Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bochu Srinivasulu Munthoudu 6 Others vs State Of Ap., Rep By Pp on 29 May, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy, B Krishna Mohan
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.650 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy) Accused Nos.1 to 7 in Sessions Case No.430 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, SPLR Nellore District, preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C."), challenging the conviction and sentence passed in calendar and judgment dated 19.06.2012, whereby accused Nos.1 to 7 were found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 148, 307, 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C. and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 149 of I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. while finding accused Nos.1 to 9, 11 and 12 not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 448 and 427 of I.P.C. and also finding accused Nos.8, 9, 11 and 12 not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307 and 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. and acquitted them for the said charges.
MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 2 It is a case of murder of Chodam Mallikharjuna, S/o Venkatasubbaiah and attempt to kill Bochu David (P.W.1) in a dark night, on the terrace of Sowkya Hotel, North Rajupalem village.
The deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and P.W.1 - Bochu David, P.W.2 - Bochu Thirupathi, P.W.3 - Kavali Ramesh, P.W.4 - Chodam Suseelamma and Guruthoti Srinivasulu, Shaik Mahaboob Basha, Kaliseti Rajesh, Pilari Ramu, Vegitala Nagaraju, Chodam Yanadamma @ Yashodara, Kavali Penchalaiah, Kotam Reddy Sunil Kumar are residents of North Rajupalem in Kodavalur Mandal. P.W.1 - Bochu David is the injured and defacto complainant.
The deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna is a Congress party leader, gained prominence in the party, became District Vice President of I.N.T.U.C. The accused are the supporters of T.D.P. During the last Assembly Elections, the accused joined in Congress party. But there was political and group rivalry between the accused and the deceased. The accused were enemical to deceased and waiting for an opportunity to kill the Chodam Mallikharjuna.
Apart from the differences between two groups i.e. one headed by Chodam Mallikharjuna and the other by the accused, there are other disputes between the group of Gowdas, Balijas and the other group of Pallikapus of "Thappathopu" village, which is 2 kms away from North Rajupalem village. P.W.1 - Bochu David and deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna supported Pallikapus and the accused supported Gowdas and Balijas in the disputes referred above. Due to clashes between to groups, crimes were registered MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 3 on the file of Kodavalur Police Station vide Crime Nos.54 of 2006 and 66 of 2006.
The accused questioned the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna as he gave shelter to Pallikapus, but the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna did not agree for their interference, thereupon the accused bore grudge against deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and P.W.1 - Bochu David.
A meeting was held under the leadership of M.L.A., Kovur in PWD Guest house, Kadavalur on 12.06.2006. Chodam Mallikharjuna, Bochu David and the accused attended the said meeting. After completion of meeting during the night, P.W.1 - Bochu David and Chodam Mallikharjuna came to North Rajupalem village, from there both went to Sowkya Hotel roof garden (scene of offence) to consume liquor. On seeing both at the hotel at 12.30 midnight, accused Nos.1 to 12 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with common object of killing Chodam Mallikharjuna and P.W.1 - Bochu David. In pursuance of the common object, accused Nos.1 to 12 armed with knives, rods and sticks, reached the hotel. On seeing the accused, both P.W.1 - Bochu David and Chodam Mallikharjuna went to terrace of the hotel, but all the accused attacked them on the terrace of the hotel. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 10 were holding knives, accused Nos.3 to 6, 8, 9 and 11 were holding rods, accused Nos.7 and 12 were holding sticks, stabbed Chodam Mallikharjuna, who succumbed to the injuries instantaneously at the spot during the intervening night of 12/13.06.2006. The accused also beat P.W.1 and caused inures with rods and sticks. Shaik Mahaboob Basha, Kaliseti Rajesh, Pilari Ramu, Vegitala Nagaraju (L.Ws.5 to 8 in the charge MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 4 sheet and not examined) are workers in the hotel, directly witnessed the incident and on witnessing the occurrence, due to fear ran into the hotel room, closed the shutters. After killing Chodam Mallikharjuna and causing injuries on the body of P.W.1 - Bochu David, all the accused left the scene of offence and went to the house of Chodam Mallikharjuna in Harijanawada of North Rajupalem, damaged the scooter and chairs and went away.
Thereafter, Shaik Mahaboob Basha, Kaliseti Rajesh, Pilari Ramu, Vegitala Nagaraju (L.Ws.5 to 8 in the charge sheet and not examined) opened the shutters and witnessed the body of deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna laying on the floor and P.W.1 - Bochu David was found in unconscious state, on the terrace of the hotel. On coming to know about the incident, P.W.2 - Bochu Thirupathi, P.W.3 - Kavali Ramesh, Gututhoti Srinivasulu, Shaik Mababoob Basha rushed to the scene of offence and noticed the body of deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna in a pool of blood and injured P.W.1 - Bochu David on the terrace, shifted them to D.S.R. Government Hospital, Nellore at 03.00 a.m. on 27.06.2006. P.W.10
- Dr. Vara Prasad examined and declared Chodam Mallikharjuna died and P.W.1 - Bochu David was admitted in the hospital.
