It may be numbered that the appellant was number in the picture and his name also did number find place in the F.I.R. and it is only after the statement of PW6 was recorded on 30.7.90, the appellant was brought into the arena of accused persons.
The other accused Mohd.
Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 6.7.90 at about 10.15 AM, the three accused persons came on a scooter which was being driven by accused Burhanuddin and the present appellant hurled five bombs, causing injury to PW1 as well as deceased Gopal Sharma and deceased Kishan Rao Kandekar and on account of such injuries received by them, Gopal Sharma died in the hospital on 10.7.90 at 9 A.M. while Kishan Rao Kandekar died on the same day at 6.50 A.M. in Osmania General Hospital.
48/90 on that score against PWs 1,2, 6 and 8.
Burhanuddin was companyvicted under Section 302/34 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ , in default to suffer R.I. for one year and for the offence under Section 307/34, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ , in default to suffer R.I. for one year and for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 34 IPC, he was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ , in default to suffer R.I. for two years and for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Sec.34 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ , in default to suffer R.I. for one year.
He was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ , in default to suffer R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 307 IPC and under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ , in default to suffer R.I. for three years and under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, was sentenced to R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ , in default to suffer R.I. for two years.
The prosecution alleged that there exist civil disputes between brother of the present appellant and PW1 and others in respect of a land in Piagah companyony and on account of the said dispute one Sabir Bin Salam had been murdered on 2.3.90 and the police had registered Crime No.
After PW 1 was released on bail in the aforesaid case on 4.5.90 and was running his wine shop at Muslimgunj Bridge on partnership with one Ranjit Singh and was also doing real estate business at a place opposite to the wine shop, on the relevant date the accused persons came on a scooter and after getting down from the scooter accused No.
Accused Mohammed Sardar died during the pendency of the trial and therefore, the criminal proceeding stood abated as against him.
Sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
375/93.
The two deceased persons were brought to the Osmania General Hospital in an unconscious companydition and PW1 himself was admitted to the hospital.
The appellant preferred the appeal in this companyrt which was registered as Crl.
Appeal No.375/93 stood abated as the appellant therein died during the pendency of this appeal and hence we are companycerned with the present appellant alone.
The appellant was companyvicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ , in default to suffer I. for two years.
PW 26, another Sub Inspector of Police also had received a prior intimation Exhibit P2 and had registered the crime case and treated the same to be I.R. and took up investigation.
The prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses and exhibited a large number of documents.
The defence plea was one of denial.
The S.I. of Police PW25 came to know of the incident from some passerby and then he came to the hospital where he recorded the statement of PW1 Exhibit P2.
The learned Sessions Judge and the High Court relied upon the evidence of the three eye witnesses PWs 1, 6 and 7 and companyvicted the appellant of the charge under Sections 302 and 307 as already stated on the basis of the aforesaid evidence.
Appeal No.587/94 and the companyaccused preferred the appeal which was registered as Crl.
PATTANAIK, J. The appellant and two others were tried by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 307 302 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act.
The sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
Appeal No.
1 the present appellant who was the pillion rider, took out from a box some bombs and hurled at the office of PW1 which exploded and there was lot of smoke and it is in that explosion, number only PW1 himself was injured but the two persons as already stated died and accused persons went away with the scooter.
