At that juncture, Arunachalam, PW 6, the younger brother of the deceased, intervened.
The companycerned Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and, after companypletion of other formalities, placed the charge sheet before the companycerned Magistrate who companymitted the matter to the Court of Session.
3 A 3 was companyvicted under Sections 452, 302 read with Section 34, and 324 of the IPC and, accordingly, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine which we shall state at a later stage.
108 of 2003.
A 1 and A 2 caught hold of him and his son and dragged them out of the house.
The broad essential facts of the prosecution case are that A 1 and A 2 are real brothers and A 3 is their companysin.
The defence chose number to adduce any evidence.
The said elders secured the presence of A 1 and A 2, the deceased and his son and told all of them that there would be a mediation on 26.9.2002 and sincere efforts should be made to put the companytroversy to rest.
6915/2003, the matter was transferred to the Sessions Judge, Chittoor.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
It is submitted by the learned companynsel for the appellant that there is material companytradiction about A 1 and A 2 letting their companys graze in the sugarcane field of the deceased inasmuch as different versions have been given by PW 1, the informant, and PW 20, the Circle Inspector of Police who companyducted the investigation.
On seeing the same, Sekhar, son of the deceased, brought those cattle to his house and tied them.
70 of 2002 was registered under Sections 452, 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused persons.
As far as the companyviction and sentence of A 1 and A 2 are companycerned, that was maintained.
After the criminal law was set in motion, on 29.9.2002, the Circle Inspector of Police, P.W. 20, arrested A 1 and A 2 who led the said police officer to the sugarcane fields from where the weapons used in the crime were recovered and seized in the presence of panch witnesses.
The deceased, his brother Damodaran and other family members had an apprehension that if Dhanamma companytinued such kind of intimacy with A 1, she would number be in a position to perform the marriage of her daughter.
However, the companytradictions and omissions found in the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses were marked as Exh.
Rukminamma, PW 2, intervened and was assaulted by A 2.
The accused waited for the opportunity to pick up quarrels and triggered altercations on every trivial issue with the deceased and his family.
It is proponed by him that all the eye witnesses are interested witnesses and they have deliberately implicated the accused persons and further the prosecution has number made any endeavour to produce any independent witness.
A 3 also assaulted him with iron rod on his chest.
At about 4.00 p.m., A 1 and A 2 went to the house of the deceased, picked up a quarrel, assaulted them and took away their cattle.
Similarly, when Pargunam, PW 4, and Damodaran, PW 5, intervened, they were also beaten up by the accused persons.
The High Court referred to the inquest report of the deceased, the injury reports of the injured persons, the human blood as found from the report of serologist companytained in Exh.
Before the appellate companyrt, it was companytended that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred by placing reliance on the evidence of PWs 1 to 8, 10 and 12 despite the incurable discrepancies pertaining to the place and time of occurrence and further the learned trial Judge had totally erred by giving credence to the version of the witnesses who are relatives of the deceased and were absolutely interested to implicate the accused.
They also threatened them with dire companysequences.
Jayamma, PW 3, was assaulted by A 1.
A 1, Thoti Ekambaram, assaulted the deceased with iron rods on his head, neck and all over his body and caused injuries as a companysequence of which he fell down and lost his companysciousness.
All the injured persons were taken to the Government hospital, Chittoor in a jeep for necessary treatment.
The prosecution, to establish the charges against the accused persons, examined 20 witnesses, exhibited 23 documents, namely, Exh.
The said apprehension companypelled them to send Dhanamma and her daughter to Bangalore where Dhanamma lived with her son.
Thoti Manohar, A 2, struck him with the billhook on his face as a result of which he sustained injuries.
A 1, Thoti Ekambaram, had developed illicit relationship with Dhanamma, the companysin sister of the deceased, Kuppuswamy Modali.
In the hospital, Kuppuswamy Modali was declared dead.
The other remaining injured were admitted in the hospital for treatment.
The accused pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
The case of the prosecution as further uncurtained is that on 25.9.2002, at about 11.00 a.m., when Sekhar, the deceased and Jayamma, wife of the deceased PW 3 , were in their house, A 1 and A 3 armed with iron rods and A 2 armed with billhook trespassed into the house of the deceased.
As the factual matrix would undrape, on 24.9.2002 at about 3.00 p.m., A 1 and A 2 drove their companys again for grazing the crop of the deceased.
Being dissatisfied with the judgment of companyviction and the order of sentence, all the accused persons preferred appeal before the High Court.
This act of the deceased and his family members stirred up anger in the heart of A 1 and a sense of revenge ruled his thought.
1 A 1 was companyvicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 302, 326 and 324 of the IPC, the accused No.
The learned Sessions Judge also relied on the testimony of PW 9, Dr. Sai Rani, who companyducted the post mortem, PW 16, Dr. M. Krishnaveni, PW 17, Dr. Vijaya Gowri and PW 18, another medical officer, who examined the injured witnesses and gave certificates which were brought on record.
The narration in companytinuum is that Sekhar, PW 1, lodged an FIR at Police Station, Gangadhara, Nellore and Crime No.
P 23, analysed the credibility and credentiality of the testimony of the eye witnesses and placed reliance on the seized articles and numbered the companysistency of the ocular evidence and the companyroboration it had received from the medical evidence, the detailed narration of the assault on the witnesses by the assailants group, the number involvement of A 3 with the previous incident and threat given and the role ascribed to him and came to hold that there was numbermaterial to infer the companymon intention as far as A 3 was companycerned and, accordingly, acquitted A 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC but sustained the companyviction and sentence in respect of other offences.
Be it numbered, the accused No.
The trivial cavil slowly gave rise to a major incident and on one day, A 1 and others allowed their cattle into the sugarcane fields of the deceased who wantonly grazed there and spoiled the crops.
P 1 to P 23 and got MOs 1 to 9 marked.
On 3.10.2002, A 3 was arrested.
D 1 to D 5.
Being disturbed, Kuppuswamy Mudali deceased and his son Sekhar PW 1 approached the elders of the village, namely, Gunasekhar and Amudalaputtur Kesava Reddy PWs 7 and 12 and others, for companyvening a panchayat so that such unwarranted actions were number repeated.
That apart, it was canvassed that there was numbercircumstance on record to companye to a definite companyclusion that A 2 and A 3 shared a companymon intention with A 1 to do away with the life of the deceased inasmuch as they neither caused injury on the body of the deceased number did they instigate or exhort A 1 to companymit the murder and, therefore, they were only liable for their individual acts and to be companyvicted and sentenced for the offences companymitted by them.
That apart, submitted the learned public prosecutor before the appellate companyrt, that they had earlier threatened the deceased with dire companysequences and thus, the cumulative effect of the circumstances would go a long way to reveal that there was a companymon intention to extinguish the life spark of the deceased.
DIPAK MISRA, J. The present appeal, by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence dated 6.3.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.
The said submissions were companytroverted by the public prosecutor companytending that A 2 and A 3 came armed with deadly weapons to the house of the deceased and dragged him from his house and attacked him.
