Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 1553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
Pola Srinivas Reddy and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
Crl. RC No. 632 of 2014
Decided On : 17-11-2014
For the Appellant : T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Headnote:
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 319, 397 and 401 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147,148, 324, 326, 307, 302 read with 149, 120(B) – Election matter – Calling for records to exercise powers of revision –Petitioners were supporters of Congress-I Party during elections to Municipality, LW 1 and LW 10 are alleged to have supported one person belonging to T.D.P., whereas accused supported another person to Congress-I Party. In the said elections, Ramesh got elected as 6th Ward Councilor – While the mother of A3 was elected as Councilor for 5th Ward. Differences cropped up between the two groups and as such both the groups were waiting for an opportunity to wreck vengeance against each other – While LW 1 was returning to his house met LW 10 and both were proceeding towards house of PW 1 accused who were waiting for an opportunity, collected deadly weapons and when L.Ws. 1 and 10 reached house, A1 to A5 alongwith their followers armed with hunting sickles, iron rod, axes, spears attacked L.Ws. 1 and 10. A2 is alleged to have beat LW 10 with a spear on the left leg causing injury A3 is alleged to have beat LW 10 with an iron rod on the neck causing injury – A4 is alleged to have beat LW 10 with the reverse portion of axe on the left leg causing bleeding injury. A5 is alleged to have made an attempt to hack LW 1 and when he resisted blow by putting his right hand to ward off blow, sustained bleeding injuries on his right hand finger – Police completed investigation and filed charge-sheet against some of accused and deleted names of petitioners and three others from array of accused – During course of evidence, PWs. 1 and 2 deposed about complicity of petitioner’s alongwith others in commission of offence and as such Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Seeking their impleadment – By an order Magistrate allowed said application and added these two petitioners as accused – Challenging the same – Held, evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 amply establishes the presence of these two petitioners alongwith the other accused – Though the charge-sheet was filed deleting five names, the presence and participation of the proposed accused i.e., the petitioners herein, alongwith other accused is very much spoken to by PWs. 1 and 2 in their chief-examination which corroborates the version given in the FIR – It is true that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 does not disclose about the participation of petitioner in attacking the injured but the evidence disclose their presence at the scene with weapons – Evidence of PW 2 also discloses that on the date of incident at about 4.30 or 5.00 p.m., while PW 1 and LW 10 were going to the house of PW 1, a group of persons armed with deadly weapons came there to the house of PW 1 and attacked them – Said evidence of PW 2 refers to the presence of petitioners being armed with deadly weapons and their intention to kill PW 1 and LW 10 – Complicity of proposed accused with regard to their presence at scene armed with weapons alongwith other accused cannot be doubted at this stage – Whether really the petitioners shared a common intention with other accused or had a common object to kill or cause injuries to PWs. 1 and LW 10 is matter of trial and cannot be gone into at this stage – Hence order under challenge warrants no interference – Petitions dismissed.
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
1. The petitioners, who are sought to be impleaded as A8 and A9, filed the present revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2014 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 643 of 2013 in CC No. 73 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampet, wherein and whereunder, the application filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 319 Cr.P.C., seeking addition of these petitioners as accused was allowed. The case facts in issue are as under:
L.Ws. 1 and 10 were strong supporters of T.D.P., while the accused 2, 4, 5 and the petitioners were supporters of Congress-I Party. During the elections to Rajampet Municipality, LW 1 and LW 10 are alleged to have supported one C. Ramesh belonging to T.D.P., whereas the accused supported M. Venkatesh belonging to Congress-I Party. In the said elections, Ramesh got elected as 6th Ward Councilor. While the mother of A3 by name J. Nagamma was elected as Councilor for 5th Ward. Differences cropped up between the two groups and as such both the groups were waiting for an opportunity to wreck vengeance against each other. On 26.9.2005 at about 4.45 p.m., while LW 1 was returning to his house met LW 10 and both were proceeding towards the house of PW 1 situated at Ram Nagar. The accused who were waiting for an opportunity, collected deadly weapons and when L.Ws. 1 and 10 reached the house, A1 to A5 alongwith their followers armed with hunting sickles, iron rod, axes, spears attacked L.Ws. 1 and 10. A2 is alleged to have beat LW 10 with a spear on the left leg causing injury. A3 is alleged to have beat LW 10 with an iron rod on the neck causing injury. A4 is alleged to have beat LW 10 with the reverse portion of axe on the left leg causing bleeding injury. A5 is alleged to have made an attempt to hack LW 1 and when he resisted the blow by putting his right hand to ward off the blow, sustained bleeding injuries on his right hand finger. A4 is alleged to have beat LW 1 with the reverse portion of the axe on the back causing swelling injury. A4 is alleged to have beat LW 10 with the reverse portion of the axe causing an injury on the right leg. Due to fear L.Ws. 1 and 10 rushed into the house of LW 10, bolted the doors from inside and raised cries seeking help. Basing on these allegations, a case in Crime No. 88 of 2005 of Rajampet (U) P.S., was registered. In the same scuffle LW 10 alongwith their men attacked the accused and committed murder and in that connection a counter case was registered against the complainant group for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 324, 326, 307, 302 read with 149, 120(B) IPC and Section 3(1)(x)of SCs and STs. (POA) Act, 1989. Police completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet against some of the accused and deleted the names of the petitioners and three others from the array of the accused. During the course of evidence, PWs. 1 and 2 deposed about the complicity of the petitioners alongwith others in the commission of the offence and as such the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., seeking their impleadment. By an order dated 28.2.2014 the learned Magistrate allowed the said application and added these two petitioners as accused. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that though the petitioners are shown as accused in the First Information Report but their complicity could not be established during the course of investigation and hence, they were deleted from the array of the accused. According to him, even as per the First Information Report no specific role was attributed to them with regard to attack on the injured. In the absence of any fresh material to connect the accused with the crime, he submits that adding them as an accused in the above case is illegal. He further submits that no explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution as to why the names of these two petitioners only
