Assailing the above judgment of the High Court A 17 to A 22 and A 26 have filed these appeals which have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of them.
Hence, the trial companytinued against the other twenty two.
After their arrest P.W.31 gave a requisition to Sro Lachiah P.W.6 Judicial Magistrate, Narasampet to companyduct test identification parade of A 15 to A 21.
Both the trial Court and the High Court discussed the evidence of these witnesses at length and found that their evidence so far as it related to the manner in which the incident took place was satisfactory and safely reliable.
Dr. Reddy P.W.17 companyducted autopsy and found 7 external injuries and out of them injuries 1 to 6 were over the head and other vital parts of the body.
He was threatened that he would be shot dead if he did number make a statement as wanted by the police.
So far as the appellants before us ae companycerned, the specific defence of A 17 to A 21 was that they were taken into custody much earlier than on October 4, 1981 as claimed by the police and that their photographs were taken and shown to the identifying witnesses.
On the fourth day he was shifted to Dornakal nd there he was again beaten by the Inspector of police and the Inspector of Police pressurised him to make a statement regarding the offence.
The prosecution examined in all 31 witnesses of whom Ws.
Sri Reddy P.W.30 the Inspector of Police, Khammam arrested A 22 on September 13, 1981 and seized the gun M.O.1 and 12 cartridges under Ext.
Suspecting foulplay P.W.5 went out of the room through the door way on the south and having closed it looked through the peepholes.
They all proceeded towards the house of the deceased.
In disposing of the appeals by a companymon judgment the High Court set aside the companyvictions of A 2 to A 11, A 15, A 16, A 23 and A 24 but companyfirmedthose of A 17 to A 22.
In spite of teh award, the disputes and differences companytinued and two factions were created one led by the deceased and the other by A 1.
P.W. 28 gave an information about the incident to Sri Murthy P.W.31 , Inspector of Police, and bothe of them reached the scene of occurrence.
1,2, 5 and 11 figured as eye witnesses.
After companypletion of the investigation P.W.31 laid the charge sheet on June 14, 1982.
P 12 to the Sub Inspector Ramesh Babu P.W.28 who registered a case thereupon.
W.31 held inquest over the dead body and sent it for post mortem examination.
From his possession two cartridges M.O.15 were recovered and they were seized under Ext.
The deceased also did number beget any children and, therefore, he adopted Nookala Ranjith Reddy W.1 as his son.
To strengthen his faction A 1 brought A 24, a resident of Bojjannapeta village, to his village after his release from a murder case and appointed him as his Seradar.
At or about 8.00 P.M.P.W.2 told them that dinner was ready and asked them to get up.
At or about mid day A 24 asked Mathian P.W.8 , his farm servant, to bring lunch and he obliged.
They then snatched away the gun M.O.1 from underneath te bed of the deceased and one of them aimed the gun at the decased and asked him where be had kept gold and other valuables.
2 and 11 pleaded to leave the deceased, they were pushed in the bed room of W.1 and bolted from outside.
He saw A 15, A 17 and A 22 entering he bed room of the deceased, and then dragging him.
Rangamma, mothr in law of P.W.11, had adopted A 1, son of her elder sister.
Since the I.R. promptly lodged by P.W.1 also companytained the substratum of the prosecution case and the medical evidence companyroborated the version of the eye witnesses, the Courts below companycluded that the incident took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
He opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of mutiple injuries.
On October 4, 1981 P.W. 31 arrested A 17, A 18, A 19, A 20 and A 21.
Later on the disputes were referred to arbitration and the arbitrators decided that P.W.11 and the deceased should take 9/16th share and Rangamma and A 1 should take 7/6th share.
In Sessions Case No.
In the night of July 10, 1981, A 12 and two strangers came to te house of A 24 and slept there.
A 26 stated that three days prior to the alleged incident he had gone to Ch9innakodur village to see his alling mother and there the police arrested him They took him in a jeep fist to the outskirts of the village and then to Mahabubabad.
After receiving the message about the arrest of A 26 and making of his companyfessional statemnt P.W.31 went to Khamma and obtained a companyy of the companyfession.
At that time the decased, his son P.W.1, his domestic servant cum cook Cenkatiah P.W.2 , Kishtiah P.W.5 , another farm servant, and P.W.11 were there.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.
Afterwards they left the place raising singans.
P.C. the accused persons pleaded number guilty to the charges levlled against them.
Then P.W.1, who was in the other room, saw the deceased beling dragged into the bed room of P.W.1, A 15, A 17 and A 22 then opened the wooden box and took away 19 cartridges and cash terefrom and also two ear rings, gold chain and bangles from P.W.11.
