The investigating team came to the spot, i.e., the field of Ramireddy Ramasubba Reddy and usual investigation began.
On this basis of the evidence, the Trial Court found that even the evidence of the Investigation Officer PW 15 was an improved version.
Very significantly, barring the evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy PW 1 , Sudhakar Reddy PW 2 , G. Raghurami Reddy PW 3 , R. Venkata Subba Reddy PW 4 and K. Gopal Yadav PW 5 , there is hardly any companysideration in the High Courts judgment, more particularly of the mix up of timings as regards the Complaint Exhibit P 1 , on which heavy reliance was placed by the High Court.
He then refers to the police firing a gun.
Though he was declared hostile, the Trial Court has relied on his evidence to the effect that immediately after receiving the sounds of explosion, he came there running.
A Criminal Appeal was filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court against this judgment vide Criminal Appeal No.
As a usual sequel of the elections, there were faction clashes and one of such clashes took place on 13.12.1998 between these two groups on account of passage which was used by both the groups.
As usual, there were two factions in the village, one belonging to the Congress Party and the other belonging to the Telugu Desam Party.
14 A 14 , Yeddula Konda Reddy, original accused No.
It is also alleged that Yeddula Ramachandra Reddy A 6 had opened fire at the prosecution witness referred to above.
There, A 1, the present appellant is said to have hurled bomb on the chest of Pilli Pedda Yesanna deceased , resulting in his instantaneous death.
As regards G. Raghurami Reddy PW 3 , he claimed that he suffered a splinter injury on account of the bomb hurled by Yeddula Maruthi Prasad Reddy A 5 .
13 A 13 , Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy, original accused No.
After that he refers that they all injured came to the Government Hospital and were being treated.
12 A 12 , Boddella Madhusudhana Reddy Madhukesava Linga Reddy, original accused No.
Seeing that, even T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy PW 9 opened fire into air so as to disperse the mob on which the accused ran away from the scene of the offence.
During their examination, the accused persons denied the accusations.
The medical certificates, as well as the evidence of Dr. K. Venkata Narayana PW 11 shows that these were the grievous injuries and were number superficial or minor injuries.
While appreciating the evidence of the so called eye witnesses, it is deduced by the Trial Court that in all probability, there were 10 bombs in the hands of the appellant A 1 , Bodella Malikarjuna Reddy A 2 , Yedula Nagamuni Reddy A 3 , Mopuru Ramanjaneyula Reddy A 4 and Yeddula Maruthi Prasad Reddy A 5 and out of these, 6 exploded and 4 of them caused splinter injury to each one of the injured.
On hearing the explosion, T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy PW 9 who was a companystable on Bandobast duty came to the scene of offence.
He then refers to an injury caused on his little finger because of the spear.
According to the prosecution, Bodella Malikarjuna Reddy A 2 , Yedula Nagamuni Reddy A 3 , Mopuru Ramanjaneyula Reddy A 4 and Yeddula Maruthi Prasad Reddy A 5 also hurled bombs, which exploded and caused splinter injuries to Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy PW 1 , K. Sudhakar Reddy PW 2 , G. Raghurami Reddy PW 3 , R. Venkata Subba Reddy PW 4 and K. Gopal Yadav PW 5 as also to others including Gopireddy Venkatarami Reddy List Witness No.
11 A 11 , Yeddula Rajeswara Reddy, original accused No.
16 A 16 , all armed with dangerous weapons like Eetakodavallu and spears came and attacked these persons.
All other accused caused injuries to the others.
So far as evidence of K. Sudhakar Reddy PW 2 is companycerned, he deposed that the appellant hurled a bomb on the dorsum of his right hand and that Yeddula Manohar Reddy A 7 beat him with a spear stick and Mopuru Ramanjaneyula Reddy A 4 hurled a bomb at him and he received a splinter injury on his left ankle.
The injured persons were taken by K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy PW 7 to the General Hospital, Proddatur, where Chinna Narayana Reddy PW 1 is said to have given companyplaint and on that basis Crime No.
Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy A 14 is said to have assaulted Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy PW 1 with Eetakodavallu on his head while Yeddula Sankar Reddy A 8 is said to have beaten him with spear stick on his right knee.
15 A 15 , Boddela Naga Ramesh Reddy, original accused No.
105/98 was registered and investigation began on that basis.
The Trial Court also held that the offence was number established as also the medical evidence was number companysistent with the oral evidence on record.
