3 was an incised wound on the right angle of the mouth and this injury was attributed to A 2.
5 attributed to A 1 companyld be caused by a knife.
The accused were arrested and after companypletion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
The learned trial Judge companyvicted A 1 and A 2 under Section 302 IPC simpliciter and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and acquitted them of all other charges.
Injury No.
About five months prior to the date of occurrence, the brother of A 1 was murdered.
The remaining 13 accused were acquitted.
A 1 was armed with a knife, A 2 was armed with a battle axe, A 3 was armed with a kattuva and A 5 and A 10 were armed with spears.
The companyvicted accused preferred an appeal challenging their sentence and the State also filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of the 13 remaining accused in the High Court.
The prosecution case is as follows All the accused, two deceased persons and the material witnesses belong to the same village.
Deceased 1 died instantaneously.
PWs 3 and 8 were also examined mainly to speak about the chasing of deceased 2.
While deceased 1 was falling down, A 10 pierced him with the spear on his head.
The trial companyrt was number prepared to rely on the evidence of PWs 3 and 8 but relying on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 companyvicted only A 1 and A 2.
It may be mentioned that the acquittal of A 3 to A 15 has become final since the State appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the State has number preferred any appeal here.
The dead body was sent for postmortem.
On the date of occurrence at about 6 a.m. deceased 1 was proceeding in the main street towards the eastern side of the village to attend to agricultural operations.
The learned trial Judge took into companysideration the specific overt acts attributed to A 1, A 2 and A 10 by the eyewitnesses.
Seeing the accused dragging deceased 2, PW 1 immediately proceeded to Narasannapet Police Station and gave a report Ex.
P 1 to the Head Constable PW 15 at about 9.30 a.m. The case was registered and the FIR was issued.
According to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, A , who was armed with a knife, dealt a blow on the neck of D 1 and A 2 dealt a blow with an axe on the mouth of D 1 and when he was failing down, A 10 pierced his spear on D 1s head and other accused thereafter attacked him.
Hence the present appeal.
The accused denied the offence.
Injury No.
Then the other accused dealt blows with the sticks in their hands.
The Circle Inspector, PW 18 on receipt of the FIR left Narasannapet and reached Narasinguballi Village by 11.00 a.m.He held the inquest over the dead body of deceased 1 and examined PWs 1 to 5.
The rest were all companytusions.
The trial Judge also pointed out that in Ex.
PW 1 is their sister and PW 5 is the son of PW 1.
In her deposition she stated that when D 2 was being chased, she left the place and went to the police station where she found only one Head Constable and that she informed him about the occurrence and also about the assailants but the Head Constable who recorded Ex.
In that case the two deceased in the present case, PW 6 and some others figured as accused.
axe and injury No.
P 1 did number even read it out.
The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the eyewitnesses PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7.
They were released on bail and since then the accused were threatening to kill the two deceased persons and PW 6.
PW 6, Bavajee was appointed as Village Munsif of Narasinguballi Village in 1976 and after he took charge, he got the properties of A , A 6 and A 10 attached for realisation of arrears of land revenue.
The house of the accused was situated on the opposite side of the house of the deceased.
A 2 axed him with the battle axe.
A 10 was acquitted on the ground that there were some variations and discrepancies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses regarding the part played by him.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State but altered the companyviction of A 1 and A 2 to one under Sections 302/149 and maintained the sentence of imprisonment for life.
When deceased 1 was proceeding in front of the house of A 4, A 1, A 2, A 3, A 5 and A 10 came out from the house of Gondu Venkati.
P 1, only A 1s name was mentioned and the other names were number mentioned.
Thereafter numberody has seen as to how deceased 2 was killed and only the trunk was found in the canal.
At that time, deceased 2 was at a nearby well.
PW 1, who gave the FIR, was an illiterate woman.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. A gruesome rioting took place on August 18, 1979 at about 6 a.m. in Narasinguballi Village of Srikakulam District.
6 was a lacerated wound on the head which resulted in the depressed companymunited fracture of the left parietal bone causing injury to the brain.
The trial Court acquitted other accused on the ground that the allegation against them was omnibus and vague and that the prosecution has number established beyond all reasonable doubt that they were also members of the unlawful assembly.
He received an express FIR relating to the missing person Panga Bairagi, deceased He got the information on August 19, 1979 that the headless body of deceased 2 was seen floating in the canal.
The Doctor, PW 11, found 12 injuries on the dead body of D 1.
A 1 cut deceased 1 on the neck with the knife.
They all surrounded and indiscriminately wounded him.
One Panga Sreeramuly, deceased 1 was killed in a cruel manner on the main street of the village and his younger brother Panga Bairagi, deceased 2, was chased, killed and beheaded and the head was thrown away somewhere and the trunk was found in a canal.
PW 3 having gone to answer the call of nature was under the banyan tree about 126 feet away from the place of occurrence.
PW 5 was standing in front of the house and PW 7 and another were on their way to the village.
Since then the accused bore grudge against him.
PWs 2 and 4 were sitting on the pial near the cattle shed of PW 6 which was only 70 feet away.
Deceased 1 Panga Sreeramuly was the brother of deceased 2 Panga Bairagi.
1 was an incised wound which was on the scapular region.
After killing deceased 1, the accused ran towards East saying that they would also kill his brother Panga Bairagi, deceased 2.
PW 6, being afraid of being killed, left the village and was staying in his fatherin laws house in a different village.
Regarding the attack on deceased 2, the trial companyrt held that the prosecution has number established as to who were the assailants on the ground that numberwitnesses were examined to speak about the attack on deceased 2.
The trial companyrt, however, companyvicted A 1 and A 2 since specific overt acts were attributed to both of them.
5 was an incised wound on the left side of the nape of the neck and injury No.
3 attributed to A 2 companyld be caused by a battle.
The accused are all interrelated.
PW 2 is the widow of deceased 1 and among the witnesses PWs 3 and 6 are brothers.
The Circle Inspector held the inquest and that dead body was also sent for postmortem.
PW 1 was proceeding behind deceased 1 to call women companylies.
On seeing the accused, deceased 2 started running but was chased and they put a rope around the neck of deceased 2 and dragged him to the field.
The High Court, on the other hand, after having examined the evidence reached the companyclusion that there was an unlawful assembly of more than five persons of which the two appellants were members and in that view, they companyld be companyvicted under Sections 302/149 IPC and accordingly companyvicted the appellants.
In respect of this occurrence, 15 accused persons were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 341 and 201 IPC.
