important Points
An information received in regard to commission of a cognizable offence is not required to be preceded by a FIR.
Conduct of the accused vis-à-vis the statement of an eye-witness is an important factor.
Why, how and where an offence is committed cannot be a subject matter of guess.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1. Appellants, nine in number, are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 6.07.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2600 of 2004, dismissing an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 9.11.2001 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 150 of 1999 holding the appellants guilty of commission of murder of one Annamreddi Tatayya Naidu (deceased) and causing injuries to PW-1 Annamreddy Sreenivasa Rao, the son of the deceased.

2. Enmity between the parties stands admitted. All the accused, the deceased and the prosecution witnesses are residents of a village commonly known as K.O. Mallavaram.

The deceased, his two sons PWs 1 and 2 and PWs 5 to 7 were accused in Sessions Case No. 193 of 1998. A dispute between the two groups over some land came upto this Court. There were political differences also. Accused No. 1 allegedly supported Accused No. 3 in the Gram Panchayat elections wherein the deceased lost. Another incident took place in relation thereto. A case was filed against the deceased and others. It ended in acquittal. There was an incident of fire in the village. Some of the accused persons allegedly collected a huge amount promising the victims that they would construct houses for those whose houses stood gutted therein but the said promises were not kept.

3. PWs 1 and 2 as also the deceased and several other family members went at Tuni to attend the court in which the case against the deceased and others was pending. Accused persons were also present in the court. The distance between Tuni and the village is said to be about 20 kms.

Whereas others returned, the deceased and his son PW-1 stayed back. They came to the bus complex of Tuni at about 9.30 p.m. on 23.06.1998. They boarded the bus for going to their village. PW-5 also boarded the same bus. PWs 6 and 7 are said to have boarded the same bus from a bus stop known as Tandava Centre. Admittedly PW-3 Namala Chandra Rao and PW-4 Yandamuru Prasada Rao were the conductor and driver of the said bus.

While the bus reached Rapaka road junction at about 10.30 p.m., some passengers got down from the bus. When it started again, Accused No. 1 exhorted others to kill the deceased. Appellants herein as also Accused No. 10 (since deceased) inflicted a large number of injuries upon him. His body was dragged near the door of the bus. PW-1 was also assaulted. He was dragged by Accused Nos. 11 to 18 upto the door of the bus. The driver and the conductor as also other passengers fled away. Accused also thereafter left the place of incident. PW-1 cried for help. Hearing his cry, PWs 3 and 4 came back to the bus and on a request made by him, the bus was brought to the house of the deceased.

4. Before the learned Trial Judge a large number of witnesses were examined. Eye witnesses to the incident, however, were PWs 1, 5, 6 and 7. Their testimonies were not relied upon by the learned Trial Judge.

Placing reliance on the testimonies of PW-3 that no passenger boarded the bus from Tandava Centre, the statements of PWs 6 and 7 were disbelieved. As the learned Trial Judge disbelieved the testimonies of PWs 6 and 7 that they had boarded the bus from the said stop, the deposition of PW-5 was also not relied upon. Their testimonies were furthermore disbelieved on the premise that they did not satisfactorily explain as to why they had visited village Tuni on the fateful day. Comments were also made by the learned Trial Judge that no documentary evidence was produced before the Court to establish their presence particularly in view of the evidence of PW-4. The learned Trial Judge also placed importance on the dispute between the parties to arrive at a conclusion that they were interested witnesses.

5. The learned Sessions Judge also laid emphasis on the fact that immediately after the occurrence the officer incharge of the police station as also the