in the nature of an independent witness that his presence in Cuddaph town stood amply proved by the evidence of P.W. 7, which, in turn, was fortified by documentary evidence in the form of Ex.
All the six accused were carrying daggers.
The deceased was lying dead in a pool of blood at the spot.
The deceased was the leader of one faction, while the accused appellants belong to the opposite faction led by Kankarla Narayana Reddi.
Disagreeing with the trial companyrt, the High Court found that both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were worthy of credit and that the evidence of these witnesses had been substantially companyroborated by P.W. 4 and P.W. 5.
D 4 that he had made that statement before the police.
At about 12 numbern he came to get into my rickshaw.
That case was pending trial on the date of the murder in question.
He stated that when he returned to the site after leaving Veeramma at her house, P.W. 4 Murad was number there, although his rickshaw was standing there by the side of the scene of offence at a distance of 3 baras towards the East from the place where the deceased lay dead.
When the rickshaw with the deceased reached near Nagamalalla Reddys Hotel, accused 1 to accused 6 emerged from a place in between a tea stall and the hotel.
On the other hand, Shri Khader, appearing for the respondent State, submits that the presence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 at the scene of occurrence was highly probable.
Leaving Veeramma under the care of P.W. 2, P.W. 1 went to the Police Station and lodged a companyplaint, orally.
The Inspector examined P.W. 1 and recorded his statement during the inquest which was held on the same day between 2 p. m. and 4.30 p. m. A companyy of the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 1 was received by the Magistrate, the same day at 4 p. m. Postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was performed on the following day at 6 a. m. The trial companyrt found that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 did number inspire companyfidence, and it was most unsafe to companyvict the accused persons on the basis of their testimony, particularly when the evidence of P. Ws.
there and then.
The evidence of P.W. 3, a lawyers clerk, to the effect, that he had seen all the six accused at 10.30 a. m. at Cuddapah, when the witness was on his way to Court, companyld number be safely accepted.
A criminal case was instituted against the deceased and 4 others including one Samvarpu Chinna Narayan Reddy, under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, alleging that the deceased went to K. N. Reddys house armed with a revolver and caused injuries to some persons of the opposite faction.
I saw P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 near the companypse.
The companypse was there.
P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 took P.W. 5 Veeramma to her house.
Nor companyld he say at what time the last candidate on that day was interviewed.
P 3 of P.W. 2 immediately after his interview.
P 4 and Ex.
His evidence, also, has number been companyroborated on material points from independent sources.
P. 3 to P. 5 only shows that P.W. 2 companyld have been present at Cuddapah on November 15, 1973, but it does number further show that P.W. 2 finished his interview by 11 a. m. and companyld have been present to witness the incident at about 12 Noon.
His rickshaw was number seized at the time of the inquest.
P.W. 2 further stated that by the time the rickshaw came near N. Mulla Reddys hotel, he saw Accused 1 to Accused 6 emerging.
Leaving Veeramma at the house wider the care of P.W. 2, the witness proceeded to the Police Station to lodge a report.
The bias of P.W. 1 can be seen from the fact that he denied the truth of the suggestion that P.W. 3, free of companyt, resides in the deceaseds house.
The discussion of P.W. 4s evidence by the trial companyrt was perfunctory and slipshod.
The deceased fell to the ground but the assailants companytinued to stab him till he died.
that once his presence in Cuddapah town is proved, the fact that he happened to be on the public road near the scene of incident cannot make him a chance witness, that only two companytradictions have been brought out as between his evidence in the trial companyrt and his statement to the police, but neither of them is material.
Before the deceased boarded the rickshaw, his maternal uncle P.W. 1 , who had companye to him for borrowing a sum of Rs.
P.W. 2 testified that he was interviewed as the 8th or 9th candidate for about 4 or 5 minutes at about 10.30 a. m. that at the end of the interview, the word admit was endorsed on his application Ex.
P.W. 2s presence at the scene of offence is spoken to by P.W. 1 only and by numberother independent witness.
P 3 and he then companylected the Sub Treasury Challans Ex.
P.W. 7 was a College Lecturer and, otherwise an independent and wholly reliable witness.
