The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for reliability and consistency in witness testimonies and evidence presented by the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

1. Accused Nos.1 to 8 in Sessions case No.225 of 2008, on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal, preferred under Sub-Section (2) of Section 374 of the code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Challenge in the instant appeal is to the judgment dated 09.04.2013 rendered in the said Sessions case. By way of the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three (03) months each and also found A-2, A-3, A-5 to 8 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 159 IPC and found A-3 and A-5 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the learned Judge also found A-1, A-4, A-6 & A-7 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 149 IPC. The learned Judge also found A-1 to A-8 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by the police is as follows:

All the accused, deceased and the injured witnesses/P.Ws-5, 6 are the residents of Vaddigudem Village, Pedapadu Mandal. The deceased and the injured had previous differences with the accused, in connection with auction and produce of fish tank and the accused took a decision to do away with the lives of other group and in furtherance of the said common object at about 4:30 P.M on 19.09.2005, they formed into an unlawful assembly with lethal weapons like Axes, Knives, Sticks and Crow bars in the house of A-1 and they attacked the deceased Nos.1 & 2 and injured i.e., P.Ws-5 & 6, beat them indiscriminately, caused severe injuries intentionally which resulted in death of deceased No.1/Bale Venkatesawara Rao in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru at 7:15 P.M on the same day. P.W-1, L.W-5, L.W-7, L.W-8, L.W- 15 & L.W-21 shifted the deceased and injured to Government Hospital and P.W- 1(L.W-1) gave a statement of occurrence to the O.P Police at Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru. On the basis of the hospital intimation and statement of P.W-1, P.W-16/Station House Officer, Pedapadu Police Station registered Crime No.128 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 IPC r/w 149 IPC.

L.Ws.12 & 13/P.Ws-5 & 6 and deceased No.2-Mungara Nagaraju, who sustained injuries were admitted in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru. P.Ws-5 & 6 and deceased No.2 took treatment at Global Medical Centre, Vijayawada and deceased No.2 was discharged there from on 27.11.2005 and eventually on 11.03.2006 at 7 P.M, deceased No.2 died at his house. P.W-14 conducted autopsy on deceased Nos.1 & 2 and issued Exs.P-9 and P-10 post-mortem reports.

4. After investigation, police filed a charge sheet against the accused-appellants herein, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 IPC r/w 149 IPC. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws-1 to 20 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-20, apart from M.Os-1 to 11 and on behalf of the defence Ex.D-1 to D-10 were marked. The learned Sessions Judge, by virtue of the impugned judgment convicted the accused in the manner indicated supra.

5. Assailing the validity and the legal sustainability of the said judgment, the present Criminal Appeal came to be preferred.

6. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Nos.1 to 5, 7, 8 and Smt.Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant No.6, apart from perusing the material available on record.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel representing appellants that the judgment impugned in the appeal is highly erroneous, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 10 are full of contradictions as such the same cannot be the basis for convicting the accused; that the