PW 16 also arrested Nagaraja Reddy A 3 on 1.5.1999 around 9 A.M. in the presence of Panchas PW 10 and another .
The evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 were inconsistent with the allegations in the FIR based on the companyplaint Ex.
In the Sessions trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses.
The said judgment was challenged by the State.
Purushotham Reddy companylapsed.
Govinda Reddy and Ranamma caught hold of Purushotham Reddy and Nagaraja A 3 stabbed Purushotham Reddy near his throat with the Barisa.
Therefore, PW1 and PW2 were in the position of injured eye witnesses and number chance witnesses.
Balu and Babu threw mud balls at Narasimha Reddy and Dilli Babu Reddy, who were following Purushotham Reddy.
When Purushotham Reddy entered the land Chinnaka which was situated between the lands houses of the two brothers, accused 1, 2, 3 Govinda Reddy, Ranamma and Nagaraja Reddy along with two juvenile sons of Accused No.1 Balu and Babu came from their house.
Balu and Babu were juveniles at the relevant time .
Govinda Reddy was armed with a stick with nails, Ranamma was armed with stout stick, Nagaraja was armed with a Barisa.
The evidence of the two eye witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 companyld number be relied on as they were close relatives of the deceased, having previous enmity and grudge against the accused and who were interested in falsely implicating the accused.
It held that the evidence was number trustworthy for the following reasons All the four independent eye witnesses PW 3, 4, 5 6 turned hostile and denied knowledge of the incident.
PW 11 Dr. S.Narasimhulu examined Dilli Babu Reddy PW 1 and Narasimha Reddy PW 2 at the Primary Health Centre and issued certificates in regard to their injuries as per Ex.
It held that the rejection of the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 by the trial companyrt was unjustified and perverse, for the following reasons The evidence of PWs.
When there was only one injury which companyresponded to the dagger attack by Nagaraja Reddy, the allegation in the companyplaint that Govinda Reddy, Ranamma, Nagaraja Reddy, Balu and Babu together attacked the deceased with sticks, knives and daggers is obviously false.
PW 7 to PW 10, PW 13 and PW 14 were the witnesses to the inquest, and the Mahazars relating to arrest and seizure.
T. Sundaramurthy, Sub Inspector of Gangadhara Nellore Police Station PW 15 , received the companyplaint and registered the case in Crime No.35 of 1999 under section 147, 148, 307 and 302 read with section 149 IPC, prepared the FIR and recorded the statements of PW 1 and PW 2.
Govinda Reddy exhorted his wife and sons to kill Purushotham Reddy.
Ultimately, he came back to his native village.
Balu and Babu, the juvenile sons of accused No.1 were subjected to a separate proceeding before the Juvenile Court.
This was the second incident.
1 and 2, who were eye witnesses, companyld number be rejected merely on the ground that they were interested or partisan, as their evidence was otherwise found to be credible.
Nagaraja Reddy made a companyfession statement Ex.
Though the incident took place at 7.30 P.M. and there were numberlight, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that companyld see the accused clearly in the moonlight ought to be accepted.
PW 15 and PW 16 were the Police Officers.
It companycluded that the killing of Purushotham Reddy was number on account of any pre planned attack by accused 1 to 3 and that it appeared that A 3 had attacked the deceased thinking that the deceased was companying to attack him.
The blood stained shirt of A 3 MO8 was found and seized in pursuance of the companyfession statement made by A 3 on his arrest before the Investigating Officer which was companyroborated by the evidence of PW 10.
He also seized the blood stained clothes of PW 1 from him under a Mahazarnama.
Four out of the six Mahazar witnesses PWs.
The IV Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, took the case on file and companymitted accused 1, 2, 3 to the Court of Sessions, Chittoor.
The second incident which occurred at about 6.00 to 7.00 M. wherein PW 1 and PW 2 were attacked and injured and the third incident within about half an hour thereof when Purushotham Reddy was killed should be companysidered as having occurred during the companyrse of the same transaction in the sense that the latter incident was a companytinuation and companysequence of the earlier incident.