Thereupon, all the six accused surrounded the rickshaw, dragged the deceased out of it and started stabbing the deceased with daggers which they all were holding.
P1, lodged with the Police by P.W. 1 at 1 p.m. Shopkeepers and other persons of the locality, who companyld be independent eye witnesses, were number examined by the prosecution even to vouch the presence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 at the scene.
We went to the scene of offence.
P 1 and handed it over in the Police Station at 1 p. m. and then returned to the scene of the offence.
The accused in that case were companyvicted by the trial Court but were acquitted on appeal by the High Court.
The deceased asked P.W. 1 to companye to his house where they would talk about it.
P 4 and Ex.
On November 15, 1973 at about 12 numbern, the deceased was proceeding in a bicycle rickshaw peddled by P.W. 4 Murad from the Court of the J. S. C. Magistrate at Cuddapah to his house.
One of them shouted Gangi Reddy Gadu is going, kill him.
In election to the office of Sarpanch of Atchavalli the deceased had defeated the said Kankarla Narayana Reddi.
P.W. 2 was also present there at the spot and witnessed the occurrence.
P.W. 2s presence at the scene of occurrence, at 12 numbern, was highly doubtful.
P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were present there.
P 3, Ex.
No Mahazar was prepared to evidence its seizure.
The presence of P.W. 2 at or near the scene of offence is number spoken to by P.W. 4.
The witness also saw P.W. 1 behind the rickshaw, following on foot.
Cross examined about the meeting and talk of P.W. 1 with the deceased in the Court companypound, P.W. 4 stated that after getting into the rickshaw, the deceased asked P.W. 1 Mamma, companye to my house we will talk.
He reached the house of the deceased at about 11.45 a. m. and learnt from the deceaseds wife, Veeramma P.W. 5 that the deceased had gone to the old Court buildings.
P.W. 3s father Rami Reddy figured as a witness in the double murder case of Sambariva Reddy and B. Obula Reddy which ended in acquittal.
One of the accused shouted Gangi Reddy is companying, kill him.
P 4 and Ex.
P1 to the Sub Inspector.
There had been bad blood and criminal litigation between persons belonging to each of these factions.
P 5 from the College Office for depositing the amounts of Rs.
The name of P.W. 4 being the driver of the rickshaw, was number given in Ex.
The High Court has duly discussed his evidence and has rightly accepted it.
By the time P.W. 2 entered the Court Road, he saw the deceased companying in rickshaw from the opposite direction of the Court.
The numerous stab and incised wounds found on the body of the deceased and the swift and daring manner of executing this daylight murder in a town, also indicate that the deceased was way laid and done to death by several persons.
The Circle Inspector and other Constables were already present there.
Challans issued to P.W. 2 on November 15, 1973, by the College for depositing the admission fee etc.
The C. I. examined me and typed my statement M.O. 9 fell off from the rickshaw, as the deceased was being pulled out by his assailants.
Almost simultaneously, Veeramma, widow of the deceased followed by P.W. 2 also reached there.
P 5, viz.
Cross examined, the witness companyld number say whether P.W. 2 was the 7th or 8th candidate to be interviewed.
Like P.W. 1, P.W. 2, also, did number disclose the names of the assailants to the persons who had gathered at the spot soon after the occurrence.
The deceased and others were being tried for the murder of one Errappa Reddi.
Thereafter, he handed over the written companyplaint Ex.
P3, presented by P.W. 2.
The witness did number deny the possibility of the last candidate having been interviewed after 4 p. m. and before 5 p. m. on November 15, 1973.
P.W. 4 does number speak to his presence.
1,000, met him and asked for the loan.
By about 4.30 p.m. some P.Cs.
Although before the Court, P.W. 4 claimed to have seen P.W. 2 at the scene of offence when as returned there with P.W. 5, in his statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, he did number refer to the presence of P.W. 2 at all.
In that case Al to A5, A3s late brother, Errappa Reddy, among others, were the accused.
In the opinion of the medical witness, the numerous stab wounds on the deceased including injuries 4 to 8, 15, 28 and 33 which were fatal injuries, companyld be caused with dagger.
P.W. 4 has stated that the deceased boarded his rickshaw at a place which was about la yards from the gate of the Court companypound.
