Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Narra Srinivasa Rao Srinu 8 Others vs The State Of A.P. on 4 July, 2019
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.987 of 2012
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice C.Praveen Kumar) Accused Nos.1 to 9 in Sessions Case No.237 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, are the appellants herein. They were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C."), for unlawfully assembling, armed with iron rods and sticks, in prosecution of their common intention and object and for causing the death of BattulaYedukondalu(the deceased) by beating him with rods and sticks. By its judgment dated 24.09.2012, the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.149 of I.P.C and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, both the sentences against all the accused were directed to run concurrently.
The substance of the charges against all the accused is that on 31.07.2009 at about 7.30 A.M. at Panchayat Office, Buddam village, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District, all of them formed into unlawful assembly, armed with iron rods and sticks and with a common object of attacking BattulaYedukondalu (the deceased) and his men and caused the death of the deceased by beating him with rods and sticks.
2 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 The facts as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses are as under:-
All the accused and the deceased are residents of Buddam village, karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District. There were two groups in the village and one is led by the deceased and the other is led by accused No.1. Disputes arose between the two groups with regard to the election of Sarpanch of Buddam village. There was an agreement between the villagers not to conduct gram panchayat elections and to that effect one Manthena Lakshmi shall be the Sarpanch of the village for 2 ½ years and for another 2 ½ years mother of Narra Siva Mallikharjuna Rao shall be the Sarpanch. After 2 ½ years, when the turn of mother of Narra Siva Mallikharjuna Rao has come, accused No.1 is said to have objected for the same. In that connection, an altercation took place between the two groups and cases were filed against each other. Whileso, on 31.07.2009 at about 7.30 A.M. (as per PW.1), after having breakfast in a hotel in the village, he was proceeding to fields and when he reached panchaytoffice , all the accused came in opposite direction and accused Nos.1 to 4 armed with iron rods and rest of the accused armed with sticks attacked PW.1. At that point of time, when the deceased, PW.8, PW.2 and PW.3 came to his rescue, all the accused surrounded the deceased and beat him indiscriminately. It is said that when accused Nos.7 to 9 caught hold the deceased, accused No.1 dealt a blow on the head with an iron rod and caused fracture, as a result the deceased fell down. On seeing the gathering of public, all the accused left the place by threatening them with dire-consequences. The deceased was shifted to Tulasi Multi-Speciality Hospital, Guntur and PWs.1 to 3 were taken to Area Hospital, Bapatla. On the same day at about 11.25 A.M., having received the hospital intimation, PW.14-
3 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 Md.Hussain, Sub-Inspector of Police, Karlapalem Police Station, visited Area Hospital, Bapatla and recorded the statement of PW.1. Ex.P1 is the said statement, basing on which, a case in Crime No.54 of 2009 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC. Ex.P18 is the hospital intimation and Ex.P19 is the FIR. Thereafter, he visited the Government Hospital and recorded the statements of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 8. He seized bloodstained shirts-M.Os.7 to 10. He went to the scene of offence and prepared observation report in the presence of PW.9 and another. Ex.P5 is the observation report. He also got prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is placed on record as Ex.P20. From the scene of offence, he visited Tulasi Multi-Speciality Hospital, and found the deceased was in unconscious state. He is said to have seized the bloodstained clothes of the deceased, which are marked as M.O-11. On 31-07.2009, at about 09:50 A.M., P.W.11-Dr. M. Venkateswarulu, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Area Hospital, Bapatla, examined P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.8 and issued Exs.P12 to P15 opining that all the injuries are simple in nature. On 03.08.2009, P.W.13, Dr. B. Lakshminarayana, Associate Professor, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P-17 post-mortem certificate. According to him, the injuries caused with M.Os.5 and 6 could have resulted the death of the deceased. On 03.08.2009 at 12.30 P.M., he received the death intimation-Ex.P21 from Tulasi Multi-Speciality Hospital. Basing on the said intimation, he altered the section of law from Section 324 to Section 302 of IPC and issued altered F.I.R. Ex.P-22 is the altered F.I.R. P.W.15 P. Narasimharaju, Inspector of Police, received Ex.P-22 altered F.I.R. on 03.08.2009 at about 01:30 P.M. and went to Tulasi Multi-Speciality Hospital and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of 4 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 P.W.9 and others. On 05.08.2009, on credible information, he along with the mediators went to Thungabhadra drain situated towards west of Budham village and arrested A-2, A-4 andA-8, and recorded their confession under mediators report.Ex.P-23 is a portion in the said confession report. Pursuant to the said confession M.Os.4 and 5 were said to have been seized. On 06.08.2009, the other accused were arrested and M.Os. 1, 2 and 6 were said to have been seized pursuant to their confession under Ex.P-10 mediators report.Later, PW.16 Md.MahoobBasha, Inspector of Police, Bapatla, after receipt of Ex.P16 RFSL Report and after collecting all the material, he laid the charge- sheet against accused before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bapatla, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.26 of 2009, who after complying with Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Sessions Division under Section 209 of Cr.P.C, as the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. On committal, the same came to be numbered as Sessions Case 237 of 2010.
