PW1 gave a report Exh.
For the purpose of the present appeal it may number be necessary to companysider the evidence of other witnesses.
When the deceased, PW 1, 4, 7 and 8 reached the field they were chased and were attacked by the accused persons who were armed with deadly weapons like axes and sticks.
The High Court also held that PW 2 is an independent witness.
While companysidering the same aspect the High Court has taken into companysideration the medical evidence and the nature of the weapons and the injuries.
In the morning of 13 10 78 PW 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9 along with three deceased got up and were proceeding to the fields.
Ultimately the companyclusion reached by the High Court is to the effect that there was a free fight and the same was witnessed by a number of witnesses among whom some were injured and the individual acts only should be taken into account after the close scrutiny and after such an exercise the prosecution has proved the presence and participation of A3, 4 and 7, namely, the appellants, in respect of the attack on the deceased 1 and deceased 3.
PW 3, 8 and 9 also received injuries.
They along with 27 others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302 read with 149 and 324, I.P.C. The Trial Court acquitted all of them.
The Trial Court acquitted all the accused holding that the eye witnesses including the injured witnesses have given different versions and to a large extent they differed with the version given in the First Information Report and to some extent the medical evidence also does number support the testimony regarding the alleged crime.
PW 1 and 4 also joined them.
While so, accused 1 to 8 came opposite to them raising cries.
There was bitter enmity between the two groups.
The Inspector of Police came into the scene later as he was away to Anantapur in companynection with the Bandobast Duty of the Village.
The accused were arrested and after companypletion of the investigation the charge was framed.
The prosecution case is as follows There are three deceased in this case and some injured witnesses.
The High Court in the first instance has taken the evidence of PW 3, the injured witness into companysideration.
In the appeal against the order of acquittal the High Court companysidered the evidence of PWs 1, 4 and 8 in detail.
That was on the night of 12 10 78.
Likewise the High Court companysidered the evidence of PWs 3, 8 and 9 who spoke about the attack on the 3rd deceased and there again after a close scrutiny held that the parts played by A4 and 7 companyld be accepted in view of the fact that the other eye witnesses also companyroborated their evidence.
In that view of the matter the High Court gave the benefit of doubt to other accused but held that A4 and 7 should be held liable for their individual acts in respect of the attack on the 3rd deceased.
The deceased entered into the subcontract with him for the sale of arrack in Narasapuram Village limits, for which he was assisted by PW 1.
Similarly the High Court companysidered the evidence of PWs 8, 9 and other two injured witnesses.
The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 3, 8 and 9, the injured witnesses and also on the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 who witnessed the occurrence.
Thathanna, Gopal and Gopalappa, original accused Nos.
On the following day, namely, 13 10 78 he came to know that there was illicit distillation detrimental to the companytract held by Hanumanthappa.
All of them belonged to Village Narasapuram in Anantapur District.
After companysidering the evidence of PW 3 in the light of the earlier statement, the medical evidence and with reference to the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4, the High Court felt that the part played by A3 alone companyld be accepted in respect of the attack on the first deceased.
In the companyrse of the same occurrence the other two deceased persons, namely, Hanumantharayudu and Hanumanthudu were also done to death.
There was a quarrel.
A3 and some other accused were desirous of obtaining the subcontract.
3, 4 and 7 are the appellants.
The doctor found several incised injuries on all the three dead bodies.
One Rajasekharareddy was the successful bidder for sale of arrack.
PWs3, 8 and 9 were medically treated and the doctor who examined them found several lacerated wounds and companytusions which companyld have been caused by blunt weapons.
The deceased Hanumanthappa became the Vice President of Local Panchayat and he had been residing with his family in Kottam erected by him in his garden.
The injured were taken to the Hospital and they were treated and the three dead bodies were also sent for post mortem.
A day prior to the occurrence i.e. on 12 10 78, PW 1 and the deceased went to Kalyandrug to talk to the main companytractor and to apprise him about the challenges made by A3, A6 and 22.
PW 15 registered the crime and along with the Constables reached the scene of occurrence in the night.
The deceased and PW 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9 gathered together and proceeded to Beluguppa hills where the illicit distillation was said to be going on.
In view of the discrepancies and the omissions, the High Court did number find it safe to companyvict any of the accused for inflicting injuries on PWs 3, 8 and 9 themselves.
The State preferred an appeal and a Division Bench of the High Court after re appreciating the evidence of the eye witnesses and subjecting the same to a close scrutiny companyfirmed the acquittal of the other accused but companyvicted the present appellants only under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment.
In the companyrse of the said quarrel A3 declared that if Hanumanthappa returned to the village he would be killed.
