The charge sheet was filed by the successor in the office of PW 9.
Though PW 3 claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence, his companyduct was very abnormal and unusual as he did number inform the police and did number also tell about the incident to any other person.
P1 at about 10.30 P.M., registered Crime No.
In that process, the deceased lost the companytrol of the vehicle and they fell down.
P 13 i.e., arrest Mahazir of the appellant accused, did number support the prosecution case.
As a result of the said attack, the deceased breathed his last on the spot.
He also informed the Inspector of Police, PW9 Kurnool Town at that relevant point of time.
He was at that stage cross examined by the prosecution.
Therefore, the trial companyrt and the High Court should number have held the appellants guilty.
1, 2 and 3 were at a place called Ramesh Hotel near the Silver Jubilee College of Kurnool Town.
Further PW4 who was examined on 1.11.2001 fully supported the prosecution version.
Similarly, T. Krishna PW7 who was the panch witness for Ex.
Therefore, the prosecution cross examined him.
Though he claimed to be present at the time of inquest, his statement was number even recorded at the time of inquest.
P1 companyplaint, lodged by PW1 which was received by Sub inspector PW8 at about 10.30 AM on the very same night, all the four appellants herein got down from the above mentioned auto rickshaw, attacked the deceased.
7 to 10 under the companyer of Ex.
PW1 did number support the prosecution case in full.
PW2 did number support the prosecution case at all.
Primary stand of the appellants before the High Court was that PWs.
On 8.5.1999 he arrested all the appellants at a place called Papaji Dabha.
Thereafter they started on 2 two wheelers i.e. the deceased and PW1 on the first vehicle, followed by PWs.
P1, companyplaint which was lodged immediately after the occurrence, name of PW3 as an eye witness was mentioned.
PW1 was the pillion rider.
During the companyrse of interrogation the accused are said to have made a companyfessional statement, which led to the recovery of M.Os.
The deceased was driving the first of the above mentioned two wheelers.
P.14 Mahazir.
1, 2, 4 7 did number support the prosecution version and departed from the statement purportedly given during investigation and that only on the basis of the evidence of PW 3, the companyviction should number have been recorded.
Questioning companyrectness of the decision rendered by the trial companyrt, an appeal was preferred before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by the accused persons.
On receipt of the information, PW9 went to the scene of offence, posted guard at the scene of offence and on the next morning i.e., 28.4.1999, PW9 secured the presence of witnesses PWs.1, 2 Sayed Bade Bi PW5 and B. Hussainappa PW6 companymenced the inquest around 7.30 A.M. He seized MOs.
Mala Venkateswarulu the PW4 auto rickshaw driver though initially supported the prosecution case in full, made a volte face and totally resiled from his earlier version when he was recalled for further cross examination by the defence a month after his initial examination.
In fact, from the evidence of Dr. S. R.K. Prasad, the doctor PW10 who companyducted the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased, there were number of cut and stab injuries on the body classified under ten heads.
Of the 10 witnesses examined, PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 were cited as eye witnesses.
When the deceased and PW1 reached near the railway gate located on their way, an auto rickshaw overtook them.
113 of 1999 under Section 302 IPC.
2 and 3 on another vehicle.
On the companytrary, stand of the State was that in the Ex.
In order to establish the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, proved 15 documents and exhibited 10 M.Os.
Immediately, after the incident, PW1 went to the residence of the deceased, informed the kith and kin of the deceased around 8.45 P.M. Afterwards, PW1 went to the police station and lodged Ex.
P1 companyplaint.
PW8 the Sub Inspector of Police who received Ex.