Basing on the material available on record, charges under 147, 148, 302 and 302 r/w.149 of I.P.C against all the accused were framed, read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-28 and marked M.Os.1 to 11.
After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which they denied. However, they 5 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 did not adduce any oral evidence, but marked Exs.D-1 and D-6 in support of their plea.
Relying on the evidence of injured witnesses - P.Ws.1 to 3 and 8 together with the medical evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted all the accused as referred above. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by accused Nos.1 to 9.
Sri K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that the prosecution has not come out with the true version of the case. According to him, the genesis of the attack has been suppressed by the prosecution which was evident from the fact that the receipt of injuries by accused Nos. 2 and 8 has not been spoken to by any of the prosecution witnesses. He further states that the report given by accused No.2 was registered as a case in Crime No.53 of 2009 even before the police got a report from P.W.1 and got it registered as Crime No.54 of 2009. He would further contend that the evidence of P.W.s1, 2 and 8 speaks about the participation of accused Nos.7 and 8 in the attack on the deceasedwhich is not the version given in the Ex.P-1 report. Apart from that he also contended that Ex.P-1 report is given on 31-07-2009 with a delay of nearly seven hours and it reached the court with an abnormal delay of another two days on 02-08-2009.In view of the above he would contend that these accused have been falsely implicated suppressing the origin of the attack. He took us to the evidence of the witnesses to show that the scene of offence is two places, namely, one before the Panchayat Office and the other behind the Panchayat Office. He alsotried to point out that, though the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 8 showsthe deceased receiving bleeding injuries, the investigating office never made any effort to seize the blood stained earth at the scene of 6 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 offence, which again indicates that all is not well in the investigation and some doubt has to be given with regards the version of the prosecution witnesses. In so far as the attack on the injured is concerned, he would contend that the prosecution failed to claim charges against the accused for causing injuries to the witnesses and hence some amount of doubt arises as to the participation of accused in the crime and attack on P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8.In view of the above, in the alternative, he pleads that it is a case of free fight and it is well established that there cannot be each individual accused as liable for every individual attack in a free fight.
On the other hand, learned public prosecutor opposed the same contending that an inference can be drawn that all the accused met together with a common object of killing the deceased. In so far as free fight is concerned, learned public prosecutor would contend that the injuries sustained by the accused are simple in nature and as such the prosecution is not liable to explain such minor injuries. Since the accused attacked the deceased and caused the death, it can be said that the accused are aggressors and as such the trial Court rightly convicted the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.
The point that arises for consideration is whether the accused are liable for the offences with which they are charged.
As seen from the record, the fact that the prosecution failed to frame charges against the accused for causing injuries to the witnesses is not in dispute. The question now is whether the evidence of these witnesses could make the accused liable for conviction for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C. In order to appreciate the same, it would be useful to refer the evidence of 7 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 8, who are crucial witnesses, coupled with the evidence of the investigating officer.
