SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
Thathanna and others, Appellants
Versus
State of A.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 1982,
D/- 6-10-1993.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 147, 148, 302, read with 149 , 324 and 326 – Offence of murder – Rioting,armed with deadly weapons – Voluntarily Causing hurt – Evidence – Acquittal - All of them belonged to Village in District - Deceased became Vice-President of Local Panchayat and he had been residing with his family in Kottam erected by him in his garden - One was successful bidder for sale of arrack - Deceased entered into sub-contract with him for sale of arrack in Village limits, for which he was assisted by PW 1. A3 and some other accused were desirous of obtaining sub-contract - There was bitter enmity between two groups - A day prior to occurrence i.e. on PW 1 and the deceased went to talk to main contractor and to apprise him about challenges made - In morning PW 1, 3,4, 8 and 9 along with three deceased got up and were proceeding to fields - PW 1 and 4 also joined them - While so, accused 1 to 8 came opposite to them raising cries - When deceased, PW 1, 4, 7, and 8 reached field they were chased and were attacked by accused persons who were armed with deadly weapons like axes and sticks - In course of same occurrence other two deceased persons, namely were also done to death - Held, In that view of matter High Court gave 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 3rd deceased - Ultimately conclusion reached by High Court is to effect that there was a free fight and same was witnessed by a number of witnesses; among whom some were injured and individual acts only should be taken into account after close scrutiny and after such an exercise prosecution has proved the presence and participation of A3, 4 and 7, namely, appellants, in respect of attack on deceased 1 and deceased 3 - His further submission is that the evidence of these three injured witnesses has not been accepted in respect of attack on themselves by other accused and that if that is position it will be highly unsafe to rely on their evidence to convict these three appellants who are alleged to have inflicted some injuries to these two deceased persons - Appellant was tried for an offence of causing murder - Trial Court acquitted him of the charges under Ss. 302 and 307 of I.P.C. occurrence has taken place is accepted and that in respect of these appellants other witnesses have also consistently spoken regarding parts played by three appallants - Nature of injuries inflicted by these three accused to that extent is corroborated by medical evidence and also spoken: to by other eye-witnesses consistently and same has been accepted - For all these reasons Court see no ground to interfere - Appeal is accordingly dismissed
Judgment
JUDGMENT - Thathanna, Gopal and Gopalappa. (original accused Nos. 3, 4 and 7) are the appellants. They along with 27 others were tried for offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 302, 302 read with 149 and 324, IPC. The Trial Court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal and a Division Bench of the High Court after reappreciating the evidence of the eye-witnesses and subjecting the same to a close scrutiny confirmed the acquittal of the other accused but convicted the present appellants only under S. 326, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment.
2. The prosecution case is as follows
There are three deceased in this case and some injured witnesses. All of them belonged to Village Narasapuram in Anantapur District. 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. One Rajasekhatareddy was the successful bidder for sale of arrack. The deceased entered into the sub-contract with him for the sale of arrack in Narasapurain Village limits, for which he was assisted by PW 1. A3 and some other accused were desirous of obtaining the sub-contract. There was bitter enmity between the two groups. 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 contractor and to apprise him about the challenges made by A3, A6 and 22. There was a quarrel. In the course of the said quarrel A3 declared that if Hanumanthappa returned to the village he would be killed. On the following day, namely, 13-10-78 he came to know that there was illicit distillation detrimental to the contract held by Hanumanthappa. 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. That was on the night of 12-10-78. 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. PW 1 and 4 also joined them. While so, accused 1 to 8 came opposite to them raising cries. 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. In the course of the same occurrence the other two deceased persons, namely, Hanumantharayudu and Hanumanthudu were also done to death. PW 3, 8 and 9 also received injuries. PW 1 gave a report Exh. P1. PW 15 registered the crime and along with the Constables reached the scene of occurrence in the night. The Inspector of Police came into the scene later as he was away to Anantapur in connection with the Band obast Duty of the Village. The injured were taken to the Hospital and they were treated and the three dead bodies were also sent for post-mortem. The doctor found several incised injuries on all the three dead bodies. PWs 3, 8 and 9 were medically treated and the doctor who examined them found several lacerated wounds and contusions which could have been caused by blunt weapons. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation the charge was framed. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 3, 8 and 9, the injured witnesses and a so on the evidence of PWs 1,2 and 4 who witnessed the occurrence. For the purpose of the present appeal it may not be necessary to consider the evidence of other witnesses.
3. 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 not support the testimony regarding the alleged crime. In the appeal against the order of acquittal the High Court considered the evidence of PWs 1, 4 and 8 in detail. In view of the discrepancies and the omissions, the High Court did not find it safe to convict any of the accused for inflicting injuries
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.