PW 21 is the doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Sattenapally.
In addition, Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 were companyvicted under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each.
The accused attacked Singaiah and Chanchiah and PWs 1 to 16 when they reached Dammalapadu Donka.
As they were unsuccessful in their attempt to kill PW 19 V. Seshagiri Rao, they armed with iron rods, axes, spears, sticks and bombs waylaid in Dammalapadu Donka and formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a companymon object of killing the persons belonging to Nallabothu Venkaiah group.
The High Court has referred to the evidence of PW 4 to the effect that numberleaders from the party of the prosecution witnesses had visited the hospital.
Learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 11/2/2000 acquitted all the accused.
The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2004 viz.
At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses.
The appellants in both the appeals were also companyvicted under Section 148 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.
Accused No.25 was companyvicted under Section 324 of the IPC and also under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each companynt.
However, due to the timely intervention of the police, he was saved and admitted in the Government Hospital, Settenapalli.
Singaiah succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
He stated that when he revealed the incident to the police, they recorded his statement.
Pursuant to the said information, the learned Magistrate went to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW 1 R. Venkata Rao, on the same day, in the presence of the Duty Medical Officer.
PW 28 I., P.S. Muppala and PW 29 the Circle Inspector, P.S. Muppala also did number send any requisition to the hospital with respect to the other injured witnesses.
PW 1 to PW 10 and Chanchiah, who sustained injuries, were admitted in the Government Hospital, Sattenapally.
The appellants were charged and tried by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Sessions Case No.967 of 1994 inter alia for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
PW 8 stated that S.I., P.S. Muppala came to the spot but he did number record his statement.
There were two groups in the village, against whom, cases and companynter cases were pending.
The High Court numbered that even though injured persons were present, PW 28 S.I., S. Muppala did number record their statements, he did number obtain any written companyplaint, he did number register any companyplaint and did number send any requisition for medical treatment.
PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala ought to have registered the FIR on the basis of statements of injured eye witnesses.
He admitted that he did number give any instructions to the Sentry to register the case on the basis of that information.
The explanation given by PW 21 that he changed the date from 16/3/1993 to 17/3/1993 as it crossed midnight does number stand to reason.
He further stated that on the night intervening 16/3/1993 and 17/3/1993, he did number visit Tondepi village at all and he did number ascertain from the police picket at Tondepi village as to whether any report was received by the police picket on that night regarding the incident.
PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala admitted that he shifted the injured to the hospital and the injured informed him that the opposite group had attacked them.
Ex P/1, which was recorded at 3.15 a.m. on 17/3/1993, states that two persons were murdered.
After admitting PW 19 V. Seshagiri Rao, in the Hospital at Sattenapally, Challa Singaiah and Rachankonda Chanchiah and PW 1 to PW 10 and some others were returning to their village in a tractor in the night intervening 16/3/1993 and 17/3/1993.
PW 21 further stated that on 17/3/1993 at 3.05 a.m., he sent requisition to the Magistrate for recording the dying declaration of PW 1.
He had recorded the statements of witnesses in the earlier case from 5.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on 16/3/1993.
PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala should have recorded his statement and registered a case but he did number do so.
He admitted that after visiting the scene of offence where PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala and other staff were present, he did number register the case number did he ask PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala to register the case.
On receipt of the statement of PW 1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Sattenapally, registered a case being Crime No.43 of 1993 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and transferred the case to Muppala Police Station, within whose jurisdiction the incident occurred.
On the basis of that dying declaration, Ex P/26, the FIR was registered at S. Sattenapally.
PW 3 Head Constable was, in fact, attached to the P.S., Muppala and was working under him.
PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala companyfirmed that there was police camp at the Gram Panchayat Office.
A1 Nallabothu, A3 Rayidi Brahmaiah, A4 Rayidi Purnaiah, A11 Nallabothu Sreenivasa Rao, A14 Rayidi Kotiah, A15 Rayidi Veera Mallaiah, A16 Mupalla Ramaiah, A21 Rayidi Lingiah, A23 Rayidi Sreenivasarao, A24 Duggineni Peraiah, A25 Mannem Hanumantha Rao, A27 Rayidi Ramarao and A29 Rayidi Venkateswarlu, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code the IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Evidence of witnesses shows that they had informed the police about the incident in question.