On receipt of medical intimation, P.W.13 - Sk.Basha, Head Constable, Police Outpost, Nellore Hospital, recorded the statement of P.W.1 - Bochu David and on the ground of jurisdiction, transferred the same and medical intimation to Station House Officer, Kodavalur. On the strength of the statement of P.W.1 - Bochu David, P.W.11 - G.Venkata Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodavalur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.74 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 and MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 5 324 read with 149 of I.P.C., issued F.I.R. P.W.14 - C.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, Inspector of Police, Kovur after collecting express F.I.R., took up investigation, observed scene of offence, prepared observation report in the presence of mediator P.W.5 - T.Samuel. On 13.06.2006 P.W.14 - C.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao held inquest over the dead body of deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna in the presence of blood relatives and mediators vide Ex.P.4, got photographed the scene of offence, seized M.O.1 - blood stained shirt, M.O.2 - blood stained pant of the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, and M.Os.3 to 11 viz. blood stained earth, controlled earth, hair, blood stained floor and controlled floor on the steps, blood stained western side wall on the roof, controlled western side wall on the roof, blood stained cement floor and controlled cement floor found on the terrace under observation report.
After completion of inquest, dead body of the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna was sent to Post-mortem examination.
During investigation, on 13.06.2006 at about 10.00 a.m. P.W.14 - C.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, Inspector of police, inspected the scene of offence, seized material objects M.Os.1 to 11 under the cover of mediators report in the presence of P.W.5 - T.Samuel and another and on the same day at about 12.30 p.m. P.W.14 - C.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao inspected the house of the deceased, observed the same in the presence of P.W.5 - T.Samuel and another.
During investigation, on 15.06.2006 at about 04.00 p.m. P.W.14 - C.Vijayia Bhaskar Rao arrested accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 9 at Sree Rama Temple in Kadanuthala Harijanawada of Bogole Mandal, interrogated them in the presences of P.W.12 - Pachipala MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 6 Venkatarami Reddy, reduced their confessional statement into writing, which is leading to recovery. In pursuance of confession, all the accused lead P.W.14 - C.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, Inspector of Police and P.W.12 - Pachipala Venkatarami Reddy, mediator to Rank Aqua, Rajupalem of Kodavalur mandal, produced 3 knives, 7 rods and 2 sticks, which were concealed in near by Babul trees. P.W.14 - C.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, Inspector of Police, examined the weapons and seized those weapons from them under the cover of Ex.P.46 - mediators report and remanded the accused to judicial custody.
On 22.06.2006 at 09.00 a.m. P.W.14 - C.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, Inspector of Police arrested accused No.10 after following necessary procedure and remanded him to judicial custody.
On 05.07.2006 at 11.00 a.m. P.W.14 - C.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, Inspector of Police arrested accused Nos.3 and 11 after following necessary procedure and remanded them to judicial custody.
On 13.06.2006, P.W.10 - Dr.Vara Prasad, held autopsy over the dead body of deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, issued Ex.P.36 post-mortem certificate, opining that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries and injury to brain.
P.W.7 - Dr.Renuka Devi has examined P.W.1 - Bochu David, issued Ex.P.5 wound certificate certifying that 7 injuries are simple in nature and 2 injuries are grievous in nature. After collection of entire evidence during investigation, P.W.14 - C.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao handed over the further investigation to V.S.R. Murthy, Inspector of Police, who in turn verified the investigation done by P.W.14 and filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 7 Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 324, 447, 427 read with 149 of I.P.C. before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, who in turn registered the same as P.R.C.No.53 of 2007 and 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 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. On committal, learned Principal Sessions Judge registered the same as S.C.No.430 of 2008 and made over to I Additional District and Sessions Judge, to try the accused and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
On 30.07.2009 the case against accused No.10 was abated as he reported dead.
Upon hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the Sessions Court framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 or 302 read with 149, 307, 148, 448 and 427 of I.P.C. against accused Nos.1 to 9, 11 and 12, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
During trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.47 and M.Os.1 to 37 to substantiate its case. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, explained the incriminating material that appeared against them in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, but they denied the same and reported no defence.
Upon hearing argument of learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Defence Counsel, the Court below found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced them as stated supra.
MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 8 Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below in Sessions Case No.430 of 2008, the present appeal is preferred by accused Nos.1 to 7 on various grounds.
The main grounds raised in the appeal are as follows:
Placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is illegal since their evidence is discrepant and they are highly interested witnesses. The trial Court mainly based its conviction on the solitary testimony of P.W.1, who is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable in view of several infirmities in the evidence, which would falsify the prosecution version about his presence and receipt of injuries in the same incident, but the Court erroneously gave much credence to the evidence of P.W.1.
Yet, another strong circumstance to disbelieve the presence of P.W.1 at the time of incident is that P.W.1 did not receive any incised or stab or cut injuries on the body and no similar injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased; and that the inconsistent ocular testimony and medical evidence shall not be taken into consideration.
