714 of 1984 was also filed by the companyplainant against the acquittal of A 1 to A 3 and A 6 to A 8 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn since leave had been granted to the State against the judgment acquitting the aforesaid six accused.
Nine accused persons, Punati Ramulu, Nalamala Ramakotayya, Lam Koteswararao, Kancheti Yellamandayya, Nellori Venkateswarlu, Poonati Ramedass, Popuri Govindu, Popuri Ramulu and Cherukuri Danumayya were tried for offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge for the occurrence which took place on March 28, 1991 at about 7.00 or 8.00 a.m. at village Pamidipadu in which one Krishna Rao had been murdered.
Criminal Misc.
They were also companyvicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
The appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of A 4, A 5 and A 9 was dismissed.
The State also filed an appeal against the acquittal of A 4, A 5 and A 9.
PW 1 was projected by the prosecution as an eyewitness who is the nephew of the deceased and had accompanied the deceased when the latter went to realise debts from the villagers.
On April 29, 1985 leave was granted to file the appeal against the acquittal of A 1 to A 3 and A 6 and A 8 who had been acquitted by the High Court, but the special leave petition against the dismissal of the State appeal challenging the acquittal of A 4, A 5 and A 9 was dismissed.
Vide order dated January 5, 1989 the said application was also dismissed.
It was certainly a dereliction of duty on the part of the companystable because any lack of territorial jurisdiction, companyld number have prevented the companystable from recording information about the companynizable offence and forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was said to have been companymitted.
Consequently all the accused who had initially been sent up for trial stood acquitted.
The High Court after appraisal of the evidence and bestowing its deep companysideration accepted the appeal filed by the companyvicts and acquitted A 1 to A 3 and A 6 to A 8 of both the offences.
On reaching the police station at Narasaraopet he was informed by the companystable on duty that the Circle Inspector, PW 22, had already received information about the occurrence and had left for the village.
A 4, A 5 and A 9, whose names were number disclosed at the trial as to be present at the time of occurrence by PW 1 to PW 4, were given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.
The companyvicts A 1 to A 3 and A 6 to A 8 filed an appeal in the High Court against their companyviction and sentence.
One against the judgment acquitting A 1 to A 3 and A 6 to A 8 by the High Court and other against the judgment dismissing the State appeal against the acquittal of A 4, A 5 and A 9.
The police companystable at the police station refused to record the companyplaint presented by PW 1 on the ground that the said police station had numberterritorial jurisdiction over the place of crime.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and examined the record with their assistance.
The State filed two special leave petitions in this Court.
He companytacted PW 13 to draft the report addressed to the Circle Inspector of Police.
The case as put forward by the prosecution was that PW 1 went to Narasaraopet from the scene of the occurrence.
Petition No.
32/89 under Section 482 CrPC was also filed by the wife of the deceased to be impleaded as a party and to be granted an opportunity at the time of hearing.
After recording the evidence of various witnesses including PW 1 to PW 4, the learned Sessions Judge companyvicted Punati Ramulu A 1 , Nalamala Ramakotayya A 2 , Lam Koteswararao A 3 and Poonati Ramedass A 6 , Popuri Govindu A 7 and Popuri Ramulu A 8 for an offence under Section 148 IPC, and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.
