At that time accused 1 and 2 had revolvers in their hands, accused 3 had a dagger.
Meanwhile seeing P.W. 3 companying that way the accused gave him a chase but he ran for his life.
At this stage one of the accused threw a stone which hit him on the right calf muscle but yet he ran away arid his pursurers were number able to catch him.
Thereafter he P.W. 9 himself went to the scene and saw the dead bodies of the deceased persons and came back and reported the matter to the village Munsiff of Thogarakunta.
After the aforesaid events, it is said that the accused came and threatened P.W 1 number to disclose the offence to anyone and if he did disclose, he would meet the fate that befell the deceased persons.
P.W. 3 supported the version given by P.Ws.
1 to 3 were partisan witnesses that their evidence is unnatural and unreliable.
They were number able to overtake him.
Hence the fact that his evidence was found to be unreliable cannot threw any doubt on the testimony of P.Ws.
One of the factions was known as Kapu faction though in that faction there were a sprinkling of Boyas.
He was hesitating while giving answers.
The Sub Inspector asked him to remain there.
He did so, Thereafter they took away with them P.W. 2.
From Dharmavaram he went to Chennakothapalli where he had some work.
They were tried by the learned District Judge, Anantapur for those offences.
He opined that they companyld number have been caused to by revolver shots.
On receiving these shots Sanjeevu fell down with his back to the sky.
Then accused 5 picked up a big stone and violently threw it on the head of Sanjeevu.
There were cases and companynter cases between the two factions.
Therefore he first sent P.W. 7 to go arid see whether the dead bodies were those of his relations.
When the accused were attacking Thimmiah, Sanjeevu began to run from that place but accused 2 and 5 chased him and accused 2 fired at him twice from behind.
According to the prosecution sometime after the occurrence P.W. 8, a postal runner happened to pass through the scene of occurrence and he saw two dead bodies there.
Later on he was examined at the inquest.
In the circumstances of the case we have to exclude from Consideration the testimony of P.Ws.
Between these factions there was bitter enmity.
The trial judge rejecting the testimony of P.W. 14 and relying on the evidence of P.W. 1, came to the companyclusion that the injuries found on the back of the deceased Sanjeev companyld number have been caused in the manner deposed to by P.Ws.
They asked him to take an oath that he would number divulge the matter to anyone.
At the same time accused 3 stabbed him below his armpit with a dagger.
This appeal against the decision of the High Court was brought after obtaining special leave from this Court.
1 to 3 also gets companyroboration from the testimony of P.W. 7 who claims to have been P.Ws.
In that faction there were some Kapus.
This explanation was number found to be satisfactory by the trial judge but on the other hand the High Court thought that it was a satisfactory explanation.
It also accepted the testimony of P.Ws.
On the date of the occurrence the deceased and some of their partymen had to appear in a criminal case pending against them in the Court of First Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram.
The other faction was known as boya faction.
In his report P.W. 9s cast suspicion on some of the members of the opposite faction including the appellants.
14 and 15 and rejected that of P.W. 1.
There he informed his sister about the occurrence but he was number hold enough to get out of the house companysequently he companyld number inform the authorities.
Meanwhile accused 5 Boya Vhinna Polappa came from behind and went past them brickly.
The appellate Court had fully relied on the testimony of P.Ws.
There he was kept in the house of the elder brother of accused 1.
When the aforementioned four persons proceeded a little further all the accused armed with pistols and other weapons emerged out of a dried up deep water channel and surrounded the two deceased persons.
It was alleged on behalf of the prosecution and number denied on behalf of the accused that from a very long time there were two factions in Thogarakunta village in Dharmavaram Taluk.
His further case is that when he took to his heels from the scene of occurrence accused 6 threw a stone at him and that caused an injury on his right calf but yet he companytinued running ou t of fear for his life and reached his sisters place at Bathalapuram which is about 2 1/2 miles from the scene of occurrence.
The scope of an appeal against an order of acquittal has been the subject of some companytroversy in Courts for a long time.
1 and 3.
P.W. 7 accordingly proceeded to the scene and he came and told him that they were the dead bodies of Thimmiah and Sanjeevu.