It is also contended that there is any amount of delay in lodging F.I.R./complaint to the police, so also submitting the original F.I.R. to the jurisdictional Magistrate by the police, which gives raise to any amount of suspicion and possibility of deliberations to implicate these accused before lodging complaint cannot be ruled out. The delay, which is unexplained, is fatal to the prosecution case, which creates any amount of doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case, but the trial Court totally swayed away with the submission of Public Prosecutor based on evidence of P.W.1, erroneously convicted and sentenced the MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 9 appellants/accused for grave offence, thereby committed serious illegality and requested to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused and acquit them for various charges, for which they were found guilty.
During hearing, Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel would contend that discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence was not considered by the trial Court, similarly the evidence of P.W.1 - Bochu David, who is enemical to the accused, is not corroborated by any independent testimony and in view of the discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1, placing reliance on testimony of P.W.1, recording conviction of accused for various offences is a serious illegality.
Similarly, there are clear omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 14, which will go to the root of the case or genesis of the case, but based on the improved version of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 14 the trial Court recorded conviction of the accused for various offences. Similarly, P.W.11 - G.Venkata Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police did not explain the reason for the delay. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court are not based on any cogent and satisfactory evidence, which inspires confidence of the Court, but convicted the appellants/ accused for various offence ignoring the settled principles of law. He also further contended that the trial Court having found the other accused not guilty based on the evidence available on record, found the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 7 guilty; when once the evidence of particular witness is not reliable, acquitted the other accused while convicting the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 7 is an illegality.
MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 10 He further contended that though P.W.1 is injured witness, the same cannot be relied upon when there are discrepancies while drawing the attention of this Court to a Judgment of Apex Court in "Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh1". He also contended that unexplained delay in lodging complaint to police is fatal to the prosecution case, but the trial Court ignored the same though the law is settled by the Apex Court in "Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu2" "Chikkarangaiah v. State of Karnataka3". He also relied on the judgment of Apex Court in "Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand4" to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and acquit the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 7 finding them not guilty for various charges while demonstrating that the evidence on record is not sufficient to conclude that the accused joined in unlawful assembly with an object to kill deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and cause injuries on the body of P.W.1 - Bochu David. Apart from that the enemity between two rival groups may be one of the causes for the implication of the appellants/accused and the delay in lodging report and submitting the F.I.R to the Magistrate creates any amount of suspicion on the prosecution case. When two views are possible, one view is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other view is that the accused are the culprits, the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted giving benefit of doubt.
It is also contended that though in Ex.P.38, complaint lodged with the police by the accused group disclosed the presence of B.Srinivasulu, B.Ravi Kumar, B.Salman, S.Yamuna, G.Yona, 1 2010 (10) SCC 259 2 1972 (3) SCC 393 3 2009 (17) SCC 417 4 2013 (4) SCC 422 MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 11 K.Sivakumar. However, B.Srinivasulu and B.Ravi Kumar were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 5 respectively in the present case. G.Yona was arrayed as accused No.8. B.Salman was arrayed as accused No.2. While the other persons S.Yumana and K.Siva Kumar were not arrayed as accused in the charge sheet, thereby, at best, the presence of accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 8 can be believed as per the complaint lodged with the police, which is registered as a case in crime No.75 of 2006 dated 13.06.2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 read with 149 of I.P.C. and the information was received at 09.00 a.m. on 13.06.2006. Therefore, crime Nos.74 of 2006 and 75 of 2006 of Kadavalur police station are case and counter arising out of same incident, but for one reason or the other, police did not investigate into the said case. More curiously the report in crime No.75 of 2006 was lodged at 09.00 hours on 13.06.2006, whereas the report in crime No.74 of 2006 vide Ex.P.37 was received at 08.00 a.m. on the same day i.e. on 13.06.2006. But for one reason or other, though crime No.75 of 2006 was registered against the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna party, no investigation was done, no charge sheet or final report in Crime No.75 of 2006 is not filed. Therefore, investigating agency conducted investigation in a biased manner supporting one group ignoring the other group and when the murder takes place due to political rivalry, the Court has to scrutinise the evidence with a great circumspection while displaying more caution to find out the truth in the allegations made against anyone of the accused. But the trial Court in a most casual manner, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, thereby committed error MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 12 and requested to set aside the conviction recorded against the accused Nos. 1 to 7 in Sessions Case No.430 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, SPLR Nellore District and acquit them.
Sri K.Srinivas Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, supported the calendar and judgment in all respects, while pleading ignorance about the investigation in Crime No.75 of 2006 of Kadavalur police station and its final result. He also specifically contended that when P.W.1 is injured witness in the same incident, much credence can be attached to the testimony of such injured witness since he is not going to get any benefit out of criminal litigation; describing P.W.1 is interested witness for acquitting the accused, cannot be accepted. Proved facts either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence directly pointing out the complicity of the accused for various offences based on testimony of P.W.1 and other direct witnesses recording of conviction against the accused cannot be faulted, requested to affirm the conviction and sentence passed against the accused Nos.1 to 7 in Sessions Case No.430 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, SPLR Nellore District.