P.W.1 who is one of the injured witnesses,depsoesthat on 31.07.2009 at about 7.30 a.m., after having his breakfast in a hotel in Budham village, he was proceeding to fields and when he reached the panchayat office, accused No.2 came there armed with stick and beat on his head and on the right side of his back.Due to fear, he went to the backside of panchayat office and made an attempt to go to his house. Meanwhile, all the accused armed with iron rods and sticks came in opposite direction with an intention to kill him. Meanwhile, the deceased, PWs.2, 3 and 8 came to his rescue. All the accused surrounded the deceased. Then, himself, PWs.2, 3 and 8 tried to rescue the deceased. It is said that accused No.2 beat him with a stick on right hand and head. Accused Nos.3 and 4 beat PW.8 with iron rod on his head. Accused No.3 beat PW.3 with a stick on his head. Thereafter, accused Nos.7 to 9 caught hold of the deceased.At that point of time, accused No.1 beat the deceased with an iron rod on his head and caused fracture, as a result of which, the deceased fell down. When the prosecution witnesses tried to rescue the deceased, accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and other accused threw stones on P.W.1. When the public gathered there, all the accused left the place threatening them with dire consequences. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that it is only accused No.1 who is said to have attacked the deceased while the other accused beat P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and
8. If we test the evidence of this witness with the version in Ex.P-1 report lodged by him, it is completely out of tune with it. As seen from the version given in Ex.P-1, on the fateful day, at about 7:30 A.M., accused No.2 beat P.W.1 with a stick on his head and back. When 8 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 P.Ws.3, 8 and the deceased intervened, they were also beaten indiscriminately with sticks by accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 9. As per Ex.P-1 report, P.W.2 was beaten by accused No.2 while P.W.8 was beaten by accused Nos.5 and 6 with sticks on his head, body and hands. At that time, the deceased is said to have intervened and he was beaten by accused No.4 with an iron rod on his head. In the later part of Ex.P-1, it is stated that A-1 also beat the deceased on his head with an iron rod, which caused his death. A reading of the contents of Ex.P-1 does not indicate, accused Nos. 7 to 9 catching hold of the deceased when the accused No.2 was beating the deceased.On the other hand, in the cross examination, P.W.11, he admits that the names of accused Nos.7 to 9 were not mentioned by him in Ex.P-1 report. Also, as observed by us earlier, Ex.P-1 report came to be lodged nearly after seven hours of the incident and it reached the court after two days. Therefore, a doubt arises as to the presence and participation of accused Nos.7 to 9.
Further, a reading of Ex.P-1-report coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 shows that in the First Information Report given immediately after the incident, the specific role with regard to attack on the deceased was attributed to A-1 and A-4. But, while giving evidence in the court, no specific role is attributed to A-4 with regard to attack on the deceased.
P.W.2 in his evidence states that on fateful day at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.1 went to have his tiffin at Jonnagovindutiffin centre and when he was coming back by carrying tiffin and when he reached near Panchayat office, A-2 beat him with a stick on his head causing bleeding injury. Due to fear P.W.1 ran towards panchayat office and by that time P.W.2 was reading newspaper. He claims to have gone in 9 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 rescue of P.W.1. By that point of time A-2 jumped the compound wall at Veterinary hospital and escaped. After some time A-2 brought his followers to panchayat office and all of them armed with sticks and iron rods. After a galata, the deceased came towards Vysya Bazar from the fields. Then all the accused surrounded the deceased. A-1 is said to have beat with iron rod on the head of the deceased and when the witnesses tried to rescue the deceased,the other accused attacked the witnesses. It is further stated that A-7 to A-9 caughtholdof the deceased, then A-1 beat the deceased with iron rod on his head indiscriminately. Then all the accused hurled stones on the witnesses. In the cross-examination he admits that he did not state before the police as in Exs.D-1 toD-3, which is as under:
Ex.D-1:
"................ At that time, I ,BathulaEdukondalu S/o. Veerayya, NarraMallikharjuna Rao s/o.VenkataSwamy, NarraYedukondalu s/o. Venkateswarlu, NarraVenkateswarlu s/o.Raghavulu, BathulaSrinivasa Rao s/o. Veerayya and some others came to the back side of panchayat office through VysyaBajar. On that BathulaYedukondalu was surrounded by NarraSrinivasa Rao, Narra Krishna, NarraSubrahmanyam s/o.ChinnaVenkaiah, Narra Siva Nagaraju S/o.Ramayya, NarraBala Krishna s/o.Venkaiah, DunnaboyinaGopi @ Gopala Krishna, NarraVenkaiah and NarraBalakrishna s/o.Ramayya..................."
Ex.D-2:
"..............On that I, NarraMallikarjuna Rao, NarraYedukondalu and NarraVenkateswarlu tried to prevent the above persons and to rescue BathulaYedukondalu..............."
Ex.D-3:
"..................The said persons beat Narra Siva Mallikharjuna Rao with sticks on his head and on the upper part of his right hand. NarraSubrahmanyam S/o.Veerayya beat me and NarraYedukiondalu with iron rod on our heads............."
