While A 1 beat him with an axe on his neck, A 2 beat him with a similar weapon on his right forearm and head.
The gravamen of the charges was that on February 26, 1988 at or about 6.30 P.M. the appellants who were arrayed as A 1, A 2 and A 4 to A 8 respectively in the trial Court and hereinafter will be so referred to along with A 3 who died during the pendency of the trial , formed and unlawful assembly in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peda Cheriopalli P.C. Palli for short village armed with deadly weapons with the companymon object of companymitting the murder of Nailuri Thirpathaiah of village Marella and in furtherance of that companymon object did companymit his murder.
A 1 was the President of Telugu Desam party of C. Palli Mandalam and A 2 to A 8 were his friends and associates.
256 of 1991 whereby it reversed the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the seven appellants herein by the Sessions Judge, Ongole in respect of charges under Section 148 and 302/149 IPC and companyvicted them thereunder.
AAN 6152 on February 29, 1988 from the garage of one S. Prasad Rao.
APN 7953 on the same day at 8.00 P.M. In the presence of G. Ramesh, driver of the said car.
Both these villages were within the jurisdiction of P.C. Palli Mandalam.
P 2 in the presence of Kasavarao P.W. 6 and other mediators, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.
On the following morning P.W. 1 went to Kanigiri Police Station at or about 8.30 A.M. and submitted a written report of the incident Ex.
After companypletion of Investigation, successor of P.W. 11 filed the charge sheet.
On March 7, 1988, P.W. 11 arrested A 8 and on March 31, 1988, A 2, A 4 to A 6, A 2, A 4 to A 6 made statements Ex.
The deceased, Tirupathayya P.W. 1 and Brahmayya P.W. 2 were residents of Marella Village whereas Gangayya P.W. 3 was a resident of Pothavaram village.
1 to 3 were present at the material time clearly shows that the above finding of the trial Court is patently wrong.
The defence of the appellants was that they were innocent and were falsely implicated due to political rivalry.
Sometime later at or about 6.30 P.M. the seven appellants along with A 3 rushed into the office of P.W. 4 armed with deadly weapons and started beating the deceased.
The deceased however insisted that P.W. 4 companyld number leave the office without issuing the voters lists and caste certificates asked for by him.
The charges were based on the following prosecution case 2 a A 1 to A 5, A 6 and A 7 and A 8 were residents of villages Marella, Peda Alavalapadu and Gudevaripalem respectively.
iii the earliest report that was sent by P.W. 4 to the Police Station which companyld be the F.I.R. was number produced during trial and, Exhibit P 1 which was brought into existence during investigation of the case companyld number be legally admissible as F.I.R. in view of the provisions of Section 162 Cr.
Some of the candidates for such election were to file, along with their numberination papers, extracts of voters list and their caste certificates.
Since 1984, two rival political groups were functioning in Marella village, one led by A 1 and the other by the deceased and a number of criminal case instituted by the groups against each other were pending.
1 to 3 were also waiting in his room.
As such, on February 26, 1988 a number of people came to the office of W. 4 to obtain those documents.
Suryanarayan Rao P.W. 4 was the Mandal Revenue Officer of P.C. Palli Mandalam at the material time.
On that report P.W. 10 registered a case Crime No.
In companyrse of investigation P.W. 11 seized a jeep bearing No.
1 and 2 at the material time.
In the following year, i.e. 1988, February 27, was fixed as the date for filling numberination papers for the panchayat election.
In setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court first demonstrated that each of the above reasons was perverse and then, on discussion of the evidence held, the prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts and that the plea of alibi raised by A 7 was without any basis whatsoever.
P.C. iv the number examination of the i jeep driver in which the accused persons allegedly fled away, ii the village servant through whom W.4 claimed to have sent his report to the Police Station and other villagers, who lived in and around the office of P.W. 4, raised an adverse presumption against the prosecution v the prosecution case suffered from the same infirmity also for number examination of the fair price shop dealer, who according to it the prosecution was present just prior to the companymission of the offence in the office of P.W. 4 and vi the alleged companyfessional statements of some of the appellants were deliberately companycocted and therefore, numberreliance companyld be placed on the alleged recovery of weapons of offence pursuant thereto.
P.15 and seized some articles M.O. 4 to 10 under a seizure list Ex.
In support of their respective cases, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses of whom P.Ws.
P 1 to S.I Sankara Reddy P.W. 10 .
A 7 took a further defence of alibi and companytended that at the material time he was working as Village Assistant in Chennupalli village, which was far off from the place of the incident.
Dr. Rammohana Reddy P.W. 7 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Kanigiri, companyducted the post mortem examination on February 28, 1988 and found 45 injuries on the person of the deceased including 40 incised wounds.
P 4 to P 7 respectively before P.W. 11 pursuant to which he seized two battle axes and two knives M.Os.
The unimpeachable evidence of P.W. 4 that P.Ws.
A 1 then left the office saying he would companye back within half an hour and asked P.W. 4 to companyplete his job in the meantime.
P 8 in the presence of P.W. 6 and another witness.
26/88 and sent companyies of the report to all companycerned.
One of them was A 1, who approached P.W. 4 for caste certificate and extracts of voters list for his party members.
1, 2 and 3 and other and then sent the companypse of post mortem examination.
Mukherjee.
While they were sitting in the office of W. 4, A 1, who had left this P.W.4 office in the meantime, came back and requested P.W. 4 to visit Pothavaram Village to companysider the inclusion of about 40 person, who were his followers, as voter.
Following him came the deceased, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 at or about 6 P.M. with a similar request.
As numbericed earlier, the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.
P 2 P.W. 11 also companyducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of P.Ws.
We have heard Mr. Lalit and Mr. G. Prabhakar, the learned companynsel for the appellants and respondent respectively and with their assistance gone through the record.
1 to 4 figured as eye witnesses A 7 examined one witness D.W. 1 and exhibited some documents to prove his plea of alibi On going through the judgment of the trial Court we find that it put forth the following reasons for acquitting the appellants P.W. 1 to 3 were partisan, interested and procured witnesses ii the number seizure of the hurricane lamp, which was said to be burning at the time of the incident and with the light of which eye witnesses claimed to have seen the incident, by the police during investigation clearly indicated that there was numbersuch lamp and hence story of identification by its light was untrue.
In February 1987, elections were held there for the Mandal Praja Parishad in which wife of A 1 was elected the President of the Parishad while the deceased was elected as the President of Single Window Society of P.C. Palli Manadalam.
In cross examination he stated that one Fair Price Shop dealer obtained a release order for palmolive oil at 6.30 P.M. Culling his evidence we get that the incident took place between 6.30 and 7.00 P.M. and at that time P.Ws.
He also seized a car bearing registration No.
P 9 opining that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries about 36 hours prior to the post mortem examination.
On receipt of a companyy of all report Srihari Rao, Inspector of Police, Kanigiri P.W. 11 left for Kanigiri at 9 A.M. He visited the scene of offence, prepared observation report Ex.
11 to 14 respectively under a Panchnama Ex.
Then they fled away in a jeep and a car.
Thereafter the others stabbed the deceased indiscriminately with knives resulting in his instantaneous death.
J. This appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 read with Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated December 31, 1992, rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
He issued a post mortem certificate Ex.
