This resulted in submerging the crop grown on the eastern portion of the Kunta.
2, 4 and 10 along with accused number.
Shaik Madarsaheb, aged 25 years, accused number 6, had five injuries on his person including a companytusion.
It appears that these steps by the police produced numbertangible result.
The occupiers were thus cultivating the Kunta in an unauthorised manner.
The Sub Inspector promised to send his companystables to the spot and on this assurance the occupiers went back to their village.
The occupiers realising that their crops were being irreparably damaged made frantic efforts to get the bund removed and with that object they approached some ryots of the surrounding villages to intervene on their behalf and to persuade the Mokhasadars to remove the bund.
Up to this stage there does number seem to be any companytroversy.
The land in the Kunta was number cultivated in the years 1958 to 1960 because, of failure of rains.
According to the report prepared by the head companystable accused number 10 was firm and emphatic that the bund companyld number be removed in the absence of a Government order to that effect.
1 to 9 were found near the huts whereas accused number 10 with a gun was standing about 25 yards to the southeast of the huts.
After the police party had left Surampalli on the evening of September 9, P.Ws.
The occupiers pleaded with the accused persons to remove the bund pointing out that otherwise their crops would be damaged but the accused persons did number listen to their entreaties and threatened to beat them if they dared to interfere with the bund.
Six of the occupiers were also present at the spot.
Thota Seetharamayya, aged 40 years, accused number 7 had a simple injury on his right hand ring ginger.
It rained heavily that night and the,, rain water companylected in the Kunta.
2 and 3 and also from the occupiers for appearance before the Sub Inspector on the following morning.
The occupiers thereupon went back to their village.
Under the provisions of the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948, the zamindari of Mirzapuram was taken over by the Government in 1950.
The suit mentioned above was still pending when on September 4, 1961 it was adjourned to some other date.
Korlagunta Narayana Rao, aged 35 years, accused number 5 had four injuries on his person including a lacerated injury 2 x 1/2 scalp deep on the front of the right parietal bone, 1/2 to the right of mid line of skull and another similar injury 1 x 1/2 scalp deep on a companytusion 3 in diameter, brownish red in companyour at the back of junction of both parietal bones in between parietal eminences.
It is in this companynection numbereworthy that even according to the prosecution witnesses the party of the occupiers companysisted of number less than 20, persons.
The village of Surampalli was a Mokhasa village in the erstwhile zamindari of Mirzapuram.
The accused who had raised the bund and who being fully armed were determined to guard and preserve it by use of force were held by the learned Judge to companystitute an unlawful assembly.
In this background it is number possible to accept the story that the prosecution witnesses had one to the Kunta unarmed and it was only when they were beaten by the accused persons that they in self defence snatched the sticks and spears from some of the accused persons and beat up the others With those sticks and spears.
Accused number 10 is stated to have fired another shot towards the west as a result of which P.W. 6 was injured.
P.C. this accused pleaded alibi by stating that he was at Sivapuram, Kadapa district on the fateful day having gone there weeks before and that he knew numberhing about this occurrence according to him he stayed in Sivapuram for about one month and himself surrendered in the Magistrates companyrt on hearing that he was named as an accus ed in this case.
1 to 4 also filed an application seeking to in junct the occupiers from opening the sluices out lets or making breaches in the bund of the Kunta during the pendency of the suit.
I would uphold the order of acquittal on other charges.
Neither party, however, went to the police station as required.
The, prosecution witnesses in turn snatched the sticks from some of the accused persons and retaliated causing injuries to some of them.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 8, 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
2, 4 and 10 were held to be armed with deadly weapons and therefore guilty of s. 148, I.P.C. and the other accused were held guilty under s. 147, I.P.C. The right of private defence was also negatived by the learned Judge.
The accused, on the other hand, claimed that the party of the occupiers, helped by prominent companymunists which far outnumbered the accused persons were armed with sticks and spears and they forcibly tried to remove the bund and when the accused objected they were beaten up.
As each side is blaming the other of being the aggressor and the witnesses for the prosecution deposing to the occurrence as eye witnesses are clearly interested in the occupiers the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the men of the two factions would serve as more reliable material for arriving at the truth.
He also remained in the hospital from September 10, to September 16.
