P 15, is admissible even regarding the attack on the other deceased, Koteswara Rao.
8 L797Sup.
Having regard to the evidence adduced in the case, the learned Judge has recorded a finding that numbere of the accused can be held liable for the offence of causing the death of Kuteswara Rao.
202 of 1969.
The Magistrate had also recorded a statement, Ext.
5 challenged his companyviction before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Ultimately the learned Judge held that their evidence cannot be accepted regarding the attack on Kuteswara Rao.
Ratnababu was taken to the Government General Hospital, Guntur and, as his companydition was very serious, a dying declaration, Ext.
18 was found guilty of causing injuries to PW 13 and companyvicted under section 324.
Similarly he also found that the other twenty two accused were number guilty of any of the offences with which they were charged and accordingly acquitted them.
P 15, and companyvicted accused Nos.
The learned Sessions Judge found that numbere of the accused can be held guilty of the offence of causing the death of Koteswara Rao number for the injuries sustained by PWs 5 and 6.
PWs 1 to 4 had witnessed the entire occurrence.
When PW 6 interfered, he was stabbed with a spear on the left chest by A 27 and was also beaten on the head back and leg by A 21.
The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run companycurrently.
Criminal Appeal No.
There is on record the wound certificates issued in respect of these persons.
25 was companyvicted under section 323 while the three others were companyvicted under section 324.
All the accused then ran away from the place.
Some 8 72 of the accused turned their attention on Ratnababu.
The injuries sustained by PWs 5 and 6 being of a very minor nature sustained by them when the said accused acted in self defence, numbere of those accused are guilty of any offence regarding this particular incident.
A 5, A 6, A 7, A 8 and A 10 inflicted spear injuries on Ratnababu.
A 30 requested PW 23 to remove the cross bund to enable him to take water to his field.
When PW7 attempted to interfere to save his brother, he was attacked by A 14, A 19, A 24 and A 25.
One Gogineni Venkateswara Rao, who gave evidence as PW 7 and who was a brother of the deceased, Koteswara Rao, filed Criminal Revision Case No.
Sentences of imprisonment of varying terms were imposed on the accused found guilty under sections 323 and 324.
PW 23 was the President of the village Panchayat from 1956 to 1964 after which period the 2nd accused came to power.
Ratnababu died at 1.
14, 19, 24 and 25 were found guilty of causing injuries to PW 7.
PWs 7 and 13 had received injuries.
The 1 st accused stabbed PW 5 with a spear both on his chest and on his temple.
P 1, from PW 5 and a statement, Ext.
The 3rd accused beat PW5 with a spear on his hand.
Apart from the wound certificate issued to Ratnababu, at the time of his admission to the Hospital there is also the description of the injuries sustained by him, as mentioned in the postmortem certificate.
Accused No.
Koteswara Rao was removed to his house in the village and he died within a very short time.
1 to 4 attacked Koteswara Rao and caused his death.
727 of 1969 while Criminal Appeal No.
The other seven companyvicted accused, namely, accused Nos.
After a companysideration of the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, the learned Judge expresses the view that they are tutored witnesses and that they have been selected because they belong to the party of PW 23.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 25, 1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in Criminal Revn.
Left with the two other witnesses, namely, PWs 7 and 13, the Trial Court is of the view that they being interested witnesses, their evidence will have to be treated with great caution and that it would be safe to accept their evidence only if it is companyroborated by other independent evidence.
When PW 13 came to help Ratnababu, he was speared by A 18.
727 of 1969 under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court against all the thirty accused challenging the several acquittals recorded against them by the learned Sessions Judge.
The learned Judge disbelieved their evidence and eschewed the same from companysideration.
Near the cross bund they found PWs 5 to 7, 13 and 23, the deceased Ratnababu and certain others.
A sentence of rigorous imprisonment was also imposed on all these eight accused for the offence under section 148.
A 14 stated that he was beaten at the cross bund by PW 23.
C.I./73 But so far as the attack on Ratnababu was companycerned, the learned Judge took into account the evidence of PWs 7 and 8, the medical evidence as also the dying declaration, Ext.
P15, recorded by the Magistrate, PW 1 6, at about 8.40 P. M., the same day.
About 12 Noon on the same day, PWs 5 and 6 numbericed that there was diminution of water in the canal.
All the accused then ran towards Ratnababu, who was plugging the hole in the siphon.
The High Court allowed the two Criminal Appeals as well as the Criminal Revision and after setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Court, remanded the entire case for retrial.
