SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(SC) 487

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA, AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Bandi Mallaiah and others, Appellants
Versus
State of A.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1973
Decided on 16-11-1979.

Headnote:

SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 - Section 302 and 34 - Appeal Against Conviction - Certain Minor Offences - Dismantle Cattle-Shed - Share Timber Amongst Themselves - Neither Party Was Agreeable - Spear On Right Side Of Throat - Inquest Over Dead Body - PW1 and his brothers had property (P W 2) became divided from his brothers and started residing while others were residing - Family owned a cattle-shed and this fell to share of brothers - They wanted to dismantle cattle-shed and share timber amongst themselves - So on morning his brother went in four bullock-carts to dismantle shed and fetch timber - They reached and started dismantling cattle-shed - At that point of time A-1 came there and asked them not to dismantle cattle-shed as he wanted to buy it told that they were not willing to sell cattle-shed but was insistent - Two mediators were sent for - These mediators suggested that should give one acre of land and take cattle-shed - Neither party was agreeble to this course - Then wont away also went away saying "I will see how you will dismantle" - After left and his people dismantled cattle-shed and loaded timber in their carts - He asked them where they were taking carts – Held, High Court apparently did not appreciate full significance of omission of these witnesses to mention names in their earlier statements as persons who attacked deceased - If High Court had considered these omissions (amounting to contradictions) along with circumstances mentioned by us earlier High Court would have seen that there was a deliberate attempt to introduce names into case at a later stage - Another important circumstance which High Court failed to note was that part now attributed in attack on deceased was not mentioned in first information report or in former statement under S. 161 - Court further have evidence to effect that left place to go to fetch - These several circumstances incline us to doubt if was really given as prosecution would have it - Appeal Allowed.

JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:—This appeal under the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 is against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh convicting A-1, A-2 and A-3 under S. 302 read with S. 34 and other offences reversing the judgment of acquittal of the learned Sessions Judge of Khammam. A-4, A-5, A-10 and A-13 who were convicted of certain minor offences and sentenced to short terms of imprisonment have not appealed.

2. The prosecution case briefly was as follows. P.W.1 and his brothers Kotaiah, Anantharamaiah, Venkatakrishnaiah and Radhakrishnamurthy had property at Cheemalapadu and Motlagudem. Venklatakrishnaiah (P.W.2) became divided from his brothers and started residing at Motlagudem while the others were residing at Cheemalapadu. The family owned a cattle-shed at Motlagudem and this fell to the share of Venkatakrishnaiahs brothers. They wanted to dismantle the cattle-shed and share the timber amongst themselves. So on the morning of 2-7-71,P.W.1, his brother RadhaKrisihnamurthy, P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.10, Seethaiah and Juggaiah went to Motlagudem in four bullock-carts to dismantle the shed and fetch the timber. They reached Motlegudem at 10a.m. and started dismantling the cattle-shed. At that point of time, A-1 came there and asked them not to dismantle the cattle-shed as he wanted to buy it. P.W.1 told A-1 that they were not willing to sell the cattle-shed but A-1 was insistent. Two mediators P.W.11 and C.W.2 were sent for. These mediators suggested that A-1 should give one acre of land and take the cattle-shed. Neither party was agreeble to this course. C.W.2 then wont away. A-1 also went away saying "I will see how you will dismantle".After A-1 left, P.W.1 and his people dismantled the cattle-shed and loaded the timber in their carts. At about 4p.m., P.W.3 came there. He asked them where they were taking the carts. They told him that they were going to Cheemalapadu. After the carts had gone a distance of about 100 yards and when they were in the field of Podem Narsaiah, the seventeen accused came and surrounded the carts. A-1 and A-3 were armed with spears. A-10 was armed with a kota-kathi. The rest of them were armed with sticks. A-1 pierced Radhakrishnamurthy with a spear on the right side of throat. A-3 dealt a blow with a spear on the head of Radhakrishnamurthy. Radhakrishnamurthy fell down. A-1, A-2 and A-3 then beat Radhakrishnamurthy after he had fallen down. A-2 and A-5 beat P.W.1 with sticks above his left ear and on his right hand. A-14, A-15 and A-16 beat P.W.7 with sticks. A-3, A-13 and A-17 beat P.W.9 with sticks., A-8 and A-9 beat P.W.5 with sticks. A-11 beat P.W.10 with a stick while A-3 and A-10 beat him with a spear and a kota-kathi". A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-12 beat P.W.12. P.W.1 ran from the scene to the police station at Karepalli, at a distance of about eight miles from Motlagudem. He gave a report Ex. P.1 to P.W.18, the Sub-Inspector of Police at 10p.m. As he was giving the report, P.Ws. 5,8,9, and 10 also reached the police station. P.W.18 arranged to send the five injured persons to the hospital at Yellandu through the requisitions Exs. P.11, P.12, P.14 and P.15. He then proceeded to the village Motlagudem where he found the dad body of Radhakrishnamurthy in the field of Podem Narsaiah. He also found three persons P.Ws7, 11 and 12 lying injured in the house of P.W.2. The three injured were also sent to the Yellandu hospital. The investigation was taken over by P.W.20 who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter arranged to send the dead body for autopsy to the hospital at Yellandu. The condition of P.W.11 was thought to be serious. Therefore, the Munsif Magistrate, Yellandu was requested to record his statement. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the seventeen accused persons. The accused denied the offences with which they were charged. It was the case of A-1 that he had purchased the land on whic



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top