Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1342 (AP)

Shaik Siddiq Hussain v. State Of A. P.

2002-11-19

B.S.A.SWAMY, G.YETHIRAJULU

body2002
G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of the convictions and acquittals given to the accused by the i Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool in s. C. NO. 404 of 1996 through his judgment dated 17th January 2001. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix leading to these appeals is as under: accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 to 19 are residents of Brahmanakotkur Village, accused Nos. 6 and 7 are the residents of cherukucherla and Sankirenipalli Villages respectively within the jurisdiction of inspector of Police, Nandikotkur. The deceased No. 1 Ambi Reddy and deceased no. 2 Chinna Ramasubbaiah (hereinafter referred to as D-1 and D-2 respectively) were residents of Nandikotkur. One Giddareddy and Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy were previously in Congress-I Party. Some time later Rajesekhara Reddy joined Telugu desam Party. During 1994 Assembly elections Giddareddi contested as Congress- i candidate and Rajasekhar Reddy was successful against him as a TDP candidate. Since then there were bitter ill-feelings between those two persons. A-1 is a strong supporter of Gidda Reddy and A-2 to A-19 are his followers. In the 1994 Assembly elections D-1 and D-2 worked for the success of Rajasekhar Reddy. On 18-10-1995 the followers of Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy abducted a person by name Medireddi sambasiva Reddy and two others at the office of the Executive Engineer, R and B, Nandyal and killed him. A case was registered against them at Nandyal Police Station. ( 3 ) ON 19-10-1995 at about 10-30 a. m. D-1 and D-2 were proceeding on a Hero Honda motorcycle No. AEE-2725 along with P. Ws. 1 and 2 on 2nd motorcycle, P. Ws. 3 and 4 on 3rd motorcycle, Bukkapuram Venkateswar reddy and Mohd. Farooq on the 4th motorcycle from Nandikotkur to Kurnool to attend the marriage of the daughter of soodireddy Rangareddy. At about 10-45 a. m. by the time both the deceased and the people on other motorcycles reached a place which is about 1 km, from Bollavaram Village, A-1 to A-19 came in the opposite direction from brahmanakotkur in one jeep and two lorries and after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing D-1 and D-2 stopped the jeep and lorries across the road and got down from the vehicles. A-2 to A-18 caught hold of D-1 and D-2 and dragged them from the motorcycles to the eastern side of the road. A-2 to A-18 caught hold of D-1 and D-2 and dragged them from the motorcycles to the eastern side of the road. A-1 instigated all of them to kill D-1 and d-2 by saying "eenakodnkulani Ralla tho Kotti champandi Raa". On hearing the said command A-2, A-3, A-6 to A-8, A-10, A-14, a-16 and A-17 picked up napa stones from the fencing wall of the adjacent field and hit d-1 on his head, face and other parts of the body causing injuries with the stones. A-4, a-5, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-15 and A-18 beat D-2 with napa stones and caused several injuries. P. Ws. 1 to 4, Bukkapuram venkateswara Reddy and Shaik Mohd. Farooq witnessed the occurrence. A-1 asked a-2 to A-19 to catch hold of them, but they escaped from the accused and reached nandikotkur. They informed about the incident to the relations of D-2. P. W. 1, his relations and friends went to the scene of offence in a tractor and brought both the deceased and motorcycle AEE-2725 to the government Hospital, Nandikotkiir. D-1 died at about 11 a. m. at the said hospital and d-2 was taken to the Government Hospital, kurnool and he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital at about 1-10 p. m. ( 4 ) ON the same day at about 1 p. m. P. W. 1 gave Ex. P-1 complaint to P. W. 12, the S. I. of police, Bollavaram P. S. and he registered cr. No. 30/95 and issued F. I. R. P. W. 13, the inspector of Police, took up investigation and on account of his transfer P. W. 14 as his successor completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet in the Court of the judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandikotkur. After committal, the Sessions Judge, Kurnool assigned S. C. No. 404 of 1996 against A-1 to a-4, A-6 to A-8, and A-10, to A-19, since A-5 and A-9 were shown as absconding, and made over the case to the I Additional sessions Judge, Kurnool. After the apprehension of A-5 the Magistrate committed the case of A-5 also to the Court of sessions and the learned Sessions Judge after numbering the same as S. C. No. 6 of 2001 made over to the I Additional Sessions Judge. After the apprehension of A-5 the Magistrate committed the case of A-5 also to the Court of sessions and the learned Sessions Judge after numbering the same as S. C. No. 6 of 2001 made over to the I Additional Sessions Judge. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, kurnool framed charges against the accused in both the cases and clubbed them for the purpose of trial. The charges levelled against various accused are as under: (1) Section 147 IPC against A. 1; (2) Section 148 IPC against A-2 to A-8 and a-10 to A-19; (3) Section 302 r/w. 109 IPC against A-1; (4) Section 302 IPC against A-2, A-3, A-6, a-7, A-8, A-10, a-14, A-16 and A-17 for murdering D-1; ( 5 ) SECTION 302 r/w. 149 IPC against A-4, a-5, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-15, A-18 and a-19; ( 6 ) SECTION 302 IPC against A-4, A-5, a-11, A-12, A-13, A-15 and A-18 for murdering D-2; ( 7 ) SECTION 302 r/w. 148 IPC against A-2, a-3, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-10, A-14, A-16, a-17 and A-19. 5. All the accused denied the charges framed against them and claimed for trial By the date of commencement of the trial. A-9 was absconding. Therefore, the case against him was separated and assigned S. CNo. 273 of 1999. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 4, marked fxs. P-1 to P-15 and M. Os. l to 27. After the closing of the prosecution, the accused nos. 1 to 8 and 10 to 19 were examined under section 313 Cr. P. C. regarding the incriminating circumstances against each of them. They denied the same and claimed to examine the defence witnesses. They examined D. Ws. l and 2 as defence witnesses and marked Exs. D-1 to D-14. 6. The learned Sessions Judge after conclusion of the trial found A-1 guilty for the charge under Section 302 read with 109 i. P. C. convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. A-2 to A-8 were found guilty for the offences under Sections 147 and 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on each count and directed the sentences to rur concurrently. 2,000/ -. A-2 to A-8 were found guilty for the offences under Sections 147 and 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on each count and directed the sentences to rur concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge found A-10 to A-19 not guilty of the offences for which they were charged and acquitted them. 7. A-5 filed Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2002 against the conviction and sentence imposed on him in S. C. No. 6 of 2001, A-1, a-6, to A-8 filed Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2002, and A-2 to A-4 filed Criminal Appeal no. 167 of 2002 challenging the convictions and the sentences imposed by the Sessions judge against them in S. C. No. 404 of 1996. The State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 842 of 2002 challenging the acquittal of A-10 to a-19 S. C. No. 404 of 1996. The State also preferred Criminal Appeal (SR) No. 16462 of 2002 for not convicting A-1 for the offence under Section 147 IPC. There was a delay of 151 days in preferring this appeal and the same is condoned. ( 8 ) SINCE all the appeals arise out of the common judgment, they are heard together and this common judgment is delivered. ( 9 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned senior counsel representing the accused in these appeals contended that the learned sessions Judge erred in coming to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of A-1 to A-8 beyond reasonable doubt, that there was abnormal delay in giving the complaint, that none of the persons accompanying the deceased gave a complaint on reaching Nandikotkur where the police station and the office of the Inspector of police are available, that the prosecution implicated all other accused, though there are only seven names mentioned in Ex. P-1 - complaint, that the name of one Madireddi venkataramana Reddy who was attributed with specific overt acts was deleted by the police on the ground of false implication and on the ground that he was available at the inquest held over the dead body of his brother sambasiva Reddy who was kidnapped on the prior day and the body traced on the date of this offence. He further submits that when p. W. 1 falsely implicated Madireddi venkataramana Reddy by attributing specific overt acts, there is no guarantee that others are not implicated, that P. Ws. 1 to 4 have not witnessed the occurrence since none of them received any injuries and the numbers of the vehicles given by them were found to be false, that had the accused pre-meditated to murder both the deceased, they would have attacked them by bringing lethal weapons, that one Jiauddin who was sought to be implicated was also dropped because there was availability of strong alibi and that the acquittal of A-1 under Section 147 IPC shows that he was not a member of the unlawful assembly. He further submitted that since there is acute faction between the accused and the deceased, there is every possibility of concoction of the case against A-1 to A-8 also. Therefore, he requested to give the benefit of doubt to A-1 to A-8 by acquitting them of all the charges and setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Court. ( 10 ) IN the light of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants the following points are taken up for consideration in order to find out whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A-1 to a-8 and A-10 to A-19 beyond reasonable doubt and whether there are grounds to reverse the judgment of the learned Sessions judge: (1) Whether the delay occurred in giving complaint to police is properly explained by the prosecution and whether it is fatal to its case? (2) Whether the non-reporting of the incident by any of the alleged eyewitnesses to the nearest police station is an indication tp fabricate Ex. P-1- complaint and to implicate the persons whom they want? (3) Whether the deletion of the name of one of the assailants by name madireddi Venkataramana Reddy lends support to defence version that all the accused are falsely implicated? (4) Whether the non-receipt of the injuries by P. Ws. 1 to 4 leads to an inference that they did not witness the occ urrence and whether their evidence is liable to be rejected? (5) Whether the alleged attack on the deceased with stones without bringing any lethal weapons indicates that it is not a premeditated attack and whether the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt on that ground? (5) Whether the alleged attack on the deceased with stones without bringing any lethal weapons indicates that it is not a premeditated attack and whether the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt on that ground? (6) Whether the non-mention of the names of A-9 to A-19 in Ex. P-1-complaint creates a doubt about their participation in the commission of the offence and whether they are not entitled for the benefit of doubt as pleaded by the State? (7) Whether P. Ws. 1 to 4 are partisan witnesses and whether their evidence is liable to be viewed with suspicion? (8) Whether the laches in the investigation entitled the accused for benefit of doubt? (9) Whether the conviction of A-1 u/s. 302r/w. 109 IPC is not sustainable and liable to be set aside? (10) Whether A-1 is liable to be convicted u/s. 147 IPC and whether non- conviction of A-1 under Section 147 ipc entitles him to get the benefit of acquittal for other offences?point No. 1: ( 11 ) P. WS. 1 to 4 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. According to P. W. 1, the offence took place on 19-10-1995 at about 10-45 a. m. in between Nandikotkur and bollavaram i. e. , at a distance of 1 km. from bollavaram Village and 4 kms. from nandikotkur. P. Ws. 2 to 4 have deposed that on the date of offence at about 10-30 a. m. all of them have started at Nandikotkur on motorcycles and when they reached a place situated at a distance of 1 km. from bollavaram Village the occurrence took place. P. Ws. 2 to 4 have specifically stated that the offence took place at about 10-45 a. m. P. W. 1 is the author of Ex. P-1-complaint. He mentioned in Ex. P-1 that the offence took place at about 10-45 a. m. on the date of offence. Ex. P-2-observation panchanama is indicating that the offence took place in the fields of Golla Jambulaiah and Mekala Golla chinna Pullamma situated at a distance of 1 km. North of Bollavaram. Since there is sufficient evidence regarding the time and place of offence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly concluded that the prosecution has proved the time and place of offence. ( 12 ) EX. North of Bollavaram. Since there is sufficient evidence regarding the time and place of offence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly concluded that the prosecution has proved the time and place of offence. ( 12 ) EX. P-8-FIRST Information Report registered by Bollavaram P. S. indicates that the offence took place at 10-45 a. m. and the complaint was received at 1-00 p. m. The FIR reached the court at Nandikotkur by about 3-00 p. m. Therefore, Bollavaram police received the complaint about hrs. 2-15 mts. after the occurrence. ( 13 ) IN State of H. P. v. Cain Chand the supreme Court held that the delay in lodging fir cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. The delay has the effect of putting the court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay and, if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, it cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case. ( 14 ) IN Tarn Singh v. State of Punjab the supreme Court held that the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case, but the court should subject the evidence as well as the contents of fir to careful and closer scrutiny and decide whether to reject the FIR on the ground of delay keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. ( 15 ) IN Ashok Kumar Pandey v. Stateof Delhi the Supreme Court held that when there was a time gap of 3 hours and 50 minuets between the occurrence and lodging of FIR after removing the injured to the hospital, it is a natural conduct of a normal human being to rush the injured to the hospital, particularly when they are his near and dear ones instead of leaving them at the place of occurrence to die and go to the police station and give information about the occurrence. Therefore, no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution