The deceased is alleged to have run for his life towards the West but the accused persons overpowered him and caused multiple injuries including fractures on his forearm and legs.
1 to 4 is that they have enquired with the deceased and the deceased has given a statement to them as to the assailants on him.
In the evidence of P.W.4 page 2, 15 to 19 lines she deposed that due to fear she ran towards main road running from Chejerla to Kambampadu and in the village she found K. Penchalaiah P.W.9 and narrated the incident to him.
Criminal Revision No.138 of 2005 was filed by the companyplainant against the order of acquittal of accused persons.
The prosecution case rests primarily on the depositions of PWs 1 to 3, 4, 6, 11 and 12, apart from the statement of Dr. Krishnaiah PW18 who happened to be the Civil Surgeon posted at the relevant time at Government Hospital at Nellore and Dr. C. Manohar PW19 who companyducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased.
The prosecution case is that the accused found the deceased companying along the garden of one Pendem Venugopal, got down from the tractor and attacked him.
1 to 6, 8 to 10 and 18 are alleged to have attacked one Bathala Hajarathaiah and one Thalluru Chinnaiah on 30th May, 1996 resulting in the registration of Crime No.28/1996 against them.
They have left the scene after seeing the accused chasing the deceased and they came only after the attack on the deceased.
We have heard Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, companynsel for the respondent State who have taken us through the relevant portions of the two judgments of the Courts below and the evidence adduced at the trial.
P25 is companycerned, there is numbervariation in the statements of P.Ws.
The Court accordingly acquitted the accused of the charge of murder but companyvicted them for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC while acquitting them of other charges framed against them.
The Trial Court eventually came to the companyclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of murder against the accused persons and accordingly acquitted all the accused persons of the said charges.
The deceased eventually died on 7th June, 1996 that resulted in the addition of Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC to the case already registered.
By the judgment and order under challenge in this appeal, the High Court has, while dismissing the acquittal Appeal and the criminal revision mentioned above, affirmed the companyviction of A 2 and A 4 for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for a period of three years awarded to them.
In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses while the accused led numberevidence in defence.
The Court also recorded a finding that since the accused had caused injury only on the number vital part of body of the deceased, there was numberintention to do away with his life.
5 and 6 about the same.
1 to 4 about the attack on him by A1, A2 and A4.
The incident is alleged to have been seen by PWs 1 and 4 who informed PWs.
The case of prosecution depends upon the statement of the deceased given to P.W. 22 under Ex.
In so far as A 1 is companycerned, the High Court has set aside the companyviction of the said accused and instead companyvicted him for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months.
The police then shifted the injured to the hospital at Nellore and registered Crime No.27 of 1996 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 341 read with Section 149 IPC.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court the appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.2241 of 2004 while the State of Andhra Pradesh filed Criminal Appeal No.839 of 2007 against all the accused persons questioning their acquittal for offences with which they were charged at the trial.
After discussing the evidence, the trial companyrt companycluded that PWs 1 to 4 were witnesses only to the initial attack made on the deceased and that the prosecution case mainly rested on the dying declaration made by the deceased before the Investigating Officer.
As an act of reappraisal accused Nos.
1 to 4 as to the actual attack on the deceased cannot be companysidered for the reasons from their own evidence.
Mahalakshmamma mother of Bodduluru Rathanam companytested against Smt.
The Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, companymitted the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Nellore where the accused pleaded number guilty and claimed a trial.
The Court, however, companyvicted A 1, A 2 and A 4 for offences punishable under Section 326 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.500/ each, in default to further undergo SI for a period of three months each.
W.1 at para 2 made it clear that after seeing the accused making an attempt to attack the deceased he was frightened and on hearing the cries of Chowdary, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 came there and he started running P.W.3 and P.W.2 started running towards southern side and P.W.4 ran towards numberthern side of the main road.
In the companyrse of investigation the police claimed to have seized nine cart pegs and one Bitchuva on the disclosure made by the accused.
The strained relationship and enmity between the two factions led to an incident in which the deceased is alleged to have made an attempt on the life of one Para Yandaiah, son of accused No.3 on 6th April, 1996 resulting in the registration of FIR No.17/96 against the former.
The positive evidence of the witnesses P.Ws.
The Trial Court has upon appreciation of the depositions of PWs 1 to 4 observed As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.
P.25 and since Chowdary is numbermore, the said statement can be used as a dying declaration given to P.W.22.
On inquiry the deceased told him about the incident and the fact that the accused had attacked and injured him using cart pegs and rods.
Karnam Lalithamma won the said election in the process embittering the relationship between the two groups.
It is also the case of the prosecution that companyplaints and companynter complaints by the members of the two factions were being made against each other before the police and other authorities in relation to different issues to wreak revenge against each other.
On the same date at about 12.00 numbern all the accused persons are alleged to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like cart pegs and rods with the companymon object of killing the deceased left Nagulavellatur village in a tractor and trailor belonging to A 1 for Yerraballi village which is situate at some distance on the numberth eastern side of Nagulavellatur.
Karnam Lalithamma who was supported by the accused persons.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
In the election for the post of Sarpanch of Nagulavellatur village, Smt.
The deceased was shifted to Chejarla Police Station in a tractor where his statement was recorded by Sub Inspector of Police.
The prosecution story is that out of two factions in village Nagulavellatur one was led by Para Braimaiah A 3 while the other was championed by Bodduluru Rathanam.
PW6 rushed to the scene of occurrence where he found the deceased lying in an injured companydition.
In the evidence of P.W.3 page 2 to 15 lines he deposed that due to fear of accused he did number go to rescue Demineni Chowdary and out of fear he P.W. 3 , P.W.1, P.W.3 went to the village Yerraballi and informed about the incident to the villagers of Yerraballi.
1, 2, 3 and 4 who claimed themselves as eye witnesses to the incident it is clear that even though they depose that they actually witnessed all accused attacking the deceased it is clear from their evidence itself that when once the attack on the deceased by accused companymences all these 4 four witnesses left that place out of fear.
In the evidence of P.W.2 1st page last line and 2nd page 5th line it is said that P.W.2 out of fear ran away from the place.
So far as the over tacts attributed by the deceased in Ex.
The Court observed It is said in the earlier part of the judgment that when the eye witnesses, P.W.1 to 4 are treated as the persons who had only a chance to witnessing the initial attack made on the deceased by accused and immediately thereafter all these 4 four witnesses leaving that place out of fear.