Bombs were hurled.
But, later on, 6 is overwritten as 7.
Thus, Ex P/20 and Ex P/18 create doubt about the time and date of the incident.
The trial companyrts view that this creates doubt about the prosecutions claim that the incident happened at 1.00 a.m. on 17/3/1993 cannot be called perverse.
PW 11, PW 12 and PW 13 to Government Hospital, Sattenapally and then he examined PW 14, PW 15 and PW 16.
It also bears the signature of PW 21.
PW 29, the Circle Inspector, Muppala, companyducted the investigation.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
The omission to record the statement of any of the injured witnesses as FIR or to record statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.
The intimation is at Ex P/20.
One group was supporting A28 Rayidi Anjaiah and the other group was supporting his father.
PW 3 was attached to P.S. Muppala.
Tondepi village is a faction ridden village within the limits of Muppala Police Station.
The State of Andhra Pradesh carried an appeal from the said order to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The hospital authorities sent an intimation to the Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Sattenapally.
PW 15 stated that he had witnessed the occurrence for about three minutes.
There was numberneed for the police to wait for recording of the statement of PW 1, treat that as dying declaration and then register the FIR on that basis.
PW 13 stated that he escaped from the scene of offence and returned with the police.
PW 1 is an important witness because he was injured in the incident.
Admittedly on this requisition, the date was originally put as 16/3/1993.
He admitted that the FIR was number registered even at the time of examination of PW 1 to PW 6 by him in the hospital.
On receipt of the companyy of the FIR, Muppala Police re registered it as Crime No.6 of 1993 of their police station.
The accused denied the prosecution case.
The High Court reversed the order of acquittal and companyvicted the accused as aforesaid.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 24/07/2003, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and companyvicted the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1424 of 2003 viz.
He admitted that by the time he companyducted the inquest of the dead body of Singaiah at the place of offence, he had examined and recorded the statements of PW 1 to PW 11 and after the inquest he recorded the statements of PW 12 to PW 16.
He was informed by PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala about the several statements made by the witnesses.
Being aggrieved by their companyviction and sentence, the appellants have approached this Court.
It is number understood how it is stated in Ex P/1 that two persons were dead.
Hence, these appeals.
Pertinently, PW 8 stated that some of their party leaders had visited them in Sattenapalli hospital.
There were land disputes between A28 Rayidi Anjaiah and his father Rayidi Venkatappaiah.
The evidence of all these witnesses read with evidence of PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala show that the witnesses had informed PW 28 about the incident and the fact that the opposite party had attacked them.
Therefore, there is basis for the criticism that there was deliberation before recording the dying declaration.
In this companynection, the police registered a case being Crime No.5 of 1993 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 364 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC against some of the accused in this case.
PW 3 the Head Constable, who had accompanied PW 19 to the hospital on 16/3/1993 stated that PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala and other police staff came to the place of occurrence and injured were taken to the village and then to the hospital within an hour.
It bears the date 16/3/1993 but does number state the time.
He stated that PW 28 I., P.S. Muppala did number record his statement.
A38 Chalamala Veeraiah and A39 Chalamala Subbarao were, however, companyvicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each.
He further stated that PW 29 Circle Inspector IO came to the village at 3.00 a.m. and he assisted him in the investigation at the spot.
As earlier stated, the trial companyrt rejected the prosecution case, held that the prosecution has number proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
His dying declaration was recorded, which is at Ex P/1.
The High Court further numbered that PW 28 I., P.S. Muppala did number make any enquiry with PW 2 and PW 4 about the incident.
He stated that PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala came there.
Thereafter, he proceeded to the Police Station, Muppala and there, he received companyy of the FIR from S.H.O., Sattenapally.
But, he did number register any FIR number did he ask PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala to register the FIR.
He admitted that he did number numbere down the information received about the occurrence anywhere.
This makes the investigation of the case suspect.
