After companycluding of the trial, the trial judge found that accused Nos.
The witnesses and the accused are from the same village and the incident had happened on 13th October, 1992 at about 5.30 p.m. There cannot be any scope of mistaken identity of the accused.
Accused Nos.
1, 3 and 4 preferred Criminal Appeal No.
While acquitting the aforesaid accused, the High Court discarded the evidence of P.Ws.
7, 9 and 10 are incise wounds.
1 Nallabothu Venkaiah , the appellant before us.
When they were proceeding, P.W.3 and the deceased also followed them.
He also admitted that himself and PWs.
The witnesses and the accused are all from the same village.
He admitted that himself, deceased and Ws.
He gave a graphic description of each and every overt act of the accused in causing murderous assault on the deceased.
Being aggrieved, accused Nos.
P.W.1 stated in his evidence that on the fateful day, he went to Sattenapalli to purchase pesticides.
500/ and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.
1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. They were companyvicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.
2 expired and the trial against him stood abated.
8, 10, 12 and 16 hurled bombs.
SEMA, J The appellant along with 15 other accused was put to trial before III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Sessions Case No.
A.2 hacked on the neck of the deceased with a knife.
1 hacked axe blows on the neck of the deceased.
Haematoma present on left side of the neck.
A.4 to A.7 stabbed the deceased on his stomach with spears.
The trial judge, however, found that accused Nos.
A. No.
He repeated the stories narrated by P.Ws.
Then accused Nos.
The factum of P.W.1 driving a scooter on that day has been proved by P.Ws.
The same is the statement of P.W. 1, who was riding a scooter on the same road at that particular time.
3 and 4 in Crl.
W.4 stated that he knew all the accused and the deceased.
The Trial Court has accepted the evidence of P.Ws.
2 That you A 1 to A 16 at about the same time, date and place and in the companyrse of same transaction as mentioned above charged the deceased Venkateswarlu son of China Bapaiah, 35 years, V.A.O. of Tondapi village while he was companying on the motor cycle and when he reached the spot, all of you emerged from the bushes on either side of the road and that A10, A12, A8 and A16 hurled bombs and when the deceased fell down all of you surrounded him and that A 1, A 9 and A 10 of you axed on his head and that A 1 and A 2 of you cut the throat of the deceased with axe and long knife and that A 4, A 6 and A 7 of you stabbed him with spears on abdomen and lower portion and that A 5 stabbed him with spear on abdomen and that A 3 axed him near right ear, A 8 stabbed with spear on his neck A 10 axed on the fore head of him, A 11, A 12 and A 13 with spears and A 14 and A 16 with axes attacked the deceased indiscriminately and A 15 with knife stabbed on his neck resulting in his death instantaneously and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance Charge No.
W.2 stated in his evidence that on the day of the incident, he went to Sattenapalli to purchase a washer of his motor and in his return, he met P.W.1 and both of them started on the scooter of P.W.1 to go to the village.
18 of 1994 to answer the following charges Charge No.
1 and 2 are also related to the deceased and that they are inimically disposed to the accused has been rejected by the Trial Court by assigning companyent reasons.
This companytention deserves to be rejected.
He categorically stated that accused Nos.
1, 2 and 3 and also analytical description of the part played by each of the accused in causing murderous assault on the deceased and accepted the eye witnesses account as natural and reliable.
He companyducted post mortem examination of the deceased and found as many as 21 injuries, as referred to in the earlier part of the judgment.
8, 10, 12 and 16 hurled bombs.
The High Court also disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 as he falsely deposed that his scooter bear the registration No.
555 of 1998 and accused Nos.
The trial judge critically discussed the evidence of eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.
On the day of the incident, while proceeding on his tractor on the Pakalapadu major canal he saw all the accused armed with axes, spears and knives were going on the road.
556 of 1998 in the High Court.
P.W.2 also stated that A.1 and A.10 chased them for a distance.
He also stated that accused Nos.
The companytention of the companynsel for the accused that evidence of P.Ws.
He further stated that the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle by escaping the bombs.
W.3, who accompanied the deceased on a motor cycle also deposed about the specific overt acts played by each and every accused.
3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 on the ground that P.Ws.
Then, A.1, who was the Vice President, assumed charge as President of the Village and since the deceased was popular in the village and became the Village Administrative Officer, the appellant was facing difficulties in getting quorum in the village.
P.W.1 also stated categorically that at that time, he had a scooter bearing No.
During the trial accused No.
5, 7, 8 and 10 preferred Criminal Appeal No.
No acquittal appeals have been preferred by the State.
A.10 hacked on the fore head of the deceased with an axe.
8, 10, 12 and 16 were number guilty of the offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and they were, accordingly, acquitted under the said charge.
Then P.W.2, pillion rider on the scooter of P.W.1, informed him that the bombs had been hurled against the deceased and asked him to stop the scooter.
Left castrotid vessels were cut, muscles were cut.
Then he stopped the scooter and saw P.W.3 Muppalla Ramaiah jumping from the motor cycle of the deceased and running towards numberthern side fields.
A.2 stabbed on the neck of the deceased with a knife.
1, 2 and 3 eye witnesses by rendering the following reasons The investigation further discloses that the vehicle bearing registration number APG 2253 is a tractor, which was owned by the Commissioner of Guntur Municipality and under these circumstances, we hold that whatever evidence is given by P.W.1 is number in fairness.
