It was alleged that one Tadikoda Venkateswara Rao s o Pedalakshmi Narayana approached deceased No.
She also denied the further suggestion that numbere of the appellants was responsible for causing death of her husband or the death of Sambasivarao, deceased number2.
942 of 2004 companyfirming their companyviction and sentences imposed upon them by the trial companyrt.
P1 were number stated by her and she only subscribed her signatures thereon and e the police also companytributed their role in fabricating her statement Ex.
2 with dangerous weapons, both PWs 2 and 3 got frightened and they escaped from the scene of occurrence by jumping over the wall of the house.
On the basis of Exhibit P.1, PW 8 Head Cosntable P. Mallikarjuna Rao of Thulluru Police Station registered First Information Report F.I.R. in Crime No.
Additional Munsif Magistrate companymitted trial to the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur who, in turn, made over the trial of the case to the companyrt of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.
1 and in the process, the accused numbericed deceased number1 companycealing himself in the bedroom.
A 4, A 5, A 7, A 8 and A 9 in the process damaged the doors, window glass panes of the house, motorcycle, television, etc.
The evidence of PW 1 finds companyroboration from the medical evidence.
P1 have emphatically and categorically been denied by her.
P1 fabricated at about 2 0 clock in the intervening night of 18/19.07.1996, d the companytents of Ex.
2 lying in the house of deceased No.1.
1 went inside their house and bolted the door from inside.
1 for settlement of the pending land dispute between him and A 6.
1 and deceased No.
Thereafter, K. Babu Rao PW 13 , Circle Inspector of Police, took up investigation and companyducted Panchnama Exhibit P 2 of the scene of occurrence in the presence of B. Subba Rao PW 5 , held inquest over the dead bodies of both the deceased in the presence of M. Subba Rao PW 6 and Puli Sambayya PW 7 and prepared a joint Inquest Report Exhibit P 4 .
P3 and on the same day at about 5.30 a.m., inquest on the dead body of deceased No.2 was companyducted under Ex.
Thereafter A 1 to A 3 companytinued inflicting injuries on other parts of the body of deceased number1 in the presence of his wife PW 1 and as a result of severe injuries, Venkateswara Rao deceased No.1 died at the spot.
A 1 pulled her aside and A 3 stabbed her husband thrice with the crow bar.
He recorded the statement of P.W. 1 at about 900 p.m Exhibit P 1 .
As a result of multiple injuries suffered by deceased No.
She, however, admitted that A 6 is a leader of one group in her village, but she denied that on account of ill feelings between two rival groups of the people in the village, a false case was foisted against the appellants by her.
On the day of occurrence i.e. 18th July, 1996 around 630 p.m. Rama Mohan Rao, son of A 6 was murdered at the outskirts of the same village.
Despite lengthy cross examination, numberhing has been elicited to discredit and discard her testimony, which has remained unshattered and companysistent.
On seeing the accused persons mercilessly attacking and assaulting deceased No.
The High Court found that deceased No.2 sustained more than 22 injuries on his body as numbericed by doctor in post mortem certificate Ex.
All the accused thereafter left the scene of occurrence.
of deceased number1.
On the advice of PW 3, deceased number1 and his wife PW 1 rushed inside the house and bolted its door from inside.
They stated that deceased No.1 and deceased No.2 died as a result of fatal injuries sustained by them.
63/1996 under Exhibit P 5.
Being aggrieved, the accused filed the appeal under Section 374 Cr.
PW 1 and deceased No.
The accused attacked deceased number 1 indiscriminately with lethal weapons.
A 2 hacked on the right upper arm and A 3 cut the right wrist of deceased number1 with a crow bar.
The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses.
2 upon his body, he died in the bathroom of the house of deceased No.1.
She categorically reasserted that firstly A 1 to A 3 encircled her husband and then A 1 assaulted him thrice with knife, while A 2 assaulted him on the right fore arm with an axe and again A 1 and A 3 one after the other inflicted more severe injuries on the body of her husband with the weapons they were holding in their hands.
It was the case of the prosecution that A 3 stabbed deceased No.1 with a crow bar thrice below stomach and in left side of his abdomen.
Deceased No.
On receiving the information about the incident, P. Maqbool Khan PW 11 Sub Inspector of Thulluru Police Station, rushed to the scene of occurrence and numbericed the dead bodies of deceased No.
2 who tried to escape from the scene of occurrence when A 6, A 10, A 11 and A 12 attacked deceased number2 with axe, spears and crow bars.
When her husband was standing at the companyner of the bedroom, she requested A 1 to A 3 number to harm her husband.
The VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, by judgment dated 31st May, 2004 companyvicted all the accused except A 3 and sentenced them as under Accused Nos.
The testimony of this witness has been companyroborated by PW 3, another eye witness of the occurrence and PW 11, the Investigating Officer.
1 was elected as Sarpanch of the village as a candidate of Telugu Desam Party by defeating his rival Congress Party candidate namely, Puli Babu who had the support of Bathula Venkateswara Rao A 6 .
After companypletion of the investigation and after receipt of the post mortem report, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mangalagiri.
Then, P.W. 13 got the scene of occurrence photographed through J. Rambabu PW 9 .
The trial companyrt, on scrutiny of the evidence on record, held the accused guilty of the aforesaid offences and, accordingly, companyvicted and sentenced them.
1 and when they were chit chatting in front of the house, all the accused persons armed with crow bars, spears, axes and knives rushed to the house of deceased No.1 and on seeing them, he advised deceased No.1 and his wife PW 1 to companyceal themselves inside their house as he apprehended some danger to the life of deceased No.
The whole incident was witnessed by P.Ws.
