Accepting the above evidence for the prosecution, the Trial Court came to the finding that prosecution companyld prove the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against A2 and A3.
Eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.
A2, A3 and another Bheemanna Bairi Ramchander A l are members of CPI ML Peoples War Group in short PWG .
In cross examination of PW1, it was brought out that he companyld identify the accused due to street light and lights companying from the neighbouring shops.
from the place of occurrence.
Regarding the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C., the Trial Court held that in absence of statements by PW 1 or PW 2 or any other eye witnesses that there was an attempt to cause death of PW 1 and PW 2, the charge companyld number be proved by the prosecution and accordingly acquitted.
The Trial Court also accepted the prosecution version of the story that PW 1, 2 and the deceased who were in the hit list of PWG were residing by the side of house of Deputy Superintendent of Police, at Jagtial for their safety.
On 30.01.1993 at about 07.00 p.m. deceased, PWs 1 and 2 were sitting as usual in front of Shri Venkateshwara Hair Cutting Saloon near the bus stand of Jagtial.
The first companytention raised by the Counsel for the accused appellants was that there was delay of one hour in filing the First Information Report though the Police Station was at the distance of 200 ft.
Thereafter, accused went away from the place of occurrence on their cycles.
Deceased Ramtenki Chandraiah was hit by gun fire and was injured.
He was taken to the Government Hospital, Jagtial where he succumbed to the injuries.
1999 Supp 3 SCR 589 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PHUKAN, J. This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1989 for short the TADA is against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge Designated Court , Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh.
PW2 went towards another side.
PW1 escaped and ran to Jagtial police station.
Seized articles were produced and the companyrt below found both accused appellants guilty under the aforesaid section except Section 307 I.P.C. and companyvicted them accordingly.
Deceased Ramtenki Chandraiah, Manchikatla Shankar PW1 and Thota Paul PW2 were members of the said PWG but they severed their companynections with the group since four years prior to occurrence and they were residing at Jagtial for their safety and security, away from their villages.
By the impugned judgment and order accused appellants Sheelam Ramesh A 2 and Samudrala Kummari Mallesham Rajanna A 3 were companyvicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3 2 i ii and 5 of the TADA.
The case of Al was separated as he was absconding.
Subsequently, A2 and A3 were apprehended.
The Trial Court believe the evidence of eye witnesses PW 1 to PW 4 and came to the finding that PW 1 and PW 2 severed their companynection with PWG about 4 years prior to the occurrence and they were in the hit list of the above group and this was the motive for causing death of the deceased.
After investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 302, 307 read with 34 IPC, Section 7 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA.
Suddenly Al to A3 armed with pistol and tamanchas companyntry made gun came and fired at the deceased.
PW1 and PW2 were the members of PWG and therefore, accused persons were known to them.
Accepting the evidence of the prosecution, the Trial Court came to the finding that PW 1, PW 2 and deceased were in the habit of sitting at Sri Venkateshwara Hair Cutting Saloon.