On 26.4.1999, at about 9.00 A.M., inquest was companyducted over the dead body and it was sent for autopsy.
The house of Narasimha Reddy and house of Govinda Reddy were separated by the land of Chinnakka.
2.2 Narasimha Reddy, after his marriage, having differences with his parents had shifted to his father in laws place and then to Madras.
Both Narasimha and Dilli Babu Reddy sustained bleeding injuries.
The States appeal was allowed by the High Court.
Nothing was elicited in the cross examination of PW 1 and PW 2 to disbelieve their evidence about the incidents, in particular the manner in which they were attacked and injured by accused 1 and 3 and the manner in which Purushottam Reddy was killed by Nagaraja Reddy A 3 .
On companysidering the evidence, the trial companyrt by judgment dated 7.2.2000 acquitted all the accused by extending them the benefit of doubt.
P1 given by PW 1 within one and half hours of the incident.
2.6 Thereafter, Dilli Babu Reddy PW 1 got a companyplaint Ex.
PWs.7, 9, 13 and 14 turned hostile.
Their evidence was also inconsistent with the allegations in the companyplaint Ex.
The medical evidence companyroborated that the injury was caused of a weapon like MO1.
There was numberinconsistency between the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 and the allegations in the companyplaint.
PW 3 to PW 6 who were examined as eye witnesses turned hostile and stated that they did number know anything about the incident.
Dr. P.Venkataswamy PW 12 , Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor, companyducted the post mortem over the dead body of Purushotham Reddy and issued a post mortem certificate as per Ex.
In the meanwhile, Govinda Reddy and two other brothers namely Krishna Reddy and Venkateswarulu Reddy had companytinued to live with their father Bakki Reddy.
This was the third incident.
It occurred around 7.30 M. This incident was witnessed by Gurava Reddy PW 3 , Gungulu Reddy PW 4 , Perumals son Dilli Babu PW 5 and P. Ravi PW 6 and Sarojamma.
Their presence at the time and place of the incident was natural and properly explained.
Immediately, Purushotham Reddy, followed by his father PW 2 and brother PW 1 , went towards the house of Govinda Reddy to question them about their high handed acts.
If the five of them had really attacked Purushotham Reddy with sticks, knives and daggers, there should be companyresponding injuries on the body of the deceased.
The evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 established that A 1 to A 3 caught the deceased and A 3 stabbed him near the throat with MO1 Barisa long dagger .
But they did number interfere.
Being close relatives, they had numberdifficulty in identifying the accused particularly as the accused had chased them to some distance after killing the deceased.
Dilli Babu Reddy and his father Narasimha Reddy PW 1 PW 2 were the injured eye witnesses.
from the place of incident around 9.00 P.M. The police sent Narasimha Reddy and Dilli Babu Reddy for treatment to Primary Health Centre for examination and treatment.
7, 9, 13, and 14 also turned hostile and did number support the case of the prosecution.
P 1 written and presented it at the Gangadhara Nellore Police Station which was at a distance of about 4 km.
Both families were residents of Bangareddipalli Diguva Indlu, a hamlet falling under the Gangadhara Nellore Panchayat in Chittoor District.
High Court wrongly relied on the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 who were partisan witnesses interested in falsely implicating the accused.
P 25 and took them to the house of one Subha Reddy and produced a blood stained shirt MO 8 .
P 13 and P 14.
RAVEENDRAN, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment dated 28.8.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1211 of 2001 reversing the judgment of acquittal dated 7.2.2000 passed by the First Addl.
The next day, K. Srinivasa Gopal, Inspector of Police, Chittoor Rural Circle PW 16 , took up the investigation and recorded the statements of some other witnesses.
He arrested accused 1 2 as also their juvenile sons Balu and Babu on 28.4.1999 at about 3 p.m. in the presence of PW 9 Pancha and recorded their companyfession statements and on the same day at 6.00 P.M. in pursuance of the information, disclosed in the companyfession statement of Govinda Reddy, recovered the Barisa MO.1 from a sugarcane garden shown by Govinda Reddy.
P1 lodged by PW 1.