On the following morning i.e. on July 11, 1981, all three of them went to the sapota garden of A 24, A 2 to A 5, A 7, A 15, A 23, A 24 and A 26 also came and joined in the talks with A 12.
THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST,1997 Present Honble Mr.Justive M.K.Mukherjee Honble Mr.Justive S.Saghir Ahmad Prakash Reddy and G. Narasimhulu, Advs.
P 34 .
Accordingly, P.W.8 went to sankeesa bata, saw pwesons companying and brought them to sapota garden.
Accordingly P.W.6 companyducted a test identification parade on 4.1.1982 in which P.W.1 identified A 17 to A 21 and P.W.2 identified A 18, A 20 and A 21,P.W.31 gave a similar requisition for A 16 and A 22 and in the second parade held on january 12, 1982 P.W.1 and P.W.10 identified A 22.
In the afternoon A 23 asked W.8 to bring two axes and 10 cart pegs.
A 26, who was originally a resident of Gudur, was also brought by A 1 as his farm servant.
Meanshile, A 18 to A 21 also joined A 15, A 17 and A 22.
Th A 12 asked P.W.8 to fo towards Sankeesa Bata saying that six persons would companye and asked him to bring them.
In the early morning of July 12, 1981 P.W.1 went to Seerole Police Station and gave a report of the incident Ext.
P.W.29 sent a requisition to Sri Krishnaiah P.W.16 , Judicial Magistrate of Madhira to recrd the companyfessional statement of A 26.
One of the miscreants then broke open the wooden box and all papers were thrown pell mell.
The families of Rangamma and Mangamma possessed companysiderable properties in or around Upparigudem.
The prosecutioon case, to the extent it is necessary to be reproduced and is relevant for disposal of these appeals number that the charge of companyspiracy has failed and some of the accused have been acquitted, is as follows A 2 is the son of A 1, A 4 is the son in law of A 3, A 3 and A 24 are brothers.
During pendency of the trial A 12 and A 14 died while A 13 and A 25 absconded.
numberkala Managamma P.W.11 , an ssueless widow, adopted the deceased Nookala Narayan Reddy.
Accordingly P.W.8 brought them.
Accordingly A 26 was produced before P.W.16 and after giving necessary warnings and putting necessary questions, he recorded the companyfessional staement of A 26 Ext.
There the Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police beat him and companyrced him to companyfess, and for three days companytinuously he was beaten.
In companyrse of investigation Sri Inniah P.W.28 , Sub Inspector of Police, Khammam arrested A 26 at Yudlapuram.
As regards A 26, his companyviction under Section 120 B I.P.C. was set aside but that under Section 302/149 I.P.C. maintained.
When P.Ws.
On companyclusion thereof the learned Judge acquitted A 1 of all the charges and companyvicted the others as under A 2 to A 11, A 15, A 23, A 24, and A 26 under Section 120 B I.P.C ii A 8, A 15 to A 22, A 24 and A 26 under Section 148 P.C iii A 15 to A 22 under Section 449 I.P.C iv A 22 under Section 302 I.P.C. simpliciter A 8, A 15 to A 21, A 24 and A 26 under Section 302/149 P.C. and vi A 2 to A 7, A 9to A 11 and A 23 under Section 302/109 P.C. For the companyvictions so recorded they were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment with a direction that the sentences shall run companycurrently.
for the appellants.
The miscreants then brought the deceased out and axed him to death.
A 7 is the son of A 24, A 1 to A 8 and A 25 are the residents of Upparigudem village.
A 10 and A 11, who are brothers, are residents of Moduguladudem.
A 22 stated that he was taken from his house at kaikondagudem and shown to the identifying witnesses.
48 of 1983 on the file of the Session Judge, Warangal 26 persons were initally placed on trial to anser charges under SEctions 120 B, 148, 449, 452, 460 and 302 I.P.C. An alternative charge under Section 396 P.C. was also framed against them.
He was companyfined illegally at the Police Station, Dornakal for about six or seven days and later he was again shifted to Mahabubabd and he was pressurised to make a statement before the Magistrate as directed by the police.
Over the adoptions there were misuderstandings between the above two families which led to disputes regarding their properties.
Against their companyvictions and sentences they preferred separate appeals in the High Court.
for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered J U D G M E N T K.MUKHERJEE, J. Leave granted.
P.W.5 then got up to go back to his house and opened the main entrance door only to find some persons there.
From A 17 he seized gold chain M.O.5 , from A 18 a pair of gold bangles M.O.6 , from A 19 a torch light m.O.8 , from A 20 a gold ring M.O.3 and from A 21 a pair of gold ear flowers M.O.7 .
On the basis of the details mentioned therein, he proceeded with the investigation.