The trial Court disbelieving Ex.P.38, placing reliance on the oral evidence of P.W.1 found the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 7 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. while acquitting other accused Nos.8, 9, 11 and 12 as their names were not disclosed in Ex.P.1 statement. The trial Court also disbelieved the very lodging of report Ex.P.38 by the accused assigning its own reasons, where in it is alleged that the Chodam Mallikharjuna, P.W.1 - Bochu David and their men MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 13 caused injuries on the body of various persons noted in Ex.P.38, but the trial Court ignored the document Ex.P.38 and recorded conviction as stated above.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 7 formed into unlawful assembly with an intention to kill Chodam Mallikharjuna (deceased) and attempted to kill P.W.1 - Bochu David and caused injuries on their bodies, which resulted in death of Chodam Mallikharjuna? If so, whether the conviction and sentence passed against the accused Nos.1 to 7 by the trial Court finding them guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. be sustained?"
P O I N T:
Admittedly, appellants/accused, deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, P.W.1 - Bochu David and others were heading two groups in the village. There were disputes with regard to toddy tapping in the village and they were supported two different castes. The group of deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna allegedly supported the Pallikapus in Thappathopu village and the accused group supported Gowdas and Balijas. The deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna gave shelter to Pallikapus before the incident. The group of deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna were members of I.N.T.U.C., which is under the control of Congress party by then, whereas the accused are the supporters of T.D.P. Thus, the rivalry between two groups is not in quarrel. But the accused group joined in Congress party one month before the incident and attended the MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 14 meetings organised by local M.L.A., Kovur. The attendance of both the accused party and the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna party to the meeting held by local Kovur M.L.A on 12.06.2006 is not in much controversy. The trial Court found accused Nos.8, 9, 11 and 12 not guilty and acquitted them assigning a specific reason.
Aggrieved by the acquittal of accused Nos.8, 9, 11 and 12, no independent appeal is filed. Therefore, the finding of trial Court acquitting accused Nos.8, 9, 11 and 12 cannot be disturbed by this Court in the absence of any appeal. The trial Court also disbelieved the incident that took place at the house of the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna acquitted all the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 427 of I.P.C. and the said finding cannot be disturbed.
Homicidal death of deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna is not in dispute, similarly sustaining injuries by P.W.1 - Bochu David is also not in dispute. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel, during hearing, did not dispute the homicidal death of deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, so also sustaining injuries by P.W.1 - Bochu David, while disputing the scene of offence and persons, who caused the death of Chodam Mallikharjuna and injuries on the body of P.W.1 - Bochu David, denying the participation of the accused in the murder of deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and attempt to murder of P.W.1 - Bochu David raising several contentions as narrated in earlier paragraphs.
It is necessary to advert to Ex.P.4 - Inquest report to know the apparent cause of death. In column No.7 of Ex.P.4 - Inquest report, the injuries found on the body of deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna were noted, they are as follows:
MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 15 (1) One cut injury on the middle of the head.
(2) One cut injury on the left of head.
(3) One cut injury on the right part of head.
The mediators based on the statements of blood relatives concluded that the apparent cause of death was due to injuries sustained by deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna in the murder assault that took place on the terrace of Sowkya Hotel on the intervening night of 12/13.06.2006. Besides inquest report, the evidence of P.W.10 - Dr.P.M.Vara Prasad and Ex.P.36 postmortem certificate are relevant to decide the cause of death of Chodam Mallikharjuna. On receipt of requisition from investigating officer, P.W.10 - Dr.P.M.Vara Prasad conducted post-mortem over the dead body of Chodam Mallikharjuna. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, which are as follows:
(1) 6 x 5 cm., bone deep lacerated injury on the right fronto- parietal area.
(2) 5 x 4 cm bone deep lacerated wound on the left parietal area. (3) 2 x ½ cm., muscle deep lacerated injury on the right parietal area.
(4) 7 x 3 cms., bone deep lacerated injury on the left occipital area. (5) 5 x 2 cms., lacerated injury bone deep of ½" below the fourth wound.
(6) 2 x ½ cm., bone deep lacerated injury 1" above the 4th wound. (7) 5 x 1 cm., brown coloured abrasion on the right shoulder.
P.W.10 - Dr.P.M.Vara Prasad opined that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries and injury to the vital organ i.e. Brain and that those injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature. The internal injuries found during post-mortem examination are corresponding to the external injuries found and explained in detail by the witness in his examination.
MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 16 In the cross-examination P.W.10 - Dr. P.M.Vara Prasad admitted that the injuries 1 to 6 are possible by blunt object and he did not find any incised injury on the body of the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, so also cut or stab injury. Injury No.7 is possible, if the person is carried and if the shoulder come into contact with any hard surface. Admissions in the cross- examination of P.W.10 - Dr. P.M.Vara Prasad directly show that the injuries were caused with blunt objects and no incised or cut or stab injuries were found on the body of the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, whereas the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1, 2 and 10 holding knives and hacked the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna. P.W.14 - C.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, Investigating officer, seized three knives, six iron rods and two sticks marked as M.Os.27 to 37. Based on this admission, learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 10 did not cause any injury on the body of the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna. P.W.1 - Bochu David received various injuries on his body in the same assault allegedly caused by the accused. As per Ex.P.46 seizure panchanama of M.Os.27 to 37 would show that the knives M.Os.27, 28 and 29 are not double edged weapons. Therefore, injuries found on the body of P.W.1 and deceased Chodam Mallikharnuna and P.W.1 - Bochu David could have been caused with blunt side of M.Os.27, 28 and 29 in the raid. His evidence is consistent that the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 7 along with other accused, who were found not guilty, caused injuries on the body of the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and P.W.1 - Bochu David with knives, iron rods and sticks.
MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 17 The relevant piece of evidence in the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 is necessary for reference to decide the complicity of accused Nos.1 to 7, which is as follows:
"After participation in the meeting of MLA, Kovur, P.W.1 - Bochu David, deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and some of the villagers were returning to their village by walk at about 11.30 p.m. By the time they reached near Rajupalem, deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna asked the villagers to go to their respective houses as it was already late in the night. Then, they left the place. Late, deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna asked P.W.1 - Bochu David to accompany him to Bazar for consuming liquor. Then P.W.1 - Bochu David and deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna reached "Sowkya Hotel" by walk. Accused Nos.1 to 12 were standing near the Transformer armed with deadly weapons. Deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and P.W.1 - Bochu David passed them and then they chased the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and P.W.1 stating "Kottandiraa" and when the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and P.W.1 - Bochu David ran up to the steps of Sowkya Hotel and went to the upstairs. Accused Nos.1 to 12 followed them and surrounded the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and attacked him, accused No.1 hacked the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna on his head with a knife (Machu Kathi), accused No.10 hacked the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna with a knife (Kathi) and all the accused beat the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna. He raised his both hands to ward off blows and that the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna fell down due to the injuries caused on his body. On seeking the accused attacking the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, P.W.1 stunned and stood up by the side of the incident having no alternative. After attacking the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, accused identified P.W.1 - Bochu David, while saying "Eeena Kodukuni kooda Eseyandi raa" all the accused attacked him, beat him indiscriminately and caused injuries on his body. P.W.1 - Bochu David sustained injuries on his head, legs, shoulders and all over the body, as a result of the said injuries, he fell down and the accused left the scene by staing that "Eenakonduku Sachinadu Padandiraa"."
MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 18 Thus, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 - Bochu David that accused Nos.1 and 10 hacked the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna with knives, whereas he was beaten with various other weapons (not specified). More curiously, P.W.1 - Bochu David admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention in Ex.P.1 that accused Nos.1 and 10 hacked the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna with knives and the same is supported by P.W.14 - investigating officer in his cross-examination. Though, it is an omission i.e. failure to mention about causing hack injuries on the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna by accused Nos.1 and 10, the same is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence P.W.1 - Bochu David for the simple reason that Ex.P.1 - statement of P.W.1 is only an intimation to the police about commission of cognizable offence by the accused and it need not contain all minute details. Hence, failure to mention the alleged factum of causing hack injuries on the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna by accused Nos.1 and 10 with knives is not sufficient to throw any doubt on the prosecution case, more particularly the evidence of P.W.1 - Bochu David coupled with Ex.P.1 - statement of P.W.1. At best, this may create any suspicion on the recovery of M.Os.27 and 28 - Knives based on confession leading to discovery, marked as Exs.P.45 and P.46.
Yet, another reason for not accepting the contention of the accused Nos.1 to 7 by the trial Court is that when the incident took place in a dark night on the terrace of the hotel, suddenly 12 persons surrounded the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and P.W.1 - Bochu David and caused injuries indiscriminately, it is highly difficult for anyone to identify the weapon they were holding MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 19 and who caused particular injury either on the body of the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna or on the body of P.W.1 - Bochu David. The trial Court placed reliance on the judgment of theApex Court in "Masalti v. State of U.P.5" and "Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab6"
In these two judgments, the Apex Court held that where a crowd of assailants who are members of an unlawful assembly proceeds to commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of the assailants. Besides, if a large crowd of persons armed with weapons assaults the intended victims, if may not be necessary that all of them have to take part in the actual assault.
The judgment in "State of Rajasthan v. Nathu7" was referred in the judgment of "Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab"
(referred supra) by the Apex Court and held that if death had been caused in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, it is not necessary to record a definite and specific finding as to which particular accused out of the members of the unlawful assembly caused the fatal injury. Once an unlawful assembly has come into existence, each member of the assembly becomes vicariously liable for the criminal act of any other member of the assembly committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. Therefore, it is difficult for any person to identify the weapons, the assailants were holding during the dark night on the terrace of the hotel though the lights were glowing and the 5 1964 (2) SCR 133 6 2006 (2) ALT (Crl.) 266 (SC) 7 (2003) 3 SCR 967 MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 20 assailants caused injuries indiscriminately on the body of the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, thereafter on the body of P.W.1 - Bochu David. If the principle laid down in the above judgment is applied to the present facts of the case, it is difficult for P.W.1 to narrate minute incidents, more particularly when 12 persons suddenly caused injuries indiscriminately on the body during dark night as P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that it was dark night on the date of incident. P.W.1 also admitted that he did not identify any person on the top of Sowkya Hotel and especially who beat him and the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna.
