L. Narasimha Reddy

This case presents certain extraordinary facts and thereby the relevant questions.

2. The appellants herein were arrayed as A-1, A-4 and A-7 in S.C.No.298 of 2003 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Markapur, together with A-2, A-3, A-5, A-6, and A-8 to A-16. They were tried for various charges, referable to Sections 147, 148, 452, 302, 302 read with Section 149, 506 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). During the trial, A-14 died and the case against him abated. The trial Court acquitted A-2, A-3, A-5, A-6, A-8 to A-13, A-15 and A-16, but, however, found the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 148 and 452 IPC.

3. For the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the appellants herein were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for one month, was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Though the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 452 IPC, no separate sentence was awarded. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The case against the appellants and other accused commenced with the submission of a complaint, marked as Ex.P-1, by P.W.1 on 17-07-2001 at 3.30 p.m. He stated that when he went to Akkapalem village at mid day on 17-07-2001, P.W.2, Chinna Galamma, reported that during the last night i.e. at 9 p.m. on 16- 07-2001, while her husband by name China Kotaiah was in the cot along with the children, A-1 to A-9 and some others have trespassed into the house, armed with the axes, spears, hurled bombs, and took away her husband from that place. Thereafter, A-1 is said to have hacked China Kotaiah on his neck and A-7 stabbed him on the stomach with the spear and A-4 hacked him with axe on the neck, on the road, in front of the house. The other accused are said to have shouted inciting the said accused, to kill China Kotaiah.

5. P.W.2 is said to have further informed P.W.1 that after causing fatal injuries, all the accused have taken away her husband to a center, near Ramalayam, and burnt the body by pouring petrol. Her attempts to rescue her husband from the hands of accused were said to have become futile. In Ex.P-1, it was further mentioned that P.W.2 reported the incident to her co-daughter-in- law, P.W.3, her mother-in-law, P.W.4, and certain others. She said to have informed P.W.1 that remnants of the dead body including the ashes were taken away by the accused. On receiving this report, police registered F.I.R. marked as Ex.P-11 and forwarded the same to the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate.

6. The investigation was taken up by the Circle Inspector of Police, P.W.11. Various persons, expected of having any knowledge about the occurrence, were examined. The place of occurrence was inspected and ultimately charges were framed. Additional charges were also framed under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act (for short 'the Act'). The appellants and other accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court rendered its judgment in the manner as above.

7. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellants, submits that this is one of the rare cases where even the corpus delecti was not available and the tone and tenor of evidence clearly suggests that a story was woven, to protect the accused in another case viz., S.C.NO.33 of 2003 on the file of the same Court, in relation to an incident which occurred on the same day and to implicate the accused in the present case. He contends that it is too unnatural and unbelievable that an incident of this nature, if really occurred, was not reported to the police, almost for one day, and that the machinery of law was set on motion, on a report from a