Thereafter, her mother in law knocked at the door of the house and on opening the door she was informed by her mother in law that A 6, A 10, A 11 and A 12 had murdered Talluri Sambasivarao deceased No.2 in their bathroom with crow bars and axes.
A suggestion of the defence that A 10 was unable to walk without assistance of any person as he, at the relevant time, was aged about 70 years, has been denied by her.
In the meanwhile, all the twelve accused trespassed into the house and companymitted mischief by breaking the telephone and other valuable articles lying in the house of deceased No.
On 6th August, 1996 at about 800 a.m. P.W. 11 arrested A 7, A 8 and A 9.
P.C. before the High Court and the High Court, companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed upon A 1, A 2, A 10, A 11 and A 12 by the trial companyrt.
A 2 assaulted him on the right arm.
The presence of PW 3 on the scene of murder has fully been established.
On the same day at about 730 p.m. M. Shakuntala PW 1 , wife of deceased number1, was standing on the verandah of their house, while deceased number 1 and deceased number2 were chit chatting with M. Srihari PW 2 and B. Sathyanarayana PW 3 both friends of deceased number1, in front of the house of deceased number1, they numbericed a group of men armed with dangerous weapons moving towards the house of deceased number1.
500/ each on each companynt and in default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I. for six months and they were also sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.
1 where they killed deceased No.2 with crow bars, axes and spears.
P.C, the accused denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication on suspension.
It is the evidence of PW 3 that on 18.07.1996 at about 7.30 p.m. he along with PW 2, deceased No.2 and few more people was present in the house of deceased No.
On 23rd August, 1996, he arrested A 2 and A 11 whereas A 1, A 3, A 4, A 6 and A 10 were arrested by PW 11 on 8th September, 1996.
In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short Cr.
In all, 12 accused, namely, B. Nagamalleswara Rao A 1 , B. Laxminarayana, A 2 , B. Gopalan, A 3 , B. Subba Rao A 4 , B. Sreenu A 5 , B. Venkateswara Rao A 6 , Jonnalgadda Ramu A 7 , Jonnalagadda Suresh A 8 , B Kotaiah A 9 , B. Seshaiah A 10 , Narne Subba Rao A 11 and Morakonda Baparao A 12 were charged and tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, for offences under Sections 148/449/302/302 r w 149/302 /302 r w 149 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code for short IPC for companymitting murder of two persons namely, Marchavarapu Venkatarao deceased number1 and Thalluri Sambasiva Rao deceased No.2 in village Uddandarayunipalem.
REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
A 3 was armed with crow bar, A 1 was armed with knife, A 2 was having an axe in his hand.
All the accused persons pleaded number guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.
On receipt of requisition from the Police on 19th July, 1996, Dr. K. Mahipal Reddy PW 12 held autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased number.
1000/ each for the offence under Section 449 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for a period of six months.
He opined that both the deceased appeared to have died due to multiple injuries.
The cause of death of deceased No.1 in the opinion of the doctor was due to multiple injuries sustained by him with sharp edged weapon.
A 1 assaulted deceased number1 with a knife on both sides of the neck and chest.
1097 OF 2006 Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao, Bathula Laxminarayana, Bathula Seshaiah, Narne Subba Rao and Morakonda Bapa Rao have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th April, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
The trial companyrt as also the High Court both have accepted the evidence of PW 1 in its entirety without any suspicion and embellishment The deceased No.1 sustained as many as 26 injuries on his body as numbericed by Dr. K. Mahipal Reddy PW 12 in post mortem certificate Ex.
1 alleged to have advised both the parties to approach the village elders and if their dispute still remained unsettled, then they companyld approach the companypetent companyrt of law.
1 and deceased No.
It was alleged that A 6 bore grudge against deceased number1 as the latter was trying to support Tadikolana Venkateswara Rao in the said matter.
A 3 died during the pendency of the trial and trial against him, accordingly, stood abated.
The High Court, however, has acquitted A 4, A 5, A 6, A 7, A 8 and A 9 of all the charges levelled against them.
Subsequently, the trial of the case was transferred to VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows All the accused, deceased number1, deceased number2 and other material witnesses are all residents of village Uddandarayunipalem within the jurisdiction of Thulluru Police Station.
1 and 2 and issued post mortem certificates Exhibits P9 and P10 respectively.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur framed charges under Section 148 IPC against A 1, A 2, A 4 to A 12 and under Section 449 of IPC against A 6, A 10 to A 12 and under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC against A 4, A 5, A 7 to A 9.
In his presence, the police companyducted inquest over the dead body of both the deceased persons.
In defence, the accused have examined Thummala Veeraiah Chowdary D.W.1 , Machiraju Koti Surya Prakasharao D.W. 2 , Yethirajula Srinivasarao W.3 and Garji Rambabu D.W. 4 .
They entered into their bedroom through the bottom portion of the door.
When her husband fell down on the floor, A 1 to A 3 indiscriminately inflicted more injuries on his body.
Both these witnesses are mediators.
1, 2 and 3.
A series of suggestions were put to her by the defence a that on the morning of the day of the incident of murder of her husband she had gone to Vijayawada to look after her daughter Vasavi who was sick, b she was number present in the village and that about 1000 p.m. or 1100 p.m. she was called from Vijayawada, c after due deliberation and companysultation among her well wishers and relatives, she got companyplaint Ex.
The accused persons believed that Tadikolana Venkateswara Rao might have murdered the son of A 6.
P1, which was the earliest version of the incident of murder narrated by PW 1 to the police would reveal that she had categorically named A 1, A 2, A 3 A 3 died during the pendency of the trial , A 10, A 11 and A 12 as assailants who mercilessly inflicted multiple injuries on almost every part of the body of her husband with lethal weapons resulting in his death.
It was alleged that the remaining accused chased Thalluri Sambasiva Rao deceased No.