It is not the case of the prosecution at all that the assailants suddenly attacked P.W.1 - Bochu David and deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna on the terrace of the building. On the other hand, it is the consistent case of the prosecution that all the accused formed into unlawful assembly and standing near transformer on the road side near hotel, only when the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and P.W.1 - Bochu David entered into the hotel, they chased them and to escape from the assailants, the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and P.W.1 - Bochu David went to the terrace through staircase, and accused attacked them. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 - Bochu David with regard to identification of the accused at the beginning and the accused chasing them cannot be thrown overhead as they are known persons to each other. Merely, because no stab injury or cut injury or incised wound was found on the body of the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved, discrediting the testimony of P.W.1 - Bochu David, more so, the possibility of causing injuries found on the body of MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 21 deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and P.W.1 - Bochu David with blunt side of M.Os.27, 28 and 29 cannot be ruled out.
Yet, another strong circumstance to believe the case of the prosecution is that lodging of report by accused No.1 vide Ex.P.38 signed by 5 other persons making allegations against P.W.1 - Bochu David, deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, and others for causing injuries on the body of several persons including accused Nos.1 - Bochu Srinivasulu, accused No.2 - Bochu Salman, accused No.8 - Goda Yona, accused No.9 - Suri Memola, accused No.10 - Karkati Shiva and they came to the police station and presented a report Ex.P.38. But P.W.14 - C.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao did not give any explanation for not investigating the crime No.75 of 2006 registered on the basis of report lodged by the accused.
As seen from the said complaint, accused No.2, 8 to 10 sustained injuries in the incident, which was signed by accused No.1 and 5 others. Therefore, the presence of accused Nos.1, 2, 8 to 10 can be established with the aid of Ex.P.38. But the trial Court did not take into consideration Ex.P.38 for the reason that no investigation was conducted in Crime No.75 of 2006 by P.W.14
- C.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, investigating officer.
The reason for non-consideration of Ex.P.38 is only failure of P.W.14 to investigate into the offence, but that itself is not sufficient to disbelieve Ex.P.38 since lodging of report by accused No.1 was spoken by P.W.11 and registration of crime vide Ex.P.38 based on the report was also spoken by P.W.14. But for one reason or the other, P.W.11 was cross-examined at length by defence counsel in the trial Court to disprove very lodging of report by accused No.1 and registration of crime No.75 of 2006 vide Ex.P.38.
MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 22 Suggestion put to P.W.11, at best would go to show that a General Diary entry was made and the sentry constable did not handover the same to P.W.11 to register the crime against the accused therein immediately, but it was registered at 09.00 a.m. on 13.06.2006. Whereas, Ex.P.1 was registered at 08.00 a.m. on the same day and that too statement of P.W.1 was recorded in the hospital at 05.00 or 05.30 a.m. on the same day by outpost constable and intimated the same through handset about recording of statement of P.W.1 to P.W.11, who collected the same and registered crime No.74 of 2006.
The line of cross-examination of P.W.11 is that the report lodged by the accused is anterior to the report lodged by P.W.1 and suggested that due to pressure from Kovur MLA no investigation was taken up in Crime No.75 of 2006, but curiously in examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused No.1 invented a different story that police came to his house in the morning hours, obtained signatures on the blank papers and utilised the same for purpose of registering crime.
When a specific question was put to accused No.1 when he was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to lodging of report and registration of crime No.75 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 324 read with 149 of I.P.C. which inculpates the accused No.1 and others, establish their presence at the time and scene of offence, surprisingly, accused No.1 answered that during morning hours, police came to their house, obtained signatures on white papers. It appears that the answer given by accused No.1 to question No.31 in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that the complaint was MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 23 fabricated with the help of blank signed papers obtained from accused No.1 and 5 others. However, fabrication of complaint and issuing F.I.R.No.75 of 2006 was not put to P.W.11 or P.W.14. Thus, accused No.1 gave such answer to question No.31 in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. intentionally to avoid their presence at the scene of offence. Apart from that, if really signatures were obtained after registration of crime No.74 of 2006 from the accused, police would have arrested the accused instead of obtaining signatures on white papers. Hence, story of accused about fabrication of complaint Ex.P.38 cannot be accepted. However, Ex.P.38 establish the presence of accused and other persons, who received injuries in the same incident at the same place and time, as such Crime Nos.74 of 2006 and 75 of 2006 are case and counter cases. But for one reason or the other, investigating agency did not investigate into the crime No.75 of 2006 and kept it in a clod storage even without closing the same till date and no material is placed on record evidencing conduct of investigation or closure of Crime No.75 of 2006. Hence, for the defective investigation by P.W.14 - investigating officer, the evidence of prosecution cannot be brushed aside to disbelieve the prosecution case while believing the case of defence.