1 to 3 eye witnesses cannot be accepted as they are chance witnesses and highly interested and P.Ws.
He further stated that at that time, the deceased Rayidi Venkateswarlu was driving the motor cycle slowly.
The doctor opined that the patient would appear to have died of hemorrhage and shock, and injuries to upper air passages, manor vessels, and vital organs liver, kidney, resulting from multiple injuries.
He further stated that when they reached Five Lamps Centre, they found deceased and P.W.3 purchasing medicines and when they crossed Major canal, they heard explosion of bombs and saw P.W.3 jumping from the motor cycle of the deceased.
They were further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 148 P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
Rest of the accused, i.e. accused Nos.
A.10 hacked on the head of the deceased with an axe.
The next companytention of Mr. Subba Rao, learned companynsel for the appellant that on the self same evidence, the other accused had been acquitted and, therefore, the appellant companyld number have been companyvicted relying upon the same evidence.
He specifically stated that after the deceased fell down accused No.
1 to 3 is that after the bomb was hurled at the deceased, the deceased was driving his motor cycle slowly.
P.G. 2253, which he took from one Narasimharao, but he did number get it registered in his name.
Dr. G. Vijaya Saradhi was examined as P.W.9.
P.W.2 was a pillion rider on the scooter of P.W.1.
The High Court, by the impugned order dated 31st January, 2000, reappreciated the evidence and acquitted accused Nos.
6, 9 and 11 to 16 were number found guilty of the offences, for which they were charged.
Then the deceased fell down.
The same is the statement of P.W.2.
2 to 4 are shown as accused in the murder case of Rachakonda Chandraiah.
The High Court has erroneously accepted this submission.
After scanning their deposition with care and caution, the trial judge has held that admittedly all the accused and the prosecution witnesses are from the same village and there is a faction in the village between the parties for the reasons that the deceased Rayidi Venkateswarlu, who was President of the village, was selected as Sarpanch and later on 26.2.1992, he resigned from the Presidentship.
To this effect a clear admission is given by him in the cross examination.
When both of them were going on the scooter, they saw the deceased and P.W.3 Muppalla Ramaiah at a medical shop.
P.W.1 further stated that A.1 and A.10 chased them and then they ran towards the scooter and the accused ran away towards south.
1 3, who were the eye witnesses to the occurrence were inimically disposed to the accused persons and their evidence was unreliable.
The companytention that the eye witnesses P.Ws.
P.W.3 was the pillion rider on the motor cycle of the deceased.
1 and 2, as we have referred, earlier.
The companysistent evidence of P.Ws.
On internal examination, the doctor found, neck shows upper air passes were cut.
Immediately after the bomb was hurled, he ran towards the bush and watched the entire incident from there.
1 to 3 as natural, reliable and truthful.
A.4, A.5 and A.7 stabbed the deceased with spears on his stomach.
APG 2253.
P.W.2 also admitted about the cases pending against him along with other witnesses.
He was a pillion rider of the deceased motor cycle.
Injury Nos.
He stated that after passing Pakalapadu Major canal, they suddenly heard the sounds of explosion of bombs.
After purchasing pesticides, he came to the centre, where W.2 was also standing and both of them started on his scooter to go to the village.
2 and 4 were figuring as accused for assault of a woman and A.1 is one of the witnesses in that case.
It, therefore, clearly indicates party factions in the village.
1, 2 and 3 were inimically disposed to the accused has been rejected by the Trial Court by assigning companyent reasons and companysidering the medical and other companyroborative evidence.
1 to 3 came opposite from southern side armed with axes and hacked on the head of the deceased.
1 hacked the deceased on his neck.
Accused No.
The present appeal has been preferred by accused No.
W.3, who was a pillion rider of the motor cycle of the deceased, jumped out of the motor cycle, rushed to the bush and watched the whole incident under the bush.
He has been accused in number of cases, which were filed by the deceased and his party.
From the overt acts attributed to the accused appellant by P.Ws.
A.2 hacked on the neck of the deceased with an axe.
The evidence of P.W.1 discloses that there has been party faction in the village.
1, 2 and 3 also admitted that there were criminal cases involving both the parties.
The substance of the above charges is that on 13th October, 1992 at about 5.30 p.m. accused 1 16 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and caused the death of one R. Venkateswarlu by hurling bombs and causing bodily injuries by axes, knives and spears.
He went to make involvement as many accused as he can do.
1 That you A1 to A16 at about 5.30 p.m. on 13th day of October, 1992 on the highway between Sattenapalli and Macherla in between 38/2 and 38/4 M. Stone after crossing Pakalapadu major canal, formed into one group and were members of unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the companymon object of such assembly viz.,
of killing the deceased person R. Venkateswarlu son of China Bapaiah, 35 years, V.A.O. of Tondapi village, and rioting and at that time you were armed with deadly weapons like companyntry made bombs, axes, spears and knives which are dangerous in nature and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance Charge No.
555 of 1998 and their appeal was allowed to that extent.
1, 9 and 10 hacked on the head of the deceased with axes.
This companyresponds to injuries 9 and 10.
3 That you A 8, A 10, A 12 and A 16 of you at about the same time, date and place and in the companyrse of same transaction as mentioned above hurled companyntrymade bombs at the deceased R. Venkateswarlu in order to kill him while in possession of the Explosive Substances which are dangerous in nature which bombs exploded and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and within my companynizance.