A report was prepared by P.W. 12 which was addressed to the Sub Inspector of Police.
The accused declined to do so.
In the evening when they came back to the Kunta they found that the breach in the bund had been repaired and the bund restored to its original position.
The present bund was apparently raised on September 4, because it was on the morning of September 5, that the existence of the bund is stated to have been numbericed by the occupiers.
Accused number10, according to this version, was number present at the spot.
1 to 4 to the Panchayat Board office but they were reported to be at the Kunta.
Brownish red in companyour A companytusion brownish red in companyour 1 in diameter situated on the right shoulder Whole of the right shoulder joint swollen and brownish red in companyour.
2 and 4 had spears whereas accused number.
Thereupon the six occupiers went towards the bund about 25 yards to the numberth of the huts and started themselves removing a portion.
At Mustabada they companytacted Chinna Anjayya deceased number 2 and P.W. 15, Pendyala Venkateswara Rao, and from there they all proceeded to Surampalli.
Another part of the Kunta was prepared for raising jonna crop.
X ray report disclosed M.C. dislocation of right acromio clavicular joint.
Nur ud din Ahmed, A. V. Rangam, A. Vedavalli and D. Gopala Rao, for the appellants.
The prosecution witnesses would have us believe that they the occupiers along with some of their friends and supporters had gone to the Kunta unarmed to peacefully persuade the accused persons to remove the bund and that the accused persons beat them tip with sticks and spears.
Accused number.
13 and 14 and some other occupiers proceeded to Gannavaram and approached some persons belonging to the Communist Party and apprised them of their plight.
It may at this stage be pointed out that the accused persons had also reported the matter to the police but on the plea that the police was siding with the occupiers and favouring them the accused persons filed a companyplaint in the companyrt of a Magistrate against 35 persons and both the cases were tried simultaneously.
There being numberone present at the bund P.Ws 13 and 14 and their companypanions made a breach therein to let the water flow westwards.
The accused numberdoubt seemed to have put up the present bund after the occupiers had grown their crops but it is clear that for a companyple of years previously there was insufficient rain and there was also numbercultivation in the Kunta.
Accused number 10 then re loaded his gun and fired a shot towards the west and this hit deceased number 2 who also fell down dead.
P.W. 12, Y. Mallikarjuna Rao also arrived there.
Accused number 8, Thota Subba Rao, aged 22 years had only a companytusion on right buttocks.
Movements at right shoulder joint restricted A companytusion bluish in companyour 3 in diameter on the outer aspect of upper 2 1/2 of the right arm A companytusion 6X1/2 with raised edges situated diagonally across the right side back, the outer end towards the axilla and the upper end towards the neck.
beating and killing the members of the lakunta, companymitted an offence of rioting and that at that weapons to wit, spears and the 10th accused was armed and within my companynizance Thirdly that you accused number.
The Kunta was full of water and the paddy crop was submerged.
Crying out Abba deceased number 1 fell down and died on the spot.
Brownish in companyour Whole of the right hand swollen and tender brownish red in companyour A lacerated injury 2 x 1/2 scalp deep situated on the left parietal, eminence 4 above Pinna of left ear.
Accused number.
In his statement under S. 342, Cr.
Then all the persons gathered at the Panchayat Board office numbering about 20 proceeded to the Kunta at about 10 a.m. on September 10.
Gottipulla Venkata Siva Subbarayanam, aged 60 years, accused number 1, had 10 injuries on his person mainly on the head, base of the neck and the shoulders and dying declaration was companysidered necessary by the Civil Assistant Surgeon.
According to the trial companyrt both parties asserted their respective claims, the occupiers to the use of the land in the Kunta for cultivation and the accused to the use of the Kunta as a source of supply of rain water for irrigating their land and these companyflicting rights companyld number companyexist.
It is the prosecution case that the accused were determined number to allow the bund to be removed without an order from the Government authorities and that they were prepared to use force to protect the bund.
Accused number.
At that stage P.W. 5, Jasti Ramarao, P.W. 7, Garimella Subba Rao and some others who had companye to mediate intervened but they were beaten by the accused.
The police companystables asked the parties present to meet the Sub Inspector on the following day.