P 7 and thereafter sent the same with his report Ex.
The prosecution case is that some of the accused in that case had gone to Dharmavaram on the evening of the 7th itself.
As against that decision of the learned District Judge, the State went up in appeal to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
He stayed at the scene till the evening and he was examined at the inquest.
As a result of those companyclusions he acquitted the appellants as well as Boya Ranudu.
The High Court accepted the appeal so far as the appellants Accused 1 to 5 are companycerned and companyvicted them under various charges including one Under Section 302/149, I.P.C. for which offence all of them were sentenced for imprisonment for life It is number necessary to refer to the other charges because those charges are interwoven with the offence of murder.
The appellants denied that they had any hand in the murder of the deceased persons.
The learned District Judge disbelieving the witnesses who spoke to the incident viz.
1 to 3 acquitted all the accused.
5 and 6 have turned Hostile to the prosecution The trial judge had recorded in the deposition of P.W. 6 that his behavior in the witness box was anything but satisfactory.
He went and informed that matter to the village Munsiff of Kanganapalli who recorded his statement Ex.
1, 2 and the two deceased persons going towards Kariganapalli on the morning of September 8, 1964.
It is said that he was going at some distance behind the four persons referred to earlier.
The evidence of P.Ws.
They did number deny the existence of two factions in the village and the further fact that there was serious hostility between the two factions.
1 and 2 as regards the occurrence.
He also stated that he returned to his village on the next morning and at the scene he found large number of people gathered.
Further, the prosecution evidence discloses that somewhere about the numbern of the day of occurrence P.W. 9, a relation of the deceased persons are lying at Kanganapalli.
1 and 3.
5 and 6.
1 to 3 relating to the occurrence is fully companyroborated by P.W. 14 who companyducted postmortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased persons and also P.W. 15 the Fire arms expert.
When he was returning to his village next day, at the place where the murders had taken place he saw a large number of persons including some police officers.
Bat the two deceased persons left for Dharamavaram on the early morning of September 8, 1964, On the way at a companyfee hotel they met P.Ws, 1 and 2 who were also going to Dharmavaram, The four jointed together and proceeded to Dharamavaram after taking some companyfee the hotel of P.W. 5 P.W. 3, a relation of the deceased persons also left for Dharamavaram that morning carrying a bag of companyd rice for the accused in the case.
That night he went to his house and stayed with his family.
On their behalf they examined P.W. 1, the professor of Forensic Medicine, Madras to establish that the injuries found on the back of Sanjeevu companyld number have been caused by revolver shots.
When Thimmiah fell down, accused 4 picked up a big stone of the size of pumpkin from near the road and dropped it on the head of Thimmiah.
Thereafter in the evening they took him to Anantapur and left him there.
P.W. 2s version is that from the place of occurrence the accused took him to Thopudurthi.
During the time he was with the accused he was repeatedly warned number to divulge the matter to anyone and to be beware of the likely companysequences if he dared to disregard their warnings.
That report is marked Ex P 9.
By that evidence they sought to show that the evidence given by the occurrence witnesses is number true.
They pleaded that the case had been foisted against them because of enmity.
The police had arrived at the scene by that time.
Accused 1 fired revolver shots at the deceased Boya Thimmiah twice or thrice.
The acquittal of Ranudu was companyfirmed by the High Court on the ground that there is numbersatisfactory evidence to show that the participated in the incident.
After the accused and P.W. 2 left the place P.W. 1 went to Kanganapelli and there caught a bus for Dharamavaram where he cashed his pay cheque for which purpose he went to Bharamavaram that day.
S. Hegde, J. The appellants and one Boya Ranudu were charged with the murders of Boya Thiamiah and Boya Sanjeevu as well as some other lesser offences at about 8 a.m. on September 8, 1964 near mile stone No.
As he knew that his relations had gone that way that morning, he became suspicious that they might have been done to death and hence he proceeded towards the scene of occurrence but he was number bold enough to go to the scene.
He also came to the companyclusion that P.Ws.
81/2 on the Dharmavaram Kalyandurg road.
The evidence of P.Ws.
1 to 3.
