Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Long before the occurrence, RDO, Surpayet had initiated proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against some members of Janasakthi group and some members of OPDR group. The occurrence took place on 28.04.2000 in Suryapet. It was alleged that both groups had to attend the RDO's office in connection with proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Both the groups left the office of RDO at 2.30 p.m. to return to their village. PWs. 1 and 2 and two deceased persons were walking together. When they reached Navodaya Bookstall, A-1 to A-5 attacked Malla Reddy and Malsoor with talwars. A-1 hit on the head of the deceased Malla Reddy with talwar and A-2 to A-5 also attacked him with talwars. The deceased Malla Reddy died on the spot. PW-1 ran and hid himself behind a pan shop. The deceased Malsoor was running in another direction. After he ran to a distance of 20 yards, A-1 to A-5 attacked him with talwars. He also died on the spot.

7. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. Ex. P-1 is the report given to the Police by PW-1. He stated in this report which was given on 28.04.2000 at 1500 hours that on that day, he alongwith Yelimineti Malla Reddy, Thandu Malsoor, Sarasani Venkat Reddy and five other villagers belonging to UCCRI (MC) party, went to the RDO office at Suryapet to attend in the case filed against them under Section 107 Cr.P.C. After attending the office of RDO, they were returning back to their village. At about 2.30 p.m., when they reached Navodaya bookstall, some of their party people went ahead of them and he, Yelimineti Malla Reddy, Thandu Malsoor and Sarasani Venkat Reddy reached near the book stall, Sarasani Venkat Reddy was coming behind them. Having political grudge, Keesara Santhoshreddy, Aella Amruthareddy, Vemula Bixam and two others, together, with an intention to kill three of them, came to them holding swords and axes. Santhosh Reddy beat with sword on the head of Yelimineti Malla Reddyk and the remaining persons also beat Malla Reddy indiscriminately with swords and axes they were holding. Malla Reddy fell down and died. He and Malsoor fled away. Then all the persons attacked Malsoor, cut his hands with swords and axes, cut his head and killed him and fled away.

23. This witness stated that A-6 to A-11 had to attend the RDO office in connection with proceedings under 107 Cr.P.C. A-1 to A-5 were not the persons who had to appear before the RDO office in the proceedings under 107 Cr.P.C. This witness had, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, is annexed to bribe, he was also convicted in a murder case and four other criminal cases were pending against him at the behest of the accused persons.

24. PW-4 is also a sympathizer of UCCRI (ML) party. He also stated that he went to attend the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. before the RDO, Suryapet. He also says that A-6 to A-11 were only to appear before the RDO office and at about 2.30 p.m., when they were returning, five accused attacked. He named them as A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5 and another person. He identified them subsequently and he came to know that another assailant was A-4. In his cross-examination he stated that he knew the names of A-1 and his uncle Ram Reddy. He did not know the names of other accused at the time of incident. The names of said accused were came to be known by him through Police. The Police gave a list of accused in writing to him. By seeing the said chit, he revealed the names of accused persons.

46. PW-20 is the Sub-Inspector of Police concerned, who was asked to go to the place of occurrence at 4 p.m. on 28.04.2000 by the SDPO. The arguments made by the learned Counsel for the defence have been narrated hereinabove. It is also submitted that highly improbable versions have been given by the witnesses in the Court. The whole case revolves round the presence of accused and deceased persons before the RDO in proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Ex. X-1 is the 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer, which were summoned by the Court on a petition filed by the defence. Under Ex. X-1, the deceased Nos. 1 and 2, PWs. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and others, in all ten persons, were party-B and accused Nos. 6 and 7 and their party members were party-A and on 28.04.2000, the deceased Nos. 1 and 2, PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 only were present before the RDO in the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. With regard to other issues, it may be beneficial to reproduce the findings of trial Court in para 23 of its judgment, which reads as under 23. Defence contention is that there is delay in sending F.I.R. Therefore there is every possibility of implicating the names of accused, as the accused are the rival members. The incident was occurred at 2.30 p.m. on 28.4.2000.