The accident was witnessed by Pw.1 and in addition by PW.5 Pambha Soubhagyamma, a vegetable hawker.
The Court further found that the evidence with regard to the accused other than A.1 to A.3 was even more unacceptable and, having held as above, acquitted all the accused.
A.1 Kotesswara caught hold of the deceased by his hair and gave two blows with a stone on his forehead and also stabbed him with a knife on his chest, A.2 Hanumantha Rao and A.3 Krishniah who were both armed with axes caused injuries on the back of the head of the deceased whereafter A.1 again stabbed the deceased on his shoulder.
They attempted to move him towards his house but he passed away after a short while.
PW.12 too identified the accused at that stage.
He also dispatched the dead body for its post mortem examination.
The prosecution, in support of its case, placed reliance on several witnesses but we are at this stage companycerned primarily with the evidence of PW.1 and PW.5 the two eye witnesses.
PW.12 and PW.16 an ASI and Head companystable, who were on polling duty in the village, also rushed to the spot and saw the accused throwing stones at the opposite party.
The post mortem 3 revealed the presence of eight injuries on the dead body.
P.2, but the evidence of PW.1 and PW.5 referred to only five injuries caused by the three accused i.e. A.1 to A.3.
P.C. They pleaded false implication.
14,1519 also treated PW.1 and PWs.
Several other doctors PWs.
The State thereupon took the matter to the High companyrt in appeal.
This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the following facts On 6th March, 1995 Mandal elections were to be held in village Gadiparthivaripalem.
The Court observed that in this view of the matter it was essential that some companyroboration be sought on account of the very nature of the evidence of these two witnesses.
PW.1 raised an alarm whereupon PW.6 and PW.7, Soodidela Subbamma and Soodidela Vijaylakshmi, rushed and found that the victim was bleeding from serious injuries.
Certain other witnesses later rushed to the place and found the deceased and PW.1 lying there with injuries.
On companypletion of the prosecution evidence the statements of the accused were recorded under Sec.313 of the Cr.
Some documents in evidence were also tendered by the accused.
Two of the candidates companytesting the election were the deceased Soodidela Satyanarayana Reddy and Mandap Venkateswarlu, one of the accused A.6 .
Information was also sent to PW.22 the Sub Inspector of Police, Chimakurthy, who rushed to the village and recorded the PW.1s statement and the First Information Report was registered on its basis at the police station at about 11.30 a.m. PW.23 the Inspector of Police, Ongole, Rural Circle, thereafter took up the investigation and visited the scene of occurrence and, amongst other items, seized the stone allegedly used by A.1 in the attack on the deceased.
The other accused A.4 to A.20 thereafter hurled stones on the witnesses including PW.1 and PW.5 causing one simple injury with a stone on the back of PW.1.
They all pleaded number guilty and were brought to trial.
On the companypletion of the investigation all the accused were charged under Sec.148 of the IPC, A1 to A3 were charged under Sec.302 of the IPC and the others under Sec.302 read with 149 IPC and under Sec.324 of the IPC.
The Court accordingly companycluded that the genesis of the incident had been suppressed and that apparent inconsistencies had occurred in the eye witnesses account vis a vis the medical evidence and as these omissions inconsistencies went to the root of the matter the evidence of these two witnesses companyld number be accepted.
The Court 4 then went into the medical evidence and found that the same did number support the ocular evidence inasmuch the injuries found on the dead body did number companyrespond to the injuries referred to by the eye witnesses as the number of injuries sustained by the deceased were eight in number as per the post mortem certificate Ext.
At about 7.00 a.m. the deceased was standing along with PW.1 his nephew, Soodidela Bapireddy, in front of the polling station, when all the accused, 20 in number, armed with lethal weapons such as axes, knives, sticks and stones attacked him.
The trial Court in its judgment dated 5/9/2003 held that PW.1 the nephew of the deceased was an interested witness, whereas PW.5 happened to be present at the place of incident by chance as she belonged to another village and was a vegetable hawker by profession.