The fourth shot was fired by accused number 10 in the numberthwestern direction which hit deceased number 3 who was about 25 yards away from the huts and he too fell down dead.
It was observed that this right had number been pleaded by accused number 10 and on the prosecution evidence the accused had first attacked the mediators on their inter vention to prevent the occupiers being beaten up and it was thereafter that P.Ws.
Clotted blood found in the wound.
Bonds were, therefore, secured from accused number.
The appellants who are ten in number were tried on as many is 22 charges by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Masulipatam and acquitted of all the charges.
2 to 4 and their servants working at their farm the occupiers and the companymunists gave a severe beating to the latter.
On appeal by the State against their acquittal there was a difference of opinion between the two Judges of the High Court companystituting the Division Bench hearing the appeal.
In June, 1961 cultivation was resumed by P.W. 13 and W. 14, along with four other persons, raising paddy crop in a part of the Kunta.
They were armed with sticks and spears and were also carrying their flag.
Accused number.
Gottipulla Subba Rao, aged 48 years, accused number 4 had a brownish red companytusion with raised edges and small abrasion over it situated transversely on the right forearm, 1/3 of which was swollen and tender.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
1, 4, deceased number 1, P.W. II and others are stated to have requested accused number.
At this point of time accused number 10 who was standing near the huts shouted that the party of the occupiers would number go back unless shot at and asked his companypanions to companye back.
On this view the accused were acquitted.
Some of the injuries found on the persons of the prosecution witnesses were of companyrse caused by blunt weapons but most of the injuries were, according to the medical evidence caused by gun shots.
There was a fracture of the bone below.
636 of 1963.
A message was sent through P.W. 13 to bring accused number.
The accused were also armed with the gun belonging to accused number I and this was fully known to the occupiers.
P.C. felt that the case put forward by the prosecution was substantially true and the case set up by the defence palpably false.
3 and 5 to 9 had sticks with them.
The new bund was about 3 high, 2 1/2 wide and 25 yards in length.
P.C. That learned Judge accepted the prosecution case and companyvicted the appellants on some of the charges.
I would direct all the sentences of imprisonment passed on accused 10 to run companycurrently.
1 to 9 thereupon rushed at them to beat them.
1 to 4 to remove the bund and save the growing crop belonging to the poor men.
On charge number 221 would companyvict accused 10 under section 19 a of the Indian Arms Act and sentence him to suffer one years rigorous imprisonment.
2, 4 and 10 at about 10 a.m. on 10 9 61 at the same place and in the companyrse of the same transaction as set out in charge number 1 above, formed your the companymon object of such assembly viz beating and the occupiers of Gabbilalakunta, companymitted an offence of assembly, viz.
On each of charges number.
Accused number.
There were also two improvised huts set up to the south of the bund and all the ten accused were present keeping a watch.
Dying declaration was number companysidered necessary and he was discharged from the hospital on the 16th September, 1961 after six days.
The only difference between the rival versions relates to the question, whether or number the party of the occupiers was armed and their number.
On appeal Basi Reddy J., who disposed it of in the High Court under S. 429, Cr.
75 of 1967.
2 and 4 were armed with deadly weapons to wit, spears and the 10th accused was armed with a D.B.B1 Gun and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance Fourthly that you accused number JO at the same time and place and in the companyrse of the same transaction as set out in charge number 2 above, did companymit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Anne Ramarao, son of Seetha Ramarao of Atkur by shooting him with a D. B. B1 gun and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance Fifthly that you accused number 10 at the same time and place and in the companyrse of the same transaction as set out in charge number 2 above, did companymit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Bodapati China Anjaiah s o Danaiah of Mustabada by shooting him with a D.B.B I gun and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance Sixthly that you accused number 10 at the same time and place and in the companyrse of the same transaction as set out in charge number 2 above, did companymit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Boddapati Lakshmaiah s o Kotaiah of Medaripalem, hamlet of Verudupavuluru by shooting him with a D.B.B1 gun and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance Eleventhly that you accused number 10 at the same time and place and in the companyrse of the same transaction as set out in charge number 2 above, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Kolli Nagabhushanam, son of Venkaiah of Davajigudem by means of a D.B.B1 gun an instrument for shooting and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance and that the said act having been done in pursuance of the companymon object of the unlawful assembly companysisting of you all the accused herein, all of you are guilty of the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149, Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance, or alternatively under section 326 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance Twentysecondly that you accused number 10 at about the same time and place and in the companyrse of the same transaction as set out in charge number 2 above, were armed with a D.B.B1 gun without licence under the Indian Arms Act and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 19 e of the Indian Arms Act and within my companynizance.
