IMPORTANT POINT
While the protection given to the accused persons has to be upheld, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal filed by the State and held A-1 to A-4, A-6, A-7, A-9 to A-13 guilty for various offences. A-3 was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). A-1, A-2, A-4, A-6, A-7, A-9 to A-13 were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and A-1 to A-4, A-6, A-7, A-9 to A-13 were also found guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC as also under Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (in short the ‘Explosive Act’). They were acquitted of the rest of the charges except under Section 120-B and Section 148 IPC.

2. Prosecution case during trial is essentially as follows:

A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-19 are brothers and A-19 is the Chairman of the Agricultural Market Yard, Pulivendula. The other accused are followers of A-19 and supporters of Telugu Desam Party. The deceased Y.S. Raja Reddy was an Ex-Sarpanch of Pulivendula. PW-1 is the Driver, PW-2 is the Private Body Guard., PWs. 3 and 4 are Carpenters, PWs.5 and 6 are residents of Gondipalli Village of Vemula Mandall and PWs.7 and 8 are residents of Vemula village. In January, 1996, deceased and his followers attacked A-19 and caused grievous injuries to him. Since then A-19 and his associates had decided to do away with the deceased.

On 23-05-1998 the deceased along with PWs.1 to 4 went to his Estate situated at Gandi village in a car. When he was returning to Pulivendula and when the car reached Vemula village, they found stagnation of water on the road near MDO Office. PW-1 slowed down the car to cross the water. At that moment A-1 to A-13, A-16, and A-17 surrounded the car. When A-1 exhorted, the other accused uttered “Kill Raja Reddy” and A-2 hurled a bomb on the deceased and the front glass of the car was broken. A-3 to A-13, A-16 and A-17 also hurled bombs on the car. The bomb hurled by A-3 hit the head of the deceased and exploded causing blasting of his skull resulting in his instantaneous death. The bombs hurled by the other accused hit the deceased and PWs. 1 to 4. They suffered splinter injuries all over the body and the car was also badly damaged. Due to explosion of bombs, A-5 sustained splinter injuries and fell down unconscious. A-5 was shifted to the house of his uncle by the other accused and PWs 1 to 4 were shifted to Pulivendula hospital for treatment. PW-25, the Head Constable of Pulivendula Police Station, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW-1 at 4.00 PM and forwarded the same to Vemula Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. On the basis of the said complaint, a crime was registered at 5.45 PM and copies of FIR were sent to all concerned. PW-30, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 9.00 PM to 12.00 midnight and got conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Immediately after inquest PW-32 took up further investigation and arrested the accused on various dates. On surrender of A-15, a judicial confession was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) by PW-17, the then III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, and the case property was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and after getting the report and obtaining sanction from the Collector, a charge sheet was filed against all the accused. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 120-B 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 435, 435/149 IPC and Section 3, 5, and 6 of Explosive Act. All the accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. Trial Court acquitted the accused persons. An appeal was preferred by State which as noted above was partially allowed.

3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submit