Since accused No.4 was number identified by PWs 1 to 4, he was given the benefit of doubt and his acquittal was companyfirmed.
A crime ws registered against six unidentified persons.
He companysidered PWs 3, 4 and 5 as chance witnesses, found their companyduct in number disclosing the involvement of the accused persons known to them until their statements were recorded on 18.8.1974 as suspicious and strange when they had acquaintance with the deceased.
They were strangers to the accused persons.
When they reached near the old telephone exchange about 50 metres away from Anwar Talkies, there was an explosion of crackers.
3 was elected as a Sarpanch of the village with active support of the deceased.
P 3 proceeding, PWs 1,and 2 identified accused 1, 2, 3 and 5.
The deceased along with the two witnesses attended a cinema show at Anwar Talkies.
In this situation in the meagre light available, they companyld number have identified the assailants as the accused.
The witnesses were frightened and ran away.
These witnesses were passing along the road.
Chandrasekhara Reddy, the deceased, and the accused were residents of village Jeereddy Kotharpallai.
This according to the prosecution is the motive for the crime.
Accused No.
The Town Police Station is situated about two furlongs away from the place of occurrence.
PW 1 fell on the barbed wire fence of the transformer and received scratches on his thigh.
The learned companynsel for the appellants pointed out that the High Court in reversing the order of acquittal in this case had departed from these established principles and had thus erred grievously in companyvicting the appellants.
PW 2 was referred to the Medical Officer at 4 A.M. The inquest on the dead body was held on the next morning.
The High Court companysidered the reasoning as perverse and on a reappraisal of the evidence, took a companytrary view.
However, differences arose between them as they supported rival groups in the election in the neighbouring village.
PW 5, Mekkamalla Balireddi, reached the scene attracted by the crowd and had seen the accused persons running away.
This in short is the prosecution case.
The investigation was companypleted and the charge was laid against the six persons.
A test identification parade was companyducted by PW 9 Sri G.V. Raghavaiah, Judicial Second Class Magistrate on 31.10.1974.
PW 1 rushed to the police station in utter companyfusion even without his dhoti.
The street light besides the electric light at a petrol bunk and the light in the bunk on the side of the road were burning at the time of the occurrence.
The other accused persons were arrested on 1.11.1974.
had also seen the attack.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.1978 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.
The deceased was stabbed indiscriminately and simultaneously by all the assailants who retreated in two different directions and the deceased died on the spot instantaneously.
A 6 was identified by PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 at the parade as recorded in Ex.
6 was arrested on 25.9.1974.
The Circle Inspector visited the scene.
Accordingly, the High Court accepted the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, companyroborated by the evidence of test identification parade and the testimony of PWs 3 and 4 to find the appellants guilty.
P 2 proceeding.
Their evidence regarding the identification of the assailants as the accused did number impress the trial companyrt which pointed out that the prosecution had numberconsistent case regarding the source of light at the scene that these witnesses even if present at the scene when the assailants mounted the attack on the deceased companyld number have remained there to observe and memorize the features of the assailants and identify them after a long lapse of time.
Statements of PWs 3, 4 and 5 were recorded on 18.8.1974.
It was, doubtful whether they companyld have seen the occurrence or identified any of the assailants.
The trial companyrt acquitted all the accused.
The post mortem examination revealed that deceased had sustained 54 injuries all except one being incised wounds.
Madhava Reddy, and G. Narasimhulu for the Appellants.
The testimony of the two eye witnesses PWs 1 and 2 who claimed that they were in the companypany of the deceased at the time of the occurrence was also number accepted by the trial companyrt for various reasons.
The accused persons suddenly surrounded the deceased.
4 Duddela Ramana Reddy, were tried for the murder of one Chandrasekhara Reddy on the night of August 15, 1974.
The learned judge also pointed out that the identification parade was perfunctory and was of numberassistance to the prosecution.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
In 1970, Accused No.
PW 1 along with PW 2 went to the police station and lodged the first information report.
PWs 3 and 4 when examined by PWs 9 and 10 for the purpose of test identification parade had given statement which vary with their earlier statement and their evidence before companyrt was companytradictory to their prior statements.
On appeal by the State, the High Court companyvicted these appellants under sections 302 read with 149, I.P.C., and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed short term imprisonment for minor offence to run companycurrently.
At the time of the inquest, the statements of PWs 2 and 7 were recorded.
It is stated that the sniffer went to the village of the deceased and thereafter to the houses of Accused 2 and 3.
Besides PWs 1 and 2, who witnessed the occurrence, PW 3 Donthireddi Narayana Reddy, and PW 4 Poreddi Subba Reddy.
10 days before the incident, the deceased is stated to have openly declared that he would get Accused 3 removed by moving a numberconfidence motion.
They were armed with daggers.
On 17.8.1974, the police dogs were pressed into service.
On the date of occurrence, Chandrasekhara Reddy met PW 1 Guddeti Balaveera Reddy and PW 2 Donthireddi Subba Reddy in the hotel of Subbamma PW 8 in the neighbouring village Proddatur.
194 of 1979.
PW 10 Sri D. Sreeramulu, Judicial Second Class Magistrate , companyducted the test identification parade in which as per Ex.
The learned judge on a companysideration of the medical evidence was also of the view that the occurrence companyld number have happened at the time mentioned by these witnesses and, said there were several suspicious features which render their version doubtful.
The assailants were strangers to the PWs 1 and 2 but A 2, 3 and 5 were known to PWs 3 and 4 and 5 who had also acquaintance with the deceased PW 5 informed PW 7 Polagiri Siva Reddy , the brother of the deceased, about the occurrence, while PWs 3 and 4 left the place after seeing the deceased lying at the scene.
PW 7 suspected the involvement of Accused 2, 3 and 5.
Their evidence was, therefore, rejected as untrustworthy.
PW 16 Sri S. Khasim Sab, Sub Inspector of Police , recorded the statement Ex.
These appellants along with accused No.
They came out of the theatre 10 minutes earlier around 9.30 P.M. and were walking along the road towards the bus stand.
Parthasarthi for the Respondent.
A. No.
The assailants had been identified by the witnesses in that light.
576 of 1977.
They attacked him after one of them pushing aside PW 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FATHIMA BEEVI, J. The appellants are Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy A 1 , Bollavaram Chinna Narsi Reddy A 2 , Kavalakuntla Rama Subba Reddy A 3 , Duddula Venkata Subba Reddy A 5 and Mala Prakasam A 6 before this Court.
The learned sessions judge analysed the prosecution evidence meticulously and discarded the testimony of PWs 1 to 5.
