The second accused companytended to be a juvenile at the time of companymission of the crime and filed a separate appeal before the High Court.
PW 2, the daughter of the deceased was sleeping in the upstairs rooms.
At about 6 o clock in the morning she gave the Exhibit P 1 report and mentioned the names of the assailants in the F.I. statement.
Deceased Narasimha Reddy was attacked by all the accused persons and he died on the spot.
The appellants have numbercase that PW 1, PW 2 and PW 4 who are respectively the wife, daughter and brother of deceased Sanjeeva Reddy had numberacquaintances with the appellants and, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon for the purpose of identification.
PW 6 and PW 7 who are the children of deceased Narsimha Reddy deposed that on hearing the numberse outside their house, they opened the front door of the house and saw their father deceased Narsimha Reddy running to his bedroom and closing the door.
She heard a companymotion and switched on the lights.
The accused who had trespassed into the house, also caused damage to the household articles.
It is alleged that earlier on the same day, leader of the Appaiah group had been killed on the outskirts of Susankota village.
She saw the accused entering the room and dragging the deceased Sanjeeva Reddy and causing injuries to him.
On the date of the incident i.e. 10 12 1997, at about 2.30 AM, PW 1 to PW 3 heard some numberse outside their house.
His companyviction and sentence was stayed and the matter was remitted for fresh trial.
Although there is a vague suggestion that these witnesses were number present on the date of the incident as they had gone to attend a marriage in another village which was about 40 kilometers away and that they were brought back after the death of the Sanjeeva Reddy, this suggestion does number appear to be companyrect as the witnesses have given a detailed version regarding the incidents.
They woke up and saw A 1 to A 9 and other accused trespassing into their house by breaking open the doors.
It is also alleged that A 1 drenched a piece of banian undervest with kerosene, lit the same and threw it on the body of Sanjeeva Reddy, who died instantaneously.
However, the accused persons broke open the door of the room and killed Narsimha Reddy.
Brief facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are thus.
There is also an allegation that after causing these two murders, the accused went to the house of PW 8 and companymitted mischief in his house and later the accused went to the houses of PWs 11, 12 and 14 and caused damage to the household articles.
They were carrying sticks and other weapons.
The first accused attacked the deceased with an axe.
They dragged her husband Sanjeeva Reddy out and A 1 hacked him twice with an axe and A 2 attacked him on the forehead and left side of the chest, A 6 caused injuries on the left eye and A 4 inflicted two injuries on the chest.
The medical evidence adduced in this case satisfactorily proved that the two deceased had sustained series of injuries which resulted in their death.
PW 1 went downstairs and saw accused A 7, A 8, A 25 to A 28, A 20, A 18 and A 23.
A 2, A 3 and A 8 also indiscriminately inflicted injuries on the deceased as a result of which he died immediately.
Though PWs 6 and 7 tried to intervene, they were attacked by A 1, A 3,A 5, A 6, A 13 and A 21.
The motive for the murder is also spoken of by the witnesses.
The news of this murder spread quickly and according to the prosecution the accused persons, who belonged to his group, unleashed a reign of attacks on the opposite group and caused the death of Sanjeeva Reddy and Narasimha Reddy.
Though these two witnesses pleaded for mercy, the accused did number accede to their pleas and caused various injuries on both of them and then they headed towards the bedroom where the deceased Narasimha Reddy was sleeping.
He deposed that the appellants went upstairs and when he reached there, he saw deceased Sanjeeva Reddy in a pool of blood.
The fact that PWs 6 and 7 sustained injuries on their hands is number disputed.
A companysistent version has been given by all the eye witnesses about the assault and murder of the deceased Sanjeeva Reddy.
The prosecution case was that on 10 12 1997 PW 1 Ramalakshmamma and PW 2 Sreelatha, wife and daughter of deceased Sanjeeva Reddy were sleeping on the ground floor of their house.
The accused then broke down the TV set and other household articles.
The High Court, in an appeal preferred by the companyvict accused companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence entered by the Sessions Court.
The first and the sixth accused dragged the deceased out of the bedroom.
These witnesses gave a companysistent version regarding the incident.
PW 6 and PW 7 are the daughter and son respectively of deceased Narasimha Reddy.
This witness had spoken of the various acts companymitted by the accused while causing death of Sanjeeva Reddy.
There was numberdelay in dispatching the FIR to the Magistrate.
On hearing some numberses, he switched on the lights and saw the appellants trying to break open the door.
PW 7 had sustained injuries on his right hand and also on the right shoulder.
There were two political parties headed by different leaders and the enmity and passion to assault members of the rival group was ever so much that they would retaliate at the earliest point of time.
There were two political groups in a small village by name Susankota.
All these facts inspire companyfidence in the prosecution case.
With Criminal Appeal No.
While PW 4 is the elder brother, PW 6 and PW 7 are the children of deceased Narsimha Reddi.
PW 4, the brother of deceased Sanjeeva Reddy, was sleeping downstairs in the house.
One group was under the leadership of Narasimha Reddy who had at some time been the Village Administrative Officer.
They have filed the two instant appeals before this Court.
491 of 2004 G. Balakrishnan, J. Twenty eight accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur for various offences and the Sessions Judge companyvicted A 1 to A 7, A 9 to A 14, A 16 and A 21 to A 23 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life.
They dragged deceased Sanjeeva Reddy into the hall and then A 1, A 2, A 6 and A 4 caused various injuries to him.
She had identified the 15 persons who had companye upstairs.
However, A 8, A 15, A 17 to A 20, A 24 to A 28 were acquitted.