At this stage it may be mentioned that the witnesses, who received injuries, namely, PWs 5, 6, 7 and 13 as well as some of the accused, who had received injuries, namely, A 5, A 14, A 29 and A 30, had all arrived at the Government General Hospital, Guntur, at about the same time and were treated by the same doctor.
1 to 4 stabbed Koteswara Rao on the various parts of his body with spears and after he fell down, they along with A 12, A 13, A 22 and A 23 inflicted further injuries.
Even some of the companyvicted accused should have been companyvicted for more serious offences.
More or less on this reasoning, the High Court remanded the entire case for retrial.
Accused No.
The 5th accused, however pleaded that on the date of the occurrence he, along with A14 and A30, had gone to water the field of A30.
Regarding the second stage of the occurrence at the field of PW 23, the Trial Courts view is that the witnesses, who spoke to the same, are PWs 1 to 4, 7 and 13.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION criminal appeals Nos.
Accused Nos.
173 of 1970 is by all the thirty accused against the order in Criminal Revision Case No.
The learned Sessions Judge made a local inspection of the scene of occurrence and has also numbered his observations.
727 of 1969 and Cr.
The High Courts view also appears to be that the search or companyroboration made by the Trial Court regarding the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses was unnecessary.
There is also on record the postmortem certificate issued to the other deceased, Koteswara Rao, which also shows that he had sustained a number of injuries.
P 16, from A 30.
Accused Nos.
Basi Reddy, K. R. Chaudhuri, Gopalakrishna Murthy and Rajendra Chaudhuri, for the appellant in both the appeals .
A. No.
Thus it will be seen that while according to the prosecution the occurrence took place in two stages, one at the place where the cross bund was erected and the other in the field of PW23, on the other hand, according to the defence, the occurrence had taken place at the place where the cross bund was raised by PWs 5 and 6 and that there was numberincident whatsoever near the field of PW 23.
P 15 establishes, on the facts of the present case, that accused Nos.
There was a multi purpose Cooperative Society established in 1963 in the village and the members of both the factions claimed to be the President or Secretary of this society.
PW 23 also beat him and ran away.
The prosecution has stressed as to how these accused received injuries.
Ratnababu, on seeing the accused companying towards his direction, ran to the field of PW 23 where Koteswara Rao with his brother, PW 7, was working.
Most of the accused, when they were examined under section 312, pleaded companyplete ignorance about the occurrence.
In companynection with the murder of two persons, Gogineni Koteswara Rao and Venigandla Ratnababu, and the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses, PWs 5 to 7 and 13, on August 16, 1968, thirty persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Guntur for offences under section 148 and section 302 read with S. 149 or alternatively under section 302 read with section 34 and sections 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly he acquitted the eight companyvicted accused of all the other charges.
Accused No.
201 of 1969.
6, 7, 14, 18, 19, 24 and, 25, filed Criminal Appeal No.
The 2nd accused was the Sarpanch of the village and the 1st accused was the acting Village Munsif at the time of the occurrence i.e. August 16, 1968.
29 A.M. on August 17, 1968.
201 and 202 of 1969 setting aside the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Sessions Case No.
201 and 202 ,of 1969.
727 of 1969 and Criminal Appeals Nos.
5 to 7, 14, 18, 19, 24 and 25 had participated in part of the occur rence that took place on that day and companyvicted the under section 148.
6 and 7, who were found guilty of causing simple injuries to Ratnababu, were companyvicted under section 324.
A. No.
The High Court has also expressed its opinion that.
121 of 1968 and remanding the entire case for retrial.
If its view was wrong, the High Court companyld have gone into that aspect and differed from this opinion of the Sessions Court if the State had filed an appeal against acquittal.
The 6th accused stabbed PW 5 on the right palm and the right wrist.
Ram Reddy, P. Parameshwara Rao, for respondent No.
A. Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VAIDIALINGAM, J. These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment and order dated August 25, 1970, of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Revision Case No.
The learned Sessions Judge found that accused Nos.
Accused Nos.
173 174 of 1970.
It has held that the dying declaration of Ratnababu, Ext.
A30 also gave a somewhat similar statement.
V. S. Narasimhachari and K. Jayaram, for respondent No.
The 5th accused was companyvicted under section 302 for causing the death of Ratnababu and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
He was also kicked by A 20.
2 in Cr.
A. No.
On their refusal A30 attempted to remove the cross bund when at the instigation of PW 23 he was stabbed by one Appa Rao and also attacked by PW 23.
173 for respondent in Cr.
1 in Cr.
