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, while A. 2 was convicted for offence under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC, and A. 3 was convicted only for offence under Section 302 IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and directed to undergo a simple imprisonment for six months in default thereof.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Ammula Anil (P. W. 1) lodged a complaint (Ex. P. 1) at the Manakondur Police Station, wherein he alleged that "I am resident of Rangapet of Manakondur mandal completed intermediate, they had two acres of agricultural and at Rangapet outskirts, besides their land the land of his senior paternal uncle who is died therefore his 2 acres of land also cultivating by his father, in the agricultural works he helping his father. To their agricultural land there is cart way situated so the surrounding persons besides six farmers using the said cart way to their respective fields, adjacent to their land the land of his villager and caste person Rapalli Rajaiah land is also there but he had no right on the said cart way. To that effect previous year conveyed panchayat and the elders resolved that the said Rajaiah is no way on the cart way and not use the same and on that he agreed. In spite of that the said Rajaiah using the said way and driving his tractor in spite of several warnings. On 24-4-2011 while the complainant, his mother Radhamma, father Laxmaiah went to attend the agricultural works at that time Sandaveni Raju r/o Tamil Nadu state brought harvester machine and the said machine passed on the said disputed way towards the field of Rampalli Rajiah and harvested the paddy crop of Rajaiah and loaded the paddy in the tractor and passing on the disputed way. On that, his father stopped the said Raju and Rampalli. To that effect there is quarrel occurred. On that, the neighbouring land owners Battu Veeresham and Ammula @ Cheepalli Komuraah and some others asked his father to leave the tractor. If anything is there to settle the same before the elders on the next day. On that his father leave the tractor. Later, his father sent his mother, and directed the complainant if again harvester came on the way to inform him. Therefore the complainant stayed at that place till 6:30 p.m. At that time Sandaveni Raju, Rampalli Rajaiah again came with the said harvester on that disputed way. Then the complainant stopped them; then they pushed him. At that time, his father saw and stopped the said harvester. But they did not care about his father, and abused him, and replied that they want to take the machine on that way. What was do by you do. Then the complainant father lay in front of the harvester machine on the way, and questioned the said Raju and Rajaiah how they taken away their machine. Then intentionally with an intention to kill his father the said Rajaiah directed the harvester driver to drive the harvester on complainant's father and eliminate him. This way the dispute is solved. Then the driver of harvester drove the same due to which the head of his father broken, and heavy bleeding, and died on the spot. Later the said Rajaiah and harvester driver leave the harvester machine, and escaped from the spot. The harvester No.TN-30-T-9981." Finally he requested to take necessary action.