He further admits that he is shown as A-3 in C.C.No.1 of 2010. To a suggestion that a false case has been foisted against the accused, was also denied by him. He further admits in the cross- examination that by the time he saw the accused, A-2 was already in 10 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 their group. He further admits that by the time the deceased was coming from fields he was wearing a lungi but he did not remember the colour of the lungi. He further admits that for the first time he saw the deceased at Vysya bazaar after crossing the church and he was coming alone.
A reading of the evidence of P.W.2 show that a galata took place at Vysya Bazar. In his evidence he categorically admits that the deceased after completion of galata came to Vysya bazaar from the fields, where all the accused surrounded the deceased. His evidence gives indication that the genesis of the attack was something else and not in the manner stated by the prosecution, moreso when he was shown as accused No.3 in a case filed by the accused and which was taken on file as C.C.No.1 of 2010. Similarly, P.W.3 is shown as A-5 in C.C.No.1 of 2010. He corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in all aspects. It has been elicited in cross-examination that Vysya bazaar is about one farlongdistance from the place of incident. He also admits thatManthena Lakshmi was elected without any contest and thatManthena Lakshmi does not belong to any group. All other suggestions given to him with regard to the innocence of the accused was denied by him.
The only other evidence came to be considered is that of P.W.8, who was examined as eyewitness to the incident. In the evidence in chief, he toes in line with the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 3, but however, for the first time he speaks about a different version with regard to genesis of the attack. According to him, there was an agreement to hold the office of panchayat for 2 ½ years each by one Manthena Lakshmi and by the mother of P.W.8. The first 2 ½ years period by Manthena Lakshmi over and the second 2 ½ year period 11 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 has to be hold by his mother and when his mother was about to holding office of panchayat for the remaining period A-1 and other accused objected his mother to hold the office of panchayat. The deceased, who was leader of his group, questioned all the accused as to why they are not permitting his mother to hold the panchayat office, because of which disputes arose between two groups. It is stated that basing on those disputes the deceased was beaten by the accused and killed him. He further admits in his cross-examination that he was shown as A-3 in the counter case filed by the accused. To a suggestion that this case has been filed as a counterblast to the case filed by the accused, was denied by him.
From the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P-1-report it is very clear that the counsel for the appellant was successful in pointing out some discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution witnesses feasibility of Ex.P-1-report with regard to participation of A-7 to A-9 and the names of the assailant insofar as attack on the deceased is concerned. But, the argument advanced in the suggestions given to the witnesses establishes the presence of the accused at the scene of offence. Even during inquest, the version set out in Ex.P-1 was spoken to by all the witnesses and subsequently the said version came to be improved. Though there is some discrepancy with regard to the attack by accused No.1 on the deceased, the F.I.R clearly spells out the role of accused No.1 in attacking the deceased.
At this stage, it would be useful to refer to Ex.D-3 and D-6. A reading of Ex.D-3, the First Information Report given by accused No.2 which came to be registered as Crime No.53 of 2009 and the charge- sheet filed in that crime as Ex.D-6.Therefore, if the contents of the said F.I.R are read, it amply establishes his presence at the scene of 12 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 offence at that time. When the same was pointed out to the learned counsel, he would contend that this incident happened in a petty quarrel and definitely none of the accused had any intention to cause the death of the deceased.
The evidence on record, more particularly, Ex.D-3, would establish that the F.I.R. in Crime No.53 of 2009 given by accused No.2 was earlier in point of time. The contention that, though both the crimes referred to the same incident which occurred on 31.07.2009 at 07:30 A.M., and only after accused No.2 lodged a report which came to be registered as Crime No.53 of 2009, the prosecution party lodged a report that came to be registered as Crime No.54 of 2009, cannot be brushed aside.
The question now is whether it was a case of free fight or whether the incident occurred due to some quarrel at the scene of offence?
As seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused had intention to kill the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicates that on the date of incident after completion of breakfast he was going to the fields and when he reached the panchayat office, A-2 came armed with a stick and beat him on right side back and due to fear he ran towards back side the panchayat office and was trying to go home. Meanwhile, A-1 to A-8 came opposite to him, armed with weapons and attacked him. While the attack was goingon, the deceased came there along with other witnesses to rescue P.W.1. Then all the accused surrounded the deceased, and A-1 alone is said to have beat the deceased while others beat the injured. If that is so, it is strange as to how the report 13 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 given by A-2 came to be registered earlier point of time as Cr.No.53/2009.