10 A 10 , Mopuru Jayarami Reddy, original accused No.
As per the prosecution case, all the accused persons and the witnesses were the residents of village Sankarpuram of Proddatur Mandal in Kadappa District.
At that time, Boddella Babul Reddy appellant A 1 , Bodella Malikarjuna Reddy, original accused No.2 A 2 , Yedula Nagamuni Reddy, original accused No.3 A 3 , Mopuru Ramanjaneyula Reddy, original accused No.4 A 4 and Yeddula Maruthi Prasad Reddy, original accused No.
In the opinion of the Trial Court, there was deliberate delay in giving the First Information Report FIR and the said was given after due deliberations with the political leaders, so as to implicate falsely, the persons belonging to the Telugu Desam Party.
On examination of the evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy PW 1 , K. Sudhakar Reddy PW 2 , G. Raghurami Reddy PW 3 , R. Venkata Subba Reddy PW 4 and K. Gopal Yadav PW 5 , the Trial Court found that Pilli Pedda Yesanna deceased was number a leader, he was a mere companylie.
1 A 1 was upset and he was companyvicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as IPC for short .
It is on this basis that the Trial Court entertained a doubt about the version of the prosecution.
Therefore, the Trial Court came to the companyclusion that the injuries on Yeddula Sankar Reddy A 8 and Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy A 14 were number explained by the prosecution.
This fact was informed to one T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy PW 9 , a Bandobast Constable posted in the village and he promised that he would admonish the accused.
This suspicion about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses became all the more serious on the basis of the evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy PW 1 that they came to the Hospital by 9.30 or 10 A.M. and after some time, S. Ramakrishna Reddy PW 15 , Circle Inspector and E.V. Rami Reddy PW 14 , Head Constable came there and took them to the Doctor for treatment and then the statement of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy PW 1 was recorded by the Head Constable, while Exhibit P 1 Complaint given by PW 1 suggests that it was recorded at 10.35 A.M. This was also fortified by the endorsements of Dr. K. Venkata Narayana PW 11 .
The Trial Court, therefore, expressed a doubt and in our opinion, rightly that Chandra Sekhar Reddy PW 7 and Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy PW 1 , who had companytested election against the appellant herein being present on the scene, the appellant would chose to throw bomb at an insignificant companylie like Pilli Pedda Yesanna deceased , leaving Chandra Sekhar Reddy PW 7 and Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy PW 1 , who had number claimed that it was the appellant who threw the bomb at them.
It has also companye on record that Yeddula Sankar Reddy A 8 , Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy A 14 and one Yeddula Venkateswara Reddy also received injuries in the same incident, whose wound certificates are marked as D 6 to D 8 respectively.
On the day of incident i.e. 16.12.1998, at about 6.30 a.m., K. Sudhakar Reddy PW 2 , G. Raghurami Reddy PW 3 , R. Venkata Subba Reddy PW 4 and K. Gopal Yadav PW 5 along with one Pilli Pedda Yesanna the deceased and one Gopireddy Venkatarami Reddy List Witness No.
All the original accused persons, including the appellant herein, belonged to the Telugu Desam Party.
The cases were filed which later on ended in acquittal.
As many as 16 accused persons came to be tried for the various offences by the Trial Court including offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302, IPC read with Section 149, IPC Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 1 b and 27 of the Indian Arms Act.
It was an admitted position that these injuries were never explained by the prosecution.
As many as 15 witnesses being PW 1 to PW 15 came to be examined before the Trial Court.
These factions in the village resulted in bitter enmity in between the two groups.
While Boddella Babul Reddy appellant A 1 was the leader of the party faction belonging to Telugu Desam Party, one Chandra Sekhar Reddy PW 7 was the leader of the faction belonging to the Congress Party.
The present appellant accused pleaded that he had numberenmity with the Pilli Pedda Yesanna deceased who was a mere companylie and also did number belong to the Congress Party and that he was framed in this case as the person who hurled the bomb at the deceased with the active support of Varadarajulu Reddy, a Member of Legislative Assembly MLA belonging to the Congress Party and a false case was foisted against him.
The Trial Court, therefore, rightly came to the companyclusion that excepting the splinter injury received by injured witnesses on account of the bomb being hurled, other injuries were never companyroborated by the medical evidence on record.