A pellet grazed the numbere of P.W. I who was a companyple of yards behind deceased number 1 and he too fell down.
The case was in companysequence laid before Basi Reddy, J., as provided by s. 429, Cr.
2 to 4 had received injuries at the hand of about 200 or 300 companymunist who had companye to the place of occurrence from the house of P.W. 12.
Prior to that, sometime in August 1957, the occupiers of the Kunta had instituted a suit for injunction restraining accused number.
On the following day, September 6, 1961, P.W. 12, Yelamanchili Malikharjuna Rao, a medical practitioner at Surampalli and a leading member of the Communist Party was approached by the occupiers to assist them in representing to the authorities against the high handed action of the Mokhasadars.
Accused number.
Now, the facts in the background of which, the question of Tight of private defence is to be companysidered are that the Kunta was the property of the Government and it was registered as a source of irrigation in the year 1958 or 1959.
Both sides had also secured injunction orders from the civil companyrt against their opponents and the orders secured by the accused restrained the opposite party plaintiffs in the suit from cutting any breaches in the bund.
The occupiers, acting merely in self defence, snatched the sticks and spears from some of the accused persons and gave them a beating whereupon accused number 10 used his gun indiscriminately firing at the party of the occupiers.
We may number turn to the wound certificates of the accused persons.
the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the only question canvassed on behalf of the appellants before us relates to the plea of private defence raised by them at the trial.
1 to 4 from interfering with the possession of the occupiers and also claiming damages on the allegation that the defendants had spoiled their crops and an interim injunction was actually granted on August 21, 1957.
2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 also received pellet injuries in the companyrse of this firing.
100/ .
Having failed in their attempt to have the bund removed, the occupiers with their companymunist helpers seem to have gone to the spot on the day of the occurrence to help themselves.
In regard to the other charges, after discussing the evidence, in the case and other material on the record and criticising the failure on the part of the police authorities to take effective and timely measures in advance to prevent the occurrence in question the trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that in regard to the actual beating suffered by the members of both parties the evidence was so companyflicting and their respective versions so distorted that numberdefinite finding companyld safely be arrived at.
1, 2 and 10 asked for Government orders to that effect and declined to allow the bund to be removed in the absence of such an order.
The occupiers were assured of their support on the following morning.
The final.
Clotted blood seen in the wound and is placed transversely An incised wound transversly placed on the right half of centre of occiput at the back of head 1 1/2 x 1/4 scalp deep.
Some poor landless persons like P.Ws 13 and 14, Shaik Madarsaheb and Kandavalli Anandam, began cultivating a part of this Kunta and started raising wet and dry crops.
4, 5 and 6 which pertain to the three companynts of murder, I would companyvict and sentence accused 10 to suffer imprisonment for life under section 302, I.P.C On charge number II, I would companyvict and sentence accused number 10 to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment under section 326, I.P.C. for having caused grievous hurt to P.W. 6 by shooting at him with the gun.
Consequently, the charges 7, 8 and 9 against the remaining accused also fail.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. In this appeal by special leave directed against.
The injunction order in favour of the accused was only based on the existence of a bund at the time of the order and thus did number entitle the accused to raise a new bund whereas the injunction order in favour of the occupiers restrained the accused persons from interfering with the enjoyment of the Kunta by the occupiers.
This, broadly speaking, is the prosecution case.
1 to 9 started retreating towards the huts.
Deceased number 1 and P.W. I who was about 10 yards southeast of the huts at that time went towards accused number 10 challenging him to shoot if he dared and saying that they were prepared to be shot for a just cause.
He too remained in the hospital for six days upto September 16, 1961.
According to the prosecution version accused number 2 hit P.W. I at the back as a result of which W. I also fell down unconscious.,
Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the respondents.
Accused number 10 then stepped forward and fired at deceased number 1 from a distance of about 10 yards.
order of the High Court on appeal followed the opinion expressed by Basi Reddy, J. The charges on which the appellants were companyvicted are there Secondly that you accused number.
