Judgment

BEG, J.:- The appellant was charged, with his three brother-in-law, Bayyarapu Butchiah, Bayyarapu Chandriah, and Bayyarapu Kotayya, for offences punishable under Ss. 302, 325 and 323 Indian Penal Code each read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, for having murdered Irlapati Ramayya and causing grievous hurt to Ankayya, P.W.2, and simple injury to China Veerayya, P.W.1, at about 4.30 p.m. on 15-6-1969, in front of the house of Vipparla Peda Veerayya in Village Vipperla, District Guntur in the State of Andhra Pradesh. They were tried and acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of Guntur who attached considerable importance to the supposed delay in lodging the First Information Report of the alleged occurrence at 10.30 p.m. on 15-6-1969 at Police Station, Sattanapalli, 13 miles away from the scene of the incident. The prosecution had a sufficiently good explanation for the supposed delay inasmuch as the wife and other relations of the deceased were busy trying to get adequate medical attention for the deceased before thinking of making the F.I.R. The High Court had, on an appeal to it, considered this and other questions involved in the case and convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 to life imprisonment and awarded other appropriate sentences under Ss. 325 and 323 I.P.C. to him. The High Court had convicted the three other, co-accused under Ss. 323 and 324 I.P.C. only and has sentenced them to a fine of Rupees 150/- only and; in default of payment of fine, to three months rigorous imprisonment. Consequently, the appellant, had his right to appeal to this Court against the reversal of the order of his acquittal. The co-accused,not being in that advantageous position, could not obtain any special leave to appeal.

2. As this is an appeal, in exercise of a newly created right of appeal to this Court, we have examined the evidence on record. The points raised on behalf of the appellant, on this evidence are mentioned below.

3. Firstly, it is pointed out that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, as well as P.W.10, and P.W.11, are relations of the deceased, highly interested in securing the convictions of the appellant on account of partnership. It was urged that P.W.5 and P.W.6, were wrongly treated as alleged "independently witnesses" by this High Court. It was suggested to the prosecution witnesses in the course of their cross-examination, that the real occurrence took place elsewhere and consisted of long drawn out stone pelting by two sides during the day in the course of which both sides were injured. In support of this version, reliance was placed upon several telltale, or, at least, highly suspicious circumstances which were not adequately explained by the prosecution. Secondly, no blood was found anywhere near the Neem tree in front of the house of P.W.3, Peda Veerayya, where the occurrence is said to have taken place. Thirdly, it was established, from the statement of the investigating Offier, that the trunk of the Neem tree under which the alleged occurrence took place was about 5 to 6 ft. high so that o lathis could be lifted and brought down to beat the injured without obstruction by branches as was admitted by Lakshmayya. P.W.4, and China Veerayya, P.W.1, fourthly, the site plan showed quite a number of stones lying at some distance from the scene of occurrence. Fifthly, a number of independent witnesses, apart from the ones examined, (who are all characterised by the appellant s Counsel as "partisan witnesses"), were said to be available but not examined. Although this was admitted as a fact in the Committing Magistrate s Court by P.W.1, a new version was, it was submitted, given at the trial. Sixthly, there were injuries upon the appellant s body which had not been explained by the prosecution version although a belated attempt had been made by Lakshmayya, P.W.4, at the trial, to explain these injuries by alleging that the four injuries, all on the head of the appellant, which, according to the Doctor, cou