P.W. 4 stated that he companyld number identify any of the assailants because he had number seen them before the occurrence.
The Principal initialled Ex.
Then I went home out of fear keeping the rickshaw at the scene of offence itself.
P.W. 5 then rushed to the scene of offence followed by P.W. 4.
35/ and Rs.
The C. I. and S. I. were present.
The medical evidence shows that there were numberless than 37 injuries, mostly stab wounds, on the body of the deceased.
When the six appellants started stabbing the deceased, P.W. 4 got frightened and then, ran to the deceaseds house raising an out cry that the deceased was being murdered.
The evidence of the Rickshawala P.W. 4 was itself of doubtful veracity.
The assailants then ran away.
He met the Sub Inspector and orally informed him how Accused 1 to Accused 6 had murdered the deceased.
By that time, it was about 1 P. M. P.W. 1 then returned to the scene of occurrence and saw that the Circle Inspector of Police and some Constables were already present there.
Thereafter, he drafted the companyplaint Ex.
The deceaseds wife went running towards the scene of offence and I went running after her.
In the meantime, on reaching the deceaseds house, P.W. 4 informed the deceaseds wife, Veeramma P.W. 5 about the occurrence.
P 1 made by P.W. 1 to the police that in his testimony, P.W. 5 has number stated that he had seen P.W. 1 following the rickshaw, on foot, or had seen him at or near the scene of offence, when the assault started.
P 5 to P.W. 2 for deposit of the admission and other fees into the Sub Treasury in the State Bank of India within 24 hours of their issue.
For number accepting the evidence of P.W.2, the trial companyrt said His father was being prosecuted along with the deceased and others for the murder of Errappa Reddy, brother of accused 3.
The witness companyld number say whether C. E. C. Inter candidates were interviewed first, or the BI.P.C. Group which had 15 candidates.
P.W. 4 says that he had seen P.W. 1, also, for the first time in the Court companypound for a brief moment when he talked to the deceased, while the latter was boarding the rickshaw Identification of P.W. 1 in Court at the trial, as the person who had on the day of occurrence talked to the deceased was, therefore, number reliable.
came and took me to the scene of offence.
P.W. 3 admittedly, was a close relation of P.W. 1 and of the deceased.
P.W. 3 was frank enough to admit that he resides in the deceaseds house and also messes with him without paying any boarding charges.
Thereafter, the College Office issued the Challans Ex.
The rickshaw puller P.W. 4 got down and stood aside for a moment.
Thereafter all the six appellants surrounded the deceased, pulled him out of the rickshaw and repeatedly stabbed him, causing numerous injuries.
These facts have been deposed to by the Circle Inspector P.W. 13 and Murad P.W. 4 .
The word admit was endorsed by P.W. 7 on the application form Ex.
At best, the evidence of P.W. 7 and Exs.
The testimony of P.W. 1 finds companyroboration to a material extent in material particulars from the evidence of an independent witness.
3 to 5 who were examined to companyroborate them, was itself unreliable.
The witness then proceeded towards the old Court buildings.
The witness and P.W. 2 however, took Veeramma back to her house.
P.W. 2 also does number say that he had told P.W. 5 when she came to spot, the names of the accused as the assailants of the deceased.
The prosecution case, as it emerges from the record, is as follows The deceased, M. Gangireddy, was a practising Advocate of Cuddapah.
36/ by 11 a.m. The witness then went to the deceaseds house 7 furlongs away, to seek guidance in remitting the fees under those Challans.
S. Sarkaria, J. This appeal is directed against a judgment, dated December 21, 1976, of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reversing the judgment of the Sessions Court, Anantapur, whereby he had acquitted the six accused of offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149, Penal Code.
Like P.W. 1, he also gives an omnibus description of the assault, bereft of all details or any specific part played by any of the accused in the assault.
Accused 1 Hari and accused 3 Kothapu were cited as eye witnesses by the prosecution in that murder case against the deceased.
In cross examination, he revealed that he saw the occurrence from a distance of about 30 or 35 yards and that the occurrence took place at a distance of about 80 or 85 yards from the gate of the Court buildings.
P.W. 1 further stated that the Circle Inspector examined him and typed his statement during the inquest.