when the informant did not go to the police station to lodge FIR, but rushed the injured persons to the hospital to save their lives. ( 16 ) IN the case on hand, there was a delay of 2 hours and 15 minutes in lodging FIR in bollavaram P. S. There was a threat against p. Ws. 1 to 4 at the scene of offence. Therefore, they were compelled to run away from the place. When P. W. 1 and others reached the scene of offence along with his family members, both the deceased were alive and were lying on the ground. Therefore, it is nothing but natural that P. W. 1 being the son of D-2 rushed the decased to the hospital to save their lives. Only after the death of the 1st deceased at Nandikotkur hospital and after sending D-2 to the Government Hospital, kurnool, P. W. 1 went to Bollavaram P. S. and lodged Ex. P-1 complaint. In the light of the above sequence of events, it cannot be said that there was delay in preferring the FIR from the time of offence. ( 17 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution witnesses, the assailants were about 15 to 20 persons. When the accused started chasing them to beat, they cameback to Nandikotkur. Since the area in which the offence took place is faction ridden, it may be difficult for P. W. 1 or anyone belonging to the prosecution party to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence without caring for the safety. Even if one wants to present a complaint at the earliest possible time they have to secure a paper, a pen to use, a scribe to write and after that it takes a considerable time to write the happenings in sequence and it takes sometime to reach the police station. For all the above things, in the process of preparing a complaint and presenting it to the police, it will take not less than one or one and half hours. Since both the deceased did not meet instantaneous death, the effort of the children or relations to save the lives of the deceased and not to rush to the police station leaving the injured to their fate. Since both the deceased did not meet instantaneous death, the effort of the children or relations to save the lives of the deceased and not to rush to the police station leaving the injured to their fate. Therefore, the margin of another 45 minutes to one hour cannot be treated as abnormal delay in lodging the complaint. ( 18 ) IN the light of the circumstances explained by the prosecution and in the light of the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme court in Gian Chand (1 supra), Tara Singh (2 supra) and Ashok Kumar Pandey (3 supra), we are convinced that the learned Sessions judge Was right in holding that there was no inordinate or unexplained delay in lodging the complaint to the police. Point No. 2: ( 19 ) BOTH the deceased were the followers of Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy, an M. L. A. belonging to the Telugu Desam party. There is a political rivalry between A-1 and rajasekhar Reddy. There were also ill- feelings between D-2 and A-1. In 1994 assembly elections A-1 s uncle by name mandra Gidda Reddy contested for the assembly seat in Nandikotkur Constituency against Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy. During those elections, the second deceased supported Rajasekhar Reddy and he made efforts to get as many votes as possible to rajasekhar Reddy. Rajasekhar Reddy won the election and became elected as an M. L. A. of Telugu Desam Party. Since then A-1 and his followers bore grudge against the second deceased. Consequently the incident took place. Since there were ill-feelings between the accused and the prosecution party the accused suspected that Byreddi Rajasekhar reddy and his followers were responsible for kidnapping and killing of one Madiredi sambasiva Reddy, and in retaliation they killed both the deceased. It was suggested to p. W. 1 that at the instance of Byreddi rajasekhar Reddy they implicated all the accused falsely. The learned Public prosecutor submitted that had Byreddi rajasekhar Reddy been behind the back, his first target would have been his opponent Sri gidda Reddy and the non-implication of the said person in this crime, the non-mentioning of the names of other accused is a clear indication that Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy had no role to play in this case. The learned Public prosecutor submitted that had Byreddi rajasekhar Reddy been behind the back, his first target would have been his opponent Sri gidda Reddy and the non-implication of the said person in this crime, the non-mentioning of the names of other accused is a clear indication that Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy had no role to play in this case. ( 20 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though P. W. 1 mentioned the name of Madireddi Venkatramana Reddy in the FIR, the police filed a Memo mentioning that the name of the said person is deleted on the ground of false implication and when such is the case, there is no guarantee that others are not implicated. ( 21 ) SINCE P. Ws. 1 to 4 spoke