JUDGMENT :

(K. Surender, J.)

1. Crl.A.No.306 of 2020 is preferred by the appellants/A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-6, and Crl.A.No.315 of 2020 is preferred by the appellants/A-1, A-5, and A-7, questioning their conviction for the offences under Sections 120-B , 302 r/w.34, 143, 144, 147, 148, and 302 r/w.149, 307, and 307 r/w.149 of IPC , on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda.

2. Since both the Appeals arise out of the common judgment in S.C.No.23 of 2019, both are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

3. Heard Sri V.Raghunath, learned senior counsel appearing for A-2, Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for A-1, A-5, and A-7, Smt.G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel appearing for A-3, A-4, and A-6, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

4. All the accused Nos. 1 to 7 belonging to two families, were prosecuted for committing the murders of the two sons (D.1 & D.2) of P.W.1. A-6, A-7, and P.W.4 are brothers; A-1 and A-5 are sons of A-7; A-2, A-3, and A-4 are sons of A-6; D.1 and D.2 are sons of P.W.1. Admittedly, all the accused, deceased, and the witnesses are closely related.

5. P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased/Dasari Anjaneyulu (D.1) and Dasari Annamaiah (D.2), went to the Police station and lodged a telugu written complaint on 22.08.2017 at 9 a.m. In the complaint, P.W.1 narrated that around 6:30 a.m., both the deceased went to the fields, and while they were cultivating their land and tried to stop water from flowing into their fields due to breach of bund, A-1 to A-7, who were hiding in the bushes near the field, attacked both D.1 and D2 with axes. At the time of attack, P.W.4 was present. Further, according to the complaint, all the accused had attacked and hacked both the deceased. Having received the injuries, both the deceased fell down. P.W.4, who was present at the scene, shouted at the accused saying not to kill the deceased. Two of the accused, A-2 and A-4, chased P.W.4. P.W.4 ran from the scene and went to the house of P.W.1, and informed him about the incident. From there, all of them went to the agricultural land, where the dead bodies of both the deceased were found in a pool of blood. In the complaint, P.W.1 named other villagers, namely Nadyala Surapa Reddy, Prathapa Reddy, Shyam Sundar, and Pentaiah, stating that they had helped A-1 to A-7 in committing the murders of the deceased.

6. The complaint was received by P.W.14, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police. Having received the written complaint at 9 a.m., he registered the crime and informed the Investigating Officer, i.e., Circle Inspector/P.W.15. P.W.15 went to the scene of offence at 10:30 a.m. There, he conducted the scene of offence panchnama, photographs were taken, and other incriminating materials were seized from the scene for the purpose of FSL examination. P.W.15 reconstructed the scene after arresting A-1 to A-7 on 27.08.2017. Two axes and two sickles, which are M.Os.1 to 4, were seized at the instance of the appellants. The bloodstained clothes of the appellants and the deceased, along with bloodstained earth, were also seized and sent for FSL examination.

7. Having concluded the investigation, P.W.15 filed a charge sheet against all the accused.

8. Learned Sessions Judge framed 107 charges against A-1 to A-7 individually for the offences under Sections 302, 307, and 149 of IPC .

9. Learned Sessions Judge, during the course of investigation, examined witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.15 and also marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.22. M.O..1 to M.O.22 were also placed on record by the prosecutor. Accused marked Exs.D.1 and D.2, which are portions of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.4.

10. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge had convicted all the accused, A-1 to A-7.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued on the following grounds:-

1. The presence of P.W.4 at the scene cannot be believed, as he is a relative of the deceased, and the ent