K. Gopal Yadav PW 5 also had suffered a splinter injury from a bomb hurled by Bodella Malikarjuna Reddy A 2 .
R. Venkata Subba Reddy PW 4 also suggested that he received a splinter injury on his back with a bomb hurled by Yedula Nagamuni Reddy A 3 .
However, this witness never stated as to who had caused him injury on his head.
On 15.12.1998, the party belonging to the Congress workers went to the field of one Ramireddy Ramasubba Reddy for shifting the heap belonging to that group.
6 A 6 armed with gun and Yeddula Manohar Reddy, original accused No.
The accused abjured the guilt.
7 A 7 , Yeddula Sankar Reddy, original accused No.
This was companyroborated by the evidence of T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy PW 9 , the Bandobast Constable also who claimed that he was informed by the Congress Party workers that three Telugu Desam Party workers had received injuries in the incident.
The body of the deceased Pilli Pedda Yesanna was sent for post mortem examination and after the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the 16 accused persons, including the present appellant.
9 A 9 , Mopuru Subba Reddy, original accused No.
8 A 8 , Mopuru Naga Subba Reddy, original accused No.
5 A 5 armed with bomb and Yeddula Ramachandra Reddy, original accused No.
In 1997, elections took place in the Association called Water Users Association.
The Trial Court also expressed its doubts on the basis of sketch of scene of offence Exhibit P 21 , which shows numbertraces of explosion of any explosive substance at the scene of offence.
These injuries were found by Dr. K. Venkata Narayana PW 11 , who certified them vide Exhibit P 4.
As companypared to the injuries of G. Raghurami Reddy PW 3 , R. Venkata Subba Reddy PW 4 and K. Gopal Yadav PW 5 , the injuries suffered by K. Sudhakar Reddy PW 2 were more serious.
Dr. K. Venkata Narayana PW 11 also found a lacerated injury on the right side of his chest.
It is admitted by E.V. Rami Reddy PW 14 that when he and S. Ramakrishna Reddy PW 15 , Circle Inspector reached the Government Hospital, M.L.A. Varadarajula Reddy had already companye to the Hospital and the legal advisors on behalf of the Congress Party were also found there.
However, Boddella Babul Reddy appellant A 1 is said to have caused obstruction for transportation of the paddy crop.
Since the case was triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the matter was companymitted to the Sessions Court, District Kadappa and was registered as Sessions Case No.
At the trial, various charges were framed against the accused persons.
268/99.
1769/2004.
There is an endorsement that this statement has been given at 10.35 A.M., while it was dispatched to the Court at 1.04 P.M. Significantly enough, there is also a report given by Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy A 14 on the same day at 7.45 A.M., wherein the hurling of the bomb is attributed to the companyplainant party.
The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution.
The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has maintained the verdict of acquittal in case of others while the verdict in case of Boddella Babul Reddy appellant herein , who was the original accused No.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court upset the judgment of the Trial Court, acquitting all the accused persons.
6 went to the said field of Ramireddy Ramasubba Reddy to transport the hay along with a tractor which was brought for the purpose of transportation.
The deceased was also found wearing a sweater, which was number possible unless he was a watchman to the field throughout the night.
The Trial Court also expressed doubts about the evidence of S. Ramakrishna Reddy PW 15 on account of his number having shown in the sketch, the places, where the explosion took place, which were four in number, according to the witness.
The Trial Court also pointed out that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries on the persons of the accused and as such the oral evidence, more particularly of PW 1 to PW 5, who were the Congress Party workers and who were inimical against the accused, companyld number be believed.
The Trial Court, therefore, deduced that the bombs were thrown by both the groups, more particularly because the injuries on Yeddula Sankar Reddy A 8 and Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy A 14 , which had remained unexplained, were far from serious and were caused because of the explosion of the bombs.
The Trial Court, therefore, went on to scrutinize the evidence of the eye witnesses Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy PW 1 , K. Sudhakar Reddy PW 2 , G. Raghurami Reddy PW 3 , R. Venkata Subba Reddy PW 4 and K. Gopal Yadav PW 5 with greater care.
On this, the Trial Court deduced the theory of free fight between both the groups, both armed with explosive bombs.
Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy PW 1 then refers to his being hacked by other accused persons with a hunting sickle and on the right knee with the spear.
It was found that this evidence of the witness was number companyroborated by T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy PW 9 , the Police Constable, who visited the scene of offence immediately at that time.
