He also seized blood stained tar, companytrol tar, bomb blast thread pieces and the cycle of the deceased.
They had further been companyvicted under Section 5 of the Act 1908, and were awarded the punishment of three years with a fine of Rs.500/ each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
However, A3 was acquitted for the offence under Section 6 of the Act 1908.
A1 and A2 had been companyvicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and they were awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/ and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.
However, all the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
The dead body of Y. Ramachandra Reddy deceased was sent for post mortem which was companyducted by Dr. Y. Karunasree PW.6 wherein it was opined that he died of shock due to a fracture of the skull bones and lacerations to brain matter.
It was companytended that the High Court erroneously did the same even though, the companytradictions in the medical and ocular evidence were insignificant and the companytradictions in the statements of PWs 1 to 3 were minor in nature.
Hence, these appeals by the companyplainant as well as by the State of Andhra Pradesh.
They were also companyvicted under the provisions of Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1908 and had been awarded the sentence of 3 years with a fine of Rs.500/ and Rs.200/ respectively and, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and 15 days respectively.
P.C. denied their involvement and submitted that they had been falsely implicated because of political enmity.
A3 to A6 had been companyvicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo a further period of simple imprisonment of one month each.
Y. Ramachandra Reddy deceased and his brother Balagangi Reddy supported the Congress I party in the elections held for the State Assembly, while the accused persons supported the Telugu Desham Party TDP .
PW.1 hid himself under cheeky bushes near his field.
A4 and A5 were further companyvicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act 1908 and awarded the punishment of 3 years on each companynt with a fine of Rs.500/ and, in default, to undergo a further period of imprisonment for one month.
Y. Eswara Reddy PW.1 preferred a companyplaint to the police, thus, Case Crime No.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that On 4.12.1999, Y. Eswara Reddy PW.1 , Y. Gangadhar Reddy PW.2 and Y. Gangabhavani PW.3 were working in their agricultural fields alongwith Y. Ramachandra Reddy deceased and his brother Balagangi Reddy and others.
The materials companylected were sent for forensic analysis and it was found that the bombs companytained Potassium, Chlorate Chloride, Arsenic, Sulphide and Sulphate etc.
137 of 1999 of Muddanur PS was registered.
The findings of fact recorded by the High Court are perverse being based on numberevidence.
On the basis of the evidence etc.,
the trial companyrt found A1 to A6 guilty of the aforesaid offences and awarded them sentences as referred to hereinabove, however, A7 to A13 were acquitted.
A2 hurled a bomb which fell on the cycle of the deceased and exploded causing the deceased to fall from his cycle.
In State Assembly elections, the political parties created pressure on their supporters to get maximum votes, by any means.
The accused in their statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Cr.
After sometime, they returned to their fields and attended to their work.
The defence also examined one Penugonda Sreenivasulu DW.1 , who claimed to have prepared the site plan Ex.
At 7.30 A.M., the accused Rayapati Venkata Reddy A1 , Rayapati Ramanjul Reddy A2 , Rayapati Bheema Reddy A3 , Korrapati Rami Reddy A4 , Korrapati Thimma Reddy A5 , Kadiyam Rami Reddy A6 , Rayapati Thirupathi Reddy A7 , Rayapati Pedda Venkata Reddy A8 , Kadiyam Rama Subba Reddy A9 , Rayapati Pedda Venkata Reddy A10 , Rayapati Chinna Bali Reddy A11 , Rayapati Venkata Reddy A12 and Chinnapureddy Bala Chenna Reddy A13 came to the fields where PW.1 to PW.3, namely, Y. Eswara Reddy PW.1 , Y. Gangadhar Reddy PW.2 and Y. Gangabhavani Reddy PW.3 were working armed with deadly weapons like sticks, knives, bombs and sickles whistling war cries and hurling bombs with the intent to kill Ramachandra Reddy and Balagangi Reddy.
PW.1 to PW.3 witnessed the same, however, failed to give a report immediately to the police due to fear of their lives.
After companycluding the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against A1 to A13.
There were ill feelings between two groups as there existed chronic factionalism between the families of the deceased and accused.
Y. Ramachandra Reddy deceased fled on his cycle.
S.V. Ramana, C.I. PW.9 began investigation, and companyducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of R. Pedda Naidu PW.4 and M. Pratap Naidu PW.7 .
Aggrieved, A1 to A6 filed Criminal Appeal No.
41 of 2005 which has been allowed by the High Court.
On 4.12.1999, when PW.1 to PW.3 and some others were doing agricultural work in their fields alongwith Y. Ramachandra Reddy deceased in the morning, they heard weeping cries from the agricultural field nearby.
All of them rushed to that place and found that Rayapati Narayana Reddy had died due to electrocution.
Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh and Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant companyplainant, have submitted that the High Court acquitted the said respondents without any justification.
X 1 but number on the basis of scale measurement.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Both these appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 13.2.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
The High Court mainly found material companytradictions in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and doubted their presence at the place of occurrence companysidered the delay in lodging the FIR fatal found companytradictions in medical evidence and ocular evidence doubted the witnessing of the occurrence as there companyld be numbervisibility because of the smoke created by the bombs at the time of explosion PW.1 did number mention that A6 used a sickle in the FIR and that only interested witnesses had been examined.
374 of 2000, by which and whereunder the respondents were found guilty and companyvicted under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred as the IPC and awarded a sentence of 2 years each.
Chappals of A5 which had been lying there were recovered in the presence of M. Pedda Aswartha Reddy PW.5 .
41 of 2005, reversing the judgment and order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in Sessions Case No.
Further, the Dhoti, Banian and waist thread of the deceased were also seized.
Balagangi Reddy fled his fields due to fear and was chased by A7 to A13.