Undisputedly, P.W.1 is injured witness and the same is supported by Ex.P.5 - wound certificate, P.W.2 - Bachu Thirupathi and P.W.3 - Kavali Ramesh shifted P.W.1 to D.S.R. Government Hospital, Nellore, and at the hospital Ex.P.1 statement of P.W.1 was recorded by Out Post Constable, which is the basis for registration of crime No.74 of 2006. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that there is delay in MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 24 registration of crime, thereby possibility of consultation to rope these accused with the offence cannot be ruled out. But the trial Court did not accept the delay since the delay was properly explained by the prosecution. According to the discussion in the judgment of the trial Court, incident took place at 00.30 hours on the intervening night of 12/13.06.2006 and P.W.1 was brought to hospital at about 03.00 a.m. The statement of P.W.1 was recorded by P.W.13 at 05.00 a.m. and the F.I.R. was registered at 08.00 a.m. and received by the Court at 10.30 a.m. However, the delay was explained by the prosecution with cogent reasons and this finding was challenged by the accused in the present appeal relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in "Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu" (referred supra). In the said judgment, the Apex Court held that First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 25 therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained.
The same principle was reiterated in "Chikkarangaiah v. State of Karnataka" (referred supra).
We find no unexplained delay in lodging report to police in Crime No.74 of 2006 in the present case for the simple reason that P.W.1 is in unconscious state immediately after the incident and only after he regained his consciousness, Ex.P.1 was recorded by the Outpost constable at the hospital, who in turn intimated the same to the police and transfer the same on the point of jurisdiction and the distance between the police station and DSR hospital, Nellore is about 14 kms as admitted by the prosecution. Therefore, the delay was explained properly and the trial Court accepted the explanation offered by the prosecution in lodging the report to police and issue of F.I.R. in Crime No.74 of 2006. Hence, the principle laid down in the above judgment will not come to aid of the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 7.
Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on another judgment in "Nallabothu Ramulu Alias Seetharamaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh8" for different purpose i.e. failure to seize the weapons lead to conclusion that the prosecution story as false. But in the same judgment the Apex Court discussed about the importance of prompt lodging of F.I.R. and effect of unexplained delay in lodging F.I.R. and held that the unexplained delay in lodging F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution case.
In the present case, the delay was properly explained, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to 8 (2014) 12 SCC 261 MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 26 delay cannot be disturbed even after re-appreciation of entire evidence.
One of the major contentions raised before this Court is that P.W.1, though injured witness, the Court cannot place reliance reposing implicit faith on P.W.1 as there was a group rivalry between two groups supporting two political parties in the village. No doubt, injured witness is a direct witness to the incident and the omission to mention the names of the assailants is not fatal to the prosecution case. However, the injuries found on the body of P.W.1 - Bochu David was supported by Ex.P.5 wound certificate issued by P.W.7 - Dr. S.Renuka Devi. When the injured himself is a witness, the Court may rely on the testimony of injured witness if he is totally reliable witness. When the incident took placed due to group rivalry, the Court must be cautious in appreciating evidence of such witness as there is every possibility of false implication or coloured version.
The Apex Court in "Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh" (referred supra) held that where a witness to the occurrence was himself injured in the incident, testimony of such witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Thus, the deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. His presence on the spot cannot be doubted as he was injured in the incident and his disposition must be given MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 27 due weightage. The Court may insist corroboration when the injured witness is not wholly reliable.
In another judgment, "Chikkarangaiah v. State of Karnataka" (referred supra) the Apex Court considered the principles of appreciation of evidence of injured witness, held that there was no reason why an injured witness would leave out his real assailants and unnecessarily implicate others falsely. Hence, there was no ground to disbelieve and discard the evidence of injured witness regarding the assault on him.
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Court must give much weight to testimony of injured witness while appreciating evidence unless he is wholly unreliable witness. In the instant case on hand, there were disputes between two groups, but they became members of same political party as on the date of incident. This fact is not in dispute, that apart P.W.1 - Bochu David sustained grave injuries and became unconscious on receipt of injuries. Later, he gained conscious, thereby in such condition, question of false implication of accused due to prior enmity is improbable to the natural circumstances. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 must be given due weightage as he is wholly reliable witness and the injuries found on the body of P.W.1 - Bochu David were caused with blunt object as per the evidence of P.W.7 coupled with Ex.P.5 wound certificate of P.W.1 - Bochu David. Apart from it, the presence of assailants including accused No.1 cannot be doubted in view of Ex.P.38 at the time and place of scene of offence. Therefore, based on Ex.P.38 coupled with oral evidence of P.W.1 - Bochu David and medical evidence, the presence of accused No.1 is to be accepted without any hesitation at the scene MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 28 of offence and also about causing injuries on the body of the deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna and P.W.1 - Bochu David.
Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that when the incident took place due to group rivalry, the Court must scrutinise the evidence with great caution; the omissions in the F.I.R. and discrepancies in the evidence of direct witness goes to the root of the case, apart from that failure to conduct investigation by P.W.14 - investigating officer in Crime No.75 of 2006 creates any amount of suspicion on the prosecution case, as the police supported group of deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna.
No doubt, the evidence has to be appreciated cautiously, with great circumspection, when there is a group rivalry. In fact, Crime Nos.74 of 2006 and 75 of 2006 are case and counter cases, but for the reasons best known to P.W.14 - Investigating Officer, Crime No.75 of 2006 was not investigated into and conducted investigation based on the complaint Ex.P.1 only. Merely because Crime No.75 of 2006 was not investigated into, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away and even the omissions pointed out in the evidence of P.W.1 - Bochu David does not go to the root of the case to conclude that P.W.1 - Bochu David falsely implicated the appellants/accused.
Learned senior counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in "Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand" (referred supra), in the said Judgment the Apex Court pointed out the unhappy conduct of the investigating agency while expressing distress at the way in which the investigation of the case was carried out, held that it is true that acquitting the MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 29 accused merely on the ground of lapses or irregularities in the investigation of a case would amount to putting premium on the depreciable conduct of an incompetent investigating agency at the cost of the victims which may lead to encouraging perpetrators of crimes. The Apex Court also held that the lapses or irregularities in the investigation could be ignored subject to a rider. They can be ignored only if despite their existence, the evidence on record bears out the case of the prosecution and the evidence is of sterling quality. If the lapses or irregularities do not go to the root of the matter, if they do not dislodge the substratum of the prosecution case, they can be ignored.
Even if this principle is applied to the present facts of the case, failure to investigate into the Crime No.75 of 2006 will not go to the root of the substratum of the prosecution case, on that ground the accused are not entitled for acquittal. At the same time in "Chikkarangaiah v. State of Karnataka" (referred supra) the Apex Court held that omission to mention the names of all accused in the statement of victim given to Doctor, who immediately examined him is not sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. By applying the said principle to the present facts of the case, omissions pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellants regarding failure of victim to refer the names of some of the assailants and the weapons they were holding is not sufficient to find the accused not guilty and acquit them disbelieving the evidence of P.W.1.
Learned senior counsel for the appellants also relied on another judgment of Apex Court in "Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand" (referred supra), wherein the Court held that when MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 30 the independent panchas (recovery witnesses) were not examined, and seized articles were neither sent to F.S.L. for examination nor to Court along with charge sheet and no seizure list was prepared and submitted to the Court along with the charge sheet, the same is fatal to the prosecution case. In the present case, omissions pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellants are neither material omissions nor contradictions which go to the root of the case. Therefore, failure to sent M.Os.27 to 37 for examination by F.S.L. itself is not a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case.
In any view of the matter, the evidence of P.W.1 - Bochu David, P.W.2 - Bochu Tirupalu, P.W.3 - Kavali Ramesh is consistent and the minor lapses on the part of the investigating agency are inconsequential. Therefore, failure to send M.Os.27 to 37 to F.S.L. to find out blood on the M.Os.27 to 37 by itself is not a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution more particularly when the evidence of injured eyewitness directly pointing out the complicity of the accused. Consequently, the principle laid down in "Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P.9" with regard to lapses in the investigation is of no assistance to the prosecution case.
On an overall consideration of entire material on record, the consistent evidence on record directly pointing out the guilt of accused No.1, whereas the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P.8, the presence of accused Nos.2, 8 to 10 is established, but the trial Court found accused Nos.8, 9, 11 and 12 not guilty and the said finding attained finality. Therefore, at best, Ex.P.38 established the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2, who allegedly sustained injuries 9 (1994) 5 SCC 188 MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 31 in the same incident at the same time. The presence of accused Nos.3 to 7 is not established by satisfactory evidences. Consequently, convicting accused Nos.3 to 7 for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 307, 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. is an illegality. Therefore, recording conviction against accused Nos.3 to 7 for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 307, 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. is an illegality committed by the trial Court. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos.3 to 7 is hereby set aside since their names were not mentioned in Ex.P.38, while upholding the finding of the trial Court in finding accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C. for murderous assault on deceased Chodam Mallikharjuna, causing his death and attempting to kill P.W.1 - Bochu David by causing grave injuries. Accordingly, we find accused Nos.1 and 2 are guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C., while finding accused Nos.1 and 2 not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 148 and 149 of I.P.C. and the conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 of I.P.C. is hereby confirmed while setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos.3 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 148, 307, 302 read with 149 of I.P.C., conviction and sentence passed against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 148 and 149 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the point is answered.
In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed-in-part. The calendar and judgment dated 19.06.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.430 of 2008 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, MSM,J and BKM,J CrlA_650_2012 32 SPSR Nellore District, in respect of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C. is hereby affirmed, while setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos.3 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and also setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 149 of I.P.C.
The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, SPSR Nellore District is directed to secure the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 and commit them to prison forthwith to undergo the sentence ordered by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 of I.P.C.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY ______________________________ JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN 29.05.2020 Ksp