The reliability of prosecution witnesses and the admissibility of reports and documents as evidence under the Criminal Procedure Code were central legal points established in the judgment.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of A-1 to A-4. A-1 is convicted under S. 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under S. 302 read with S. 34 I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under S. 302 read with S. 109 I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A1 to A3 are also convicted under Ss. 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under S. 201 I. P. C. was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12. 45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. A1 to A5 and the deceased and P. Ws. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of A1, A3 is the dayadi of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of A1. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of A1 and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of A1 and his cousin were murdered and at that time, A1 was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, P. W. 2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, A1 and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12. 45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while P. W. 3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with country made bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and A1 hurled a bomb which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that P. Ws. 1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, P. Ws. 1 and 2 came to the scene and P. W. 3 also came out and P. Ws. 1 and 2 informed P. W. 3 about the details of occurrence. P. W. 4 also stated that he saw A1 to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that P. W. 5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw A1 to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and P. Ws. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by P. W. 7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found P. Ws. 1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, he went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of P. W. 7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.

( 2 ) THE learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying veyyandira discloses that A1 instigated and abetted the crime. Though the evidence of P. W. 2 can be eschew