A perusal of the same would show that on the date of incident at about 7:30 A.M., the prosecution witnesses, who were arrayed as accused therein, beat accused No.2 herein and caused injuries to each other. It is said that accused No.6 in the said case abused Narra Sri Lakshmi (L.W.3) insulting her modesty and other accused beat her. It is said that NarraSeethamma (L.W.4) sustained injuries in the hands of the accused. The said charge-sheet also shows that the deceased herein died later at Government General Hospital, Guntur. From the contents of the charge-sheet referred to above, it is clear that some of the accused received injuries in the hands of prosecution witnesses herein, pursuant to which they were referred to Area Hospital, Bapatla, which fact is not spoken to by any of the prosecution witnesses herein. But, the said charge-sheet shows that the report given by accused No.2 herein was earlier in point of time which led to registration of Crime No.53 of 2009 and the injured/accused were sent to hospital. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that boththe parties came there armed with weapons cannot be brushed aside. Even otherwise, the evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that the accused herein came there and attacked him and when P.Ws. 2, 3 and 8 and the deceased, who were nearby came to his rescue, the accused then attacked all of them. Therefore, it was never the case of prosecution that all the accused came there with an intention to cause the death of the deceased.
14 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 Having regard to the above findings, it is very clear that theincident did not happen in the manner spoken to by the prosecution. Moreso, in view of the evidence of Investigating Officer, both the parties received injuries and were taken to hospital and the report given by A-2 was in earlier point of time. Since the presence of the accused stands established, it can be said that there was a fight between both the groups as both the groups were armed with weapons. It is well established principle of law that incase of free fight, where both the parties attacked eachother, each of the individual is liable for his individual overt act. But, strangely, no charges were framed for the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the argument of the learned public prosecutor that atleast the accused are liable for the injuries caused to the prosecution witnesses, cannot be accepted.
The only point that remains to be answered would be whether accused No.1 is liable for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C simplicitor as urged by the learned public prosecutor. In view of the findings given by us in the earlier paragraphs, more so in a case of free fight, it is to be seen here that in the F.I.R registered at 2:30 P.M., two persons are said to have dealt blows on the head of the deceased but while giving evidence in court, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 8 referred to accused No.1 alone attacking the deceased on the head with an iron rod.P.W.10, Dr.AllaPrashanthi,Tulasi Multi speciality Hospital, who treated the injured at first instance opined that the decease would appear to have died due to head injury which is grievous in nature. But the same is not mentioned in Ex.P-11 wound certificate. It would be appropriate to extract the evidence of the said doctor which reads as under:
15 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 "The injured died on 03.08.2009 at about 9:45 A.M. L.W.11 informed me that the deceased was attacked with sticks and rods. We did not conduct surgery to the deceased and he was kept on ventilator for three days.The patient died despite our treatment. I am of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have been died for head injury which is grievous in nature." She further states in her cross examination as follows:
"It is true in the certificate issued by me, it is not mentioned that the patient was unconscious. It is true in my certificate it is not mentioned the place of offence and also alleged cause. It is true I did not mention in my wound certificate that the deceased would appear to have been died of head injury. It is true I did not mention in wound certificate that ventilators were kept to the deceased for three days."
Having regard to the evidence of the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination, it cannot be said that the head injury was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased.
Having considered the above, it can be said that, the conviction of the accused No. 1 only, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, can be scaled down to one under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and the sentence imposed on appellant No.1 be reduced from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) years, while confirming the fine imposed by the trial Court, while acquitting the other accused namely accused Nos. 2 to 9of all the offences for which they were convicted.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No.237 of 2010 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, vide judgment dated 24.09.2012, finding the accused - appellants not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sec.149 of I.P.C., while finding only accused No.1-appellant 16 HACJ &CMR,J crla_987_2012 No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and the fine amount imposed by the trial Court against him is confirmed. As the appellant-accused No.1 is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District, for serving the remaining sentence, if any, forthwith. Appellant Nos.2 to 9-accused Nos.2 to 9 are found not guilty for all the offences with which they were convicted and they were acquitted of the same. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:04.07.2019 Cs/Ak