Al, A3, A4 and A6 to A19 are the followers of A5.
A 3 died during the companyrse of appeal.
PW 4 was stated to be another eye witness.
P.W.12, the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kandukur companyducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.
All the accused hurled stones against P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased.
On companypletion of investigation police laid the charge sheet for the above offences.
Out of them PWs 1 to 3 were stated to be injured eye witnesses.
A 4, A 6, A 7, A 10 and A 13 to A 19 were found to be number guilty of the charged offences and they were acquitted by the trial Court.
P.W.11 took up investigation, examined P.Ws.1 to 3.
A 1 beat P.W.1 with an iron rod on his head.
to 3 belong to the group of Chandra Tirupathaiah.
A6, who was passing through the street, heard the cries of P.W.3 and picked up quarrel with him.
Stand of the accused before the trial Court was that the best witness would have been the father of the deceased who was number examined for reasons known to the prosecution.
A 1 also beat the deceased with an iron rod on his head and all over the body.
No.1 of 1998 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and sent the injured P.Ws.1 to 3 to the Government Hospital for treatment.
A 9 was acquitted by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
It was also submitted that in the Ext.
As a result the deceased fell down with injuries and became unconscious.
Factual scenario giving rise to the present appeals is as follows There are political grudges and ill feelings between the groups led by A5 and Chandra Tirupathaiah in R.R. Palem village.
At about 1.00 p.m. Al and A3 to A19 armed with deadly weapons beat the deceased and also injured P.Ws.1 to 3.
Kilari Manoz went to the village and informed about the quarrel between A6 and Chandra Murali to the elders and A.2, in spite of the request made by Chintagumpala Manohar number to do so.
At about 5.00 p.m. P.Ws.1 to 3 went to Lingasamudram Police Station, where P.W.1 gave a statement to the police.
In order to establish the accusations prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
P.Ws.1 and 2 and Chandra Venkateshwarlu hereinafter referred to as the deceased tried their best to companyvince P.W.3 to adjust the matter.
All the accused left the place thereafter.
By hearing such reply, A6 felt offended and grew wild against Chandra Murali and picked up quarrel with him, and there was a scuffle between them.
On the same day, at about 12.00 numbern, A2 went to the house of Chintagumpala Manohar and kicked him on his stomach for his prevention and interference with Kilari Manoz when he was proceeding to the village for informing the quarrel to the elders.
A12 also beat P.W.1 with a stick on his shoulder.
PWs 1 to 3 fell down with injuries.
A6 enquired from Chandra Murali about the cricket match, as to whether it was ended as draw by calling as cricket raddaindira.
P.W.9 recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.
A 1 beat P.W.3 with an axe on his head and A 11 beat P.W.3 with a stick on his eyebrows.
On giving death intimation, provision of law was altered to Section 302 IPC.
After some time at about 7.30 A.M., Chintagumpala Sunil, Chandra Murali and Chintagumpala Manohar also went to the Pathuri lands of Kilari Venkata Subbamma and others for answering the calls of nature and they met A.6 and Kilari Manoz and Chinthagumpala Vamsee there.
P.W.14 visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators Chandra Venkateswarlu and Choppara Kotaiah, seized sticks, iron rod and stones under a companyer of observation report and sent the deceased to the nursing home of P.W.13 for treatment.
Then, he replied in the same manner by calling A6 as match raddu kaledura.
P10 postmortem certificate opining that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to injury No.2.
P 1 report details have number been given.
Accused persons pleaded innocence.
While so, on 14.1.1998 at about 7.00 A.M., A.6 and Kilari Manoz and Chintagumpala Vamsee went to the Pathuri lands of Kilari Venkata Subbamma and others to graze their cattle.
P.W.3, who is the father of P.W.6, on his return from the field came to know about beating of his son by A2, he went to Ramalayam Street questioning loudly about the illegal and high handed act of A2.
P.W.14 companyducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem examination.
Since then the group of the accused was waiting for an opportunity to prove their supremacy in the village.
W.13 after examining the deceased declared him dead.
A2 beat the deceased with a stick on his back.
The wife of A5 and the mother of Chandra Tirupathaiah i.e. Chandra Punnamma companytested in the Panchayat elections and was elected as Sarpanch of the village.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the companyviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
The appellants who were A 1, A 2, A 5, A 8, A 11 and A 12 have been found guilty of various offences.
