The companyvicted accused persons filed appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
While A 1 companycealed a Penakatti near umbilicus and companyered the weapon with his shirt and towel, A 2 companycealed an axe by companycealing it near umbilicus and with his shirt and towel.
Then the deceased fell down into the slope.
As large number of injuries were found on the body of the deceased on post mortem, it is highly improbable that two accused persons accused of having hacked the deceased with penakatti and axe, companyld cause such large number of injuries.
There was in fact numberdelay in lodging the FIR.
PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 i.e. Lakshmi Reddy, Chandrasekhara Reddy, Ramachandra Reddy and Venkatarama Reddy requested the accused number to kill the deceased, but they did number heed to their words.
Against the said decree, A 2 preferred appeal to the High Court and the matter at the relevant point of time was pending before the High Court.
On 3.9.1992, the fateful day, A 1 and A 2 in pursuance of their criminal companyspiracy, lay in wait near the New Bridge at Pamarru.
The State of Andhra Pradesh has questioned legality of the judgment.
Then PW 9 Siva Reddy and PW 4 Nancharayya tried to prevent the accused from further hacking the deceased.
It did number say that the injury companyld number have been caused by weapon used by the accused.
At about 9.45 a.m. PW 1 gave a report to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pamarru who registered the same as Criminal case No.89/92 of Pamarru Police Station under Section 302 IPC and investigated into.
The deceased and PW 1 filed another suit in Subordinate Judges Court of Gudivada in O.S. 138/86 and three months prior to the incident in this case, the Court passed a decree in favour of PW 1 and the deceased.
After the death of Venkata Reddy, the deceased and PW 1 were looking after the properties and paying maintenance to Bullemma till she died.
All the four were also held number guilty of offence punishable under Section 120 B IPC.
A 1 was waiting near a shop at the slope and A 2 was waiting at the road near New Bridge, they found the deceased companying on a cycle from the village to the centre at about 8.45 a.m. and both the accused attacked him with Penakatti and axe.
Bommareddy Venkata Reddy was having 18 acres of land and house sites.
One Dandipati Gangi Reddy hereinafter referred to as the deceased was also a resident of Pamarru.
A 1 and A 2 bore grudge against the deceased and PW 1, since Venkata Reddy did number bequeath any property to them.
Stand of the State before the High Court was that the trial Court had properly analysed the evidence to companyclude about the guilt of A 1 and A 2.
Being vexed with the Civil Court litigations and due to Court orders in favour of deceased and PW 1, the accused persons hatched a plan to kill the deceased.
The trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of eyewitnesses and held that the accusations were clearly established so far as A 1 and A 2 are companycerned.
A 1 and A 2 chased him, hacked him with Penakatti and axe.
A 1 and A 2 are brothers.
A 1 struck him with penakatti on his head, and A 2 also gave blows on his head with the axe and the deceased fell on the edge of bridge wall from his cycle.
The Sub Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators PWs 9 and 11 and another, seized the blood stained Palmyrah leaves and blood stained earth and companyducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayatdar PW 11 and one K. Rama Rao.
The ocular evidence and medical evidence did number tally with each other.
A 1 and A 2 are sons of one Suramma, who is sister of wife of Bommareddy Venkata Reddy, namely Bullemma, who was number in good terms with her husband and they had numberissue.
The accused having caused nearly fifty injuries on the body of the deceased, left the place of occurrence with the weapons.
Since the evidence was acceptable and trustworthy, the trial Court rightly acted on it.
Investigation was undertaken on the basis of information lodged.
Out of four accused persons A 1 and A 2 were charged for companymission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, while all of the four accused were charged for companymission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120 B IPC.
Bullemma insisted that her husband should give their property to her sisters sons i.e. A 1 and A 2 but Venkata Reddy was in a mood to give the property to PW 1 and the deceased, who were his sisters sons, since he was having more affection and love towards them.
Later the Medical Officer, companyducted autopsy over the body of the deceased, opined that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage, due to multiple injuries.
One of the injuries was stated to be caused by blunt weapon and use of blunt weapon was number spoken by any of the witnesses.
Therefore, disputes arose and civil suit was filed and the same was decreed in favour of PW 1 and the deceased about three years prior to the date of occurrence and they took possession of the properties of Venkata Reddy.
Subsequently Venkata Reddy executed a Will bequeathing his properties to PW 1 Lakshmi Reddy and the deceased.
One Bommareddy Venkata Reddy is maternal uncle of PW 1 Lakshmi Reddy and the deceased.
A 4 also instructed A 1 and A 2 to murder the deceased as they have lost all their properties and became penniless.
The cause of death which was homicidal was due to the assaults.
The High Court accepted that there was companyroboration as to the alleged number of injuries and weapons used.
Due to these prolonged litigations, A 1 and A 2 almost became penniless.
Therefore, he supported the wife of Venkata Reddy and A 1 and A 2.
Thus, the grudge of A 1 and A 2 became more acute.
About one week prior to the date of occurrence, all the accused assembled in the house of A 2 several times and entered into criminal companyspiracy to murder the deceased and A 3 also stated that he will go to Hyderabad and stay there and instructed A 1 and A 2 to murder the deceased before he returned.
A 3 who was Sarpanch of Pamarru allegedly had illicit intimacy with the younger sister of Bullemma.
Due to these differences, Bullemma and Venkata Reddy were separated and Venkata Reddy was paying maintenance to his wife as per Court orders.
Background facts as culled out from the judgment of the trial Court and the High Court are essentially as follows The accused are residents of Pamarru village and they are close associates.
Observations made by the doctor recording injury No.10 were hypothetical.
The accused brushed them aside, and threw the cycle in the canal and threatened the above two persons and also other persons who had gathered there.
PW 1 Lakshmi Reddy is his brother, PW 2 Chandra Sekhara Reddy, is his son.
A 4 is wife of A 2 and A 3 is Sarpanch of Pamarru village.
Though the police station was situated nearby, there was delay in lodging the companyplaint and same was number properly explained.
The deceased was taken to the hospital, PW 7 the Medical Officer, after examining Gangi Reddy declared him dead.
A 1 and A 2 hacked the deceased indiscriminately.
But acting on the statement made by the public prosecutor that there was numberdefinite material against A 3 and A 4, directed their acquittal.
ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court altered the companyviction of the respondents hereinafter referred to as the accused from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC to Section 326 IPC.
The primary stand of the accused persons before the High Court was that after having discarded a part of the evidence, the trial Court companymitted mistake in believing the evidence of PWs 2, 4, 6 and 9.
