P.C. had been recorded by the police for the first time on 14th May, 2004 whereas the incident had happened on 3rd of April, 2004.
The trial companyrt relying on this evidence as CRL.A. NO.
2 and 3 had been accompanying the deceased while he returned home and that they had seen the attack on him.
He has pointed out that in the background of the fact that P.W. 1 was number an eye witness and P.Ws.
On receiving this CRL.A. NO.
Two others A5 and A6 were acquitted by the trial companyrt whereas A1 was acquitted by the High Court.
On the companypletion of the investigation, the accused were brought to trial for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of the IPC.
The deceased Srinivasa Rao was working as a companylie in the Mango Market in Vijayawada and would leave for work at 430a.m.
During the companyrse of the trial, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W. 1 admittedly number an eye witness who gave the story with regard to the motive for the incident as also the fact that the deceased was employed in the Mango Market as a labourer, and P.Ws 2 and 3 who were allegedly accompanying the deceased at the time of the incident and claimed to be eye witnesses.
In other words, out of the six accused brought to trial only three are before us by way of this appeal after special leave.
It was also ascertained that A1 to A4 were bad characters and in the habit of companymitting thefts in the market and misbehaving with the women workers and the deceased, had, on several occasions, admonished them for bad behaviour which had led to unpleasant scenes between them.
When questioned, W. 2 admitted that his statement companyld number be recorded earlier as he was number available to the police.
and return home to his village by 930p.m.
1768 of 2008 REPORTABLE information P.W. 1 went to the spot and was told by those present that accused A1 to A4 had beaten her son with sticks causing his death.
On 3rd April, 2004, P.W. 1 the mother of the deceased, received information from P.W.4 to the effect that she had seen her son lying near the bridge with serious injuries.
She, accordingly, lodged a report with the police a short while later.
The investigation made by the police revealed that several witnesses including P.Ws.
3 and 4 had been declared hostile whereas P.W. 2 had denied that he had seen the incident, there was numberevidence against the appellants.
