So saying, the accused attacked the prosecution party.
After companypletion of the investigation, the police laid the charge sheet.
The allegation of the prosecution was that A 1 stabbed deceased No.
Subsequently, PW 5 and PW 17 went and informed the villagers to stop the work, as there was likelihood of some incident.
l with a dagger on his left chest due to which he fell down and succumbed to the injury on the spot.
PW 5 and another, in whose name the land was purchased, requested PW 31 to arrange police protection, on which PW 31 sent PW 17 along with him immediately and also sent PW 18 and three other companystables to the scene of offence.
They all tried to run away due to explosion of the bombs.
1 to 11.
On defence side, DWs I and 2 were examined and Exs.
On a companyplaint given by PW l, the police registered a crime and took up investigation.
By judgment dated 20th July, 2006 the High Court dismissed the appeal so far as the appellant is companycerned.
Two persons, namely, M. Subbarayappa and Y. Ramappa hereinafter referred to as D 1 and D 2 respectively lost their lives on 9.3.2002.
A 7, A 9, A 11 and A 17 were companyvicted for the offence under section 324 P.C. for causing injuries to the witnesses.
Inspite of it, on 9.3.2002 the villagers started laying the road.
A 13 hurled a bomb, which exploded and A 2 also hurled a bomb which fell on the ground, but did number explode.
On 8.3.2002, on information that the villagers were attempting to lay the road, the Sub Inspector of Police PW 31 called both the villagers and advised them to wait for one week as the matter was pending.
About six months prior to the incident, they purchased a land from PW 16 in the name of PW5 and another to lay the road.
A1 stabbed the deceased No.
1 to 25.
Immediately, A 2, A 4 to A 11, A 13 to A 18, A 19 to A 24, A 30 and A 32 attacked PWs.
While upholding the companyviction of the other appellants before it for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, custodial sentence was reduced to one year from three years, fine amount was retained.
Since the time of MPTC elections in 2001, there were disputes between both the villagers.
A7, A9, A 11 and A 17 were companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced each to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
All the accused were acquitted for all other offences.
l with a dagger and killed him.
P.1 to P.35 and M.Os.
The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs l to 33 and marked Exs.
Contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were marked.
While they were standing, all the accused armed with sickles, knives, daggers and a bag companytaining bombs and sticks went near them shouting as to how they dared to lay road and they will see their end.
Then A 2 to A 4 attacked deceased No.2.
Against the said purchase, the villagers of Kammavaripalle filed a suit seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendants from laying the road and the result of the suit went in favour of villagers of Chinnavenkatramangaripalli village.
The appellant and the three companyvicted accused persons being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, preferred appeal before the High Court challenging its validity and legality.
As there was numberroad facility to approach Chinnavenkataramanagari village, the deceased and material witnesses were trying to lay a road companynecting to their village to Mulakalachervu.
D 1 to D 65.
Allegation was that the appellant and companyaccused persons were responsible for their death.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The deceased and the material witnesses are the residents of Chinnavenkataramanagari Pale and the accused are residents of Kammavaripalle.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the companyviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