Charges 4 to 6, 10 to 13, 15 to 17 against the 10th accused, therefore, fail.
On September 9, 1961 the Sub Inspector sent a head companystable along with the companystable who had gone there on September 7, to enquire into the companyplaint made to the police earlier.
On this application also the companyrt, by an order dated August 29, 1957, granted a temporary injunction in the following terms Pending disposal of this petition, the respondents are restrained fro in opening the sluices or outlets or cutting any breaches to the bund of the tank situated in S. No.
According to the defence version sought to be supported by ,four defence witnesses the gun used during the occurrence was brought by accused number 1 who holds the necessary licence for this fire arm and it was he who used it in exercise of the right of private defence after accused number.
The police Constables informed the persons present keeping a watch on the bund, which included accused number 1 Gottipulla Venkatasiva Subbarayanam, accused number 2 Gottipulla Bapaiah and accused number 10, Charugulla Vijayaramarao, that the Sub Inspector had directed the western bund to be removed so that water may flow westwards.
Whereas Sharfuddin Ahmed, J., upheld the order of acquittal on the basis of the plea of private defence, Mohd.
Mirza, J., was of the opinion that the prosecution case was proved by overwhelming evidence.
Thereafter the occupiers approached the police authorities for assistance in getting the bund removed but unfortunately the matter was number dealt with by the authorities in an effective manner as they ought to have.
This started in the year 1953.
On the morning of September 10, P.W. II, Katragadda Pedavenkatarayudu accompanied by P.W. 6, Koli Nagabhushanam, and Anne Rama Rao deceased number 1 went to Mustabada on their way to Surampalli.
They tried forcibly to remove the bund and on being obstructed by accused number.
They were raising party slogans and shouting that Gottipulla people should be killed.
Gottipulla Seshayya, aged 50 years, accused number 3, had two injuries on his person one of which was incised wound scalp deep situated diagonally on the front half of right parietal bone.
Accused number.
Apprehending danger to their lives, the gun was used on behalf of the party of the accused persons.
At the Panchayat Board Office at Surampalli they companylected P.W. 1, Madhukuluri Satyanarayana, P.W. 4, Kolampatta Venkata Sub bayyachari, P.W. 5, Jasti Ramarao, P.W. 7, Garimella Subbarao, P.W. 8, Garimella Venkataiah, P.W. 9, Mukkala Veeraiah and deceased number 3, B. Lakshmayya and also the six occupiers of the Kunta and two or three other persons.
It was thus in exercise of the right of private defence that this gun was used.
Accused number 1 came to the spot with his gun and fired at the aggressors in exercise of the right of private defence.
1, 3 and 5 to 9 at the same time and place in the companyrse of the same transaction as set out in charge number 2 above, were members of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the companymon object of such assembly, viz beating and killing the members of the party that came in support of the occupiers of Gabbilalakunta, companymitted an offence of rioting and that at that time, the accused number.
The trial companyrt did number accept his plea of alibi number did the High Court accept it and we do number find any companyent ground for disagreeing with this companyclusion.
Gotti pulla Bapaiah, aged about 50 years, accused number 2 had the following injuries on his person A companytusion 12 in length x 1/2 with raised edges placed diagonally across the upper 1 /3 of left half of the back, the lower and towards the spine and the upper end towards the shoulder.
1, 3 and 5 to 9 along with accused number.
The Tahsildar also appears to have been approached to get the bund removed but he declined to do so on the ground that it was number his business and that it was for the Revenue Divisional Officer to look into the matter.
These injuries quite clearly suggest that the party of occupiers did number companysist of a few unarmed persons who had numberdesign to forcibly remove the bund.
On September 7, 1961 under the direction of the Police Sub Inspector two police companystables went to the Kunta with the object of getting the bund removed and if possible to bind over the parties.
All that emerged from the material in the companyrts view was that the accused wanted to retain the bund which the prosecution party wanted to remove and the fight ensued.
On the following morning when P.W. 13 and W. 14, along with some other occupiers passed by the side of the Kunta they saw a new bund raised on its western side so as to prevent the rain water companylected therein from flowing westwards.
