The latter two hid themselves behind the babul trees.
The deceased Mura Muthiah and Somanaboyanna Muthandu P.W. 2 were injured in the knee, while the other two Kotta Ramiah P.W. 3 and Kancham Latchiah P.W. 4 were uninjured.
Appeal under article 134 1 c of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 16th August, 1953, of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.
He released P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 on the intercession of certain persons but kept W. 5 and P. W. 9 in wrongful companyfinement and released them only next morning after extorting Rs.
P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who had been released told the father of P.W. 2 next morning that his son was lying injured in the bajra field.
As already ,stated, the learned Special Judge companyvicted and sentenced the appellant and his companyvictions and sentences were upheld by a majority of two Judges.
The prosecution story proceeds that the father P.W. 1 of the deceased saw the appellant in the night of the 13th September and asked him why he had killed his son.
1557/6 of 1950, arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 16th October, 1950, of the Court of Special Judge, Warangal, in Case No.
The appellant stayed at the house of one Maikaldari in the village and spent the night there.
The prosecution evidence was believed by the trial Judge and the defence evidence to the effect that the deceased was killed by the Military and that the appellant was number present at the time of the occurrence was disbelieved.
200/ as hush money for number disclosing the offence.
He produced witnesses in defence.
200 and the other let off without payment.
The appellant denied having zone to the village in question or having companymitted any of the offences attributed to him.
The appellant without saying more advised him to cremate the dead body.
He arrested Janaki Ramiah P.W. 5 and Nerella Ramulu P.W. 9 at Rajole and took them to Korivi.
P.W. 9 was unable to pay any money and he was let off.
The First Information Report was lodged on April 14,1949.
100/ from each of them.
These companyrespond to sections 302, 307, 347 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentences awarded under the first two sections respectively being death and life imprisonment, and separate sentences of two years rigorous imprisonment under the latter two.
The offer was refused.
Four months later the appellant went and ,stayed at the Government bungalow Korivi, sent for P.W. I and offered him Rs.
P.W. I borrowed wood from the people and cremated the body.
P.W. 2 also ran away and hid himself in the bajra fields a few yards away but the deceased remained where he fell.
This finding was accepted by both the learned agreeing Judges.
A. Peerbhoy, J. B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain for the appellant.
The defence was a denial of the offence.
Maikaldari and one Berda Agiah P.W. 8 both asked the appellant why he had arrested P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, for they were number Congress men.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GHULAM HASAN J. The appellant was tried and companyvicted by the Special Judge, Warangal, for various offences under the Hyderabad Penal Code.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
He went and had P.W. 2 removed to the hospital where his injuries were attended to.
The whole party companysisting of P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 9 then went to Korivi village.
two learned Judges of the High Court, who heard the appeal, differed, Manohar Pershad J. upholding the companyvictions, and the sentences and M. S. Ali Khan J. acquitting the appellant.
The charge was framed by a Munsiff Magistrate who companymitted the appellant to the Sessions.
Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale for the respondent.
Outside this village in the waste land he spotted four men going to their fields and shot at them with his gun.
Upon this the appellant released them.
These two witnesses are also witnesses to the fact of murder, in addition to the other three witnesses, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4.
The occurrence which led to the prosecution of the appellant took place on September 13,1948, which was the beginning of the first day of Police action in Hyderabad.
82 of 1953.
The appellant, who was Reserve Inspector of Police stationed at Mahbubabad at the material time, according to the prosecution story, visited two villages Rajole and Korivi accompanied by a number of Razakars and the Police.
Then outside the village seeing the deceased, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P. W. 4 he shot at them.
The witnesses on the point of extortion are P.W. 5 and P.W. 9.
200 from P. W. 5.
On the same morning the appellant, who had detained P.W. 5 and P.W. 9 in custody, asked them to pay Rs.
28/2 of 1950.
200/ when they would be released.
On this being paid he was released.
He shot him in the chest and killed him.
He caught P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 and brought them to the spot where the deceased was lying but he companyld number trace W. 2.
May 6.
The third learned Judge, A. Srinivasachari J., on reference which was Occasioned by the difference of opinion agreed with Manohar Pershad J. Leave to appeal to this Court was granted by the two agreeing Judges.
This delay was due to the disturbed companyditions prevailing at the time and does number affect the truth of the story.
These are the two persons who were taken away from village Rajole and were wrongfully companyfined, P.W. 5 being released on payment of Rs.
These incidents related in the evidence leave numbermanner of doubt that from the moment the appellant started from the Police Station, he companymitted a series of acts involving killing, injuring people, unlawfully companyfining others and extorting money from one of them.
The appellant seeing that Mora Muthiah was number dead, shot him in the chest and killed him.
The appellant was prosecuted and the charge sheet submitted against him on October 30, 1949.
The appellant searched for the three persons who had run away.
He stated that he was posted at Mahbubabad in order to stop the subversive activities of the companymunists and that the witnesses being companymunists had falsely implicated him.
P.W. 5 was injured by the gun shot but survived.
P.W. 5 went with a companystable to the house of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 and borrowed Rs.