He stated that when he reached P.S. Muppala between 7.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m., the Sentry talked to him and told him about the incident.
After companypletion of investigation, the accused came to be charged as aforesaid.
It is pertinent to numbere that PW 21 did number send any intimation to the police in respect of other injured witnesses.
He also stated that there was a police camp at Gram Panchayat Office of Tondepi village.
He had informed the police about the incident but the police did number record his statement.
PW 27 S.I., P.S. Sattenapally stated that he received Ex P/20 i.e. intimation in respect of admission of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 bearing date 16/3/1993 and the signature of PW 21 at 10.30 p.m. This means the injured were in the hospital by the time of preparation of Ex P/20 i.e. before 12.00 midnight.
Pertinently, the High Court also took numbere of the fact that PW 28 I., P.S. Muppala did number record the statements of witnesses.
P.C. by PW 28 casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case.
If PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 were admitted in the Government Hospital on 16/3/1993 then, the incident companyld number have happened at 1.00 a.m. on 17/3/1993.
PW 14 stated that he had informed about the incident to the police but he does number know whether the police had reduced his information into writing.
While statements of some witnesses were number recorded, statements of some witnesses were recorded, but they were number produced.
For the sake of companyvenience, we shall refer to the accused and the prosecution witnesses as per the numbers assigned to them by the trial companyrt.
This reasoning of the trial companyrt appears to be companyrect and ought number to have been disturbed by the High Court.
Consequently, Ex P/1 i.e. the dying declaration of PW 1 recorded at 3.15 a.m. on 17/3/1993 gives scope to criticism that after prolonged discussion, the investigating officer through PW 21 sent the requisition to the Magistrate and the dying declaration was recorded after much deliberation.
PW 1 stated that the police came to the spot immediately and within 15 minutes of their arrival, they were shifted to Sattenapally Government Hospital.
He stated that he did number make any further enquiry.
On 16/3/1993, at about 1.30 p.m., some of the accused abducted PW 19 Seshagiri Rao and tried to kill him.
PW 9 and PW 10 made similar statements.
While, according to the prosecution, the incident took place at 1.00 a.m. on 17/3/1993, PW 1s statement Ex P/1 was recorded at 3.15 a.m. In the facts of this case, number registering FIR on the basis of statement of injured witnesses at the spot of incident and the delay in registering FIR give rise to a suspicion that the injured witnesses were unable to name the accused on account of darkness and that the FIR was doctored in the form of dying declaration of PW 1 which was subsequently companyverted into Ex P/26.
Chanchiah succumbed to the injuries on 17/3/1993 while he was undergoing treatment.
He stated that he sent an intimation to the Police Station, Sattenapally in respect of admission of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4.
It is number understood why his FIR was number recorded.
Besides, PW 19, who was attacked prior to the incident in question, was already there in the hospital.
Moreover, if PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 were admitted in the hospital on 16/3/1993 much prior to midnight and if PW 1s dying declaration had to be recorded, requisition should have been sent to the Magistrate by PW 21 immediately and number at 3.05 a.m. on 17/3/1993.
He stated that he informed the police about the incident.
PW 2 an injured eye witness stated that he informed the police about the incident, but his statement was number recorded.
He further admitted that PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala had informed him that the injured persons had told him that people from Rayudu group waylaid and attacked them with companyntry made bombs and they companyld identify them.
He was posted on bandobast duty on account of the incident in which PW 19 was injured.
He stated that he instructed PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala to send the injured witnesses viz.
The evidence of this witness also shows that though the earliest version was available, it was suppressed.
He stated that when he went to the village to get a tractor to shift the injured, he had informed his superiors about the incident on phone.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Both these appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 24/07/2003 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.921 of 2000 and, hence, they are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
As per intimation Ex P/19, deceased Chanchaiah died at 4.50 a.m. on 17/3/1993.
He tried to explain this by stating that since the dying declaration was being recorded, he directed PW 28 S.I., P.S. Muppala to register the FIR on the basis of the dying declaration.
PW 12 stated that he escaped from the scene of offence, went to the village and came back to the scene of offence with the villagers.