about the participation of the appellants and the surrounding circumstances are indicating that the appellants were present at the scene of offence, there is no scope to accept the version of the defence that the accused were falsely implicated. This point is accordingly held in favour of the prosecution and against the accused. Point No. 3: ( 22 ) P. WS. 1 to 4 stated about the participation of A-1 and A-4 to A-8 in the offence. P. Ws. 1 to 3 stated about the participation of A-2 and A-3 in the offence. P. W. 1 also stated that A-12, A-6 and A-18 have participated in the offence. P. W. 3 also stated about the participation of A-9, A-11, a-14 and P. W. 4 further mentioned the participation of A-10, A-13, A-15 and A-17 in the offence. Except P. W. 1, others have no personal acquaintance with Venkatramana reddy and they stated in their evidence that they can identify him, but they do not know him by name. His name was deleted on the ground that he was present at the inquest held over the dead body of his brother sambasiva Reddy. In Ex. D-8-Memo issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, atmakur mentioned that the Circle Inspector of Police is instructed to delete the name of m. Venkatramana Reddy and Jiyauddin who were originally shown as A-3 and A-18 in the case record. This Memo is not disclosing on what ground the names of those two persons were deleted. In Ex. D-8-Memo issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, atmakur mentioned that the Circle Inspector of Police is instructed to delete the name of m. Venkatramana Reddy and Jiyauddin who were originally shown as A-3 and A-18 in the case record. This Memo is not disclosing on what ground the names of those two persons were deleted. The inquest commenced at 12 noon and this offence commenced at 10-45 a. m. Therefore, the possibility the presence of Venkatramana Reddy at the sence of offence cannot be totally ruled out. But, since the police did not include his name in the charge-she. et, he could not be prosecuted. Simply because the police deleted the name of Venkatramana Reddy it cannot be said that he was falsely implicated. Even if one of the accused is found to be falsely implicated and later deleted from the charge-sheet, it cannot be a ground that the other accused are also entitled to be acquitted on the premise that those accused are also likely to be implicated. We are therefore not inclined to accept the contention of the appellants to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants that they might have been falsely implicated in this case. This point is accordingly held against the accused. Point No. 4: ( 23 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though P. Ws. 1 to 4 alleged to have witnessed the occurrence, they did not receive any injuries in the hands of the assailants. The non-receipt of injuries by p. Ws. 1 to 4 is against the natural conduct of the persons who were accompanying the deceased. Therefore, it shall be held that the witnessing of the occurrence by P. Ws. 1 to 4 is doubtful and the benefit must be given to the accused. ( 24 ) P. WS. 1 to 4 gave a detailed narration of the incident proper from the time of their starting at Nandikotkur till they reached the house of P. W. 1 after witnessing the occurrence. According to these witnesses immediately after attacking D-1 and D-2, a-1 instigated the other accused to attack them and these witnesses having apprehended danger to their lives also left the sence and reached the house of P. W. 1 to intimate the family members about the attack on D-1 and D-2. According to these witnesses immediately after attacking D-1 and D-2, a-1 instigated the other accused to attack them and these witnesses having apprehended danger to their lives also left the sence and reached the house of P. W. 1 to intimate the family members about the attack on D-1 and D-2. These witnesses have specifically stated that they initially gathered at a Namakaranam function of the grandson of Bysani Viswanatham Setti in the Vasavi function Hall, Nandikotkur and from there they proceeded on four motorcycles towards kurnool and by the Lime they reached the scene of offence both the deceased were attacked by the assailants. According to these witnesses, there were about 20 persons got down from the vehicles and attacked the deceased. These people being smaller in number might have apprehended danger to them also. Therefore, it is nothing but natural that those people running away from the sence of offence is to save themselves. Simply because they did not receive the injuries their evidence cannot be rejected. This point is accordingly answered against the appellants. Point No. 5: ( 25 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the prosecution alleged that the accused attacked both the deceased and caused injuries resulting in their death, it is a fact that they did not carry any arms with them, therefore, there was no premeditation to kill D-1 and D-2. ( 26 ) THE accused did not bring any weapons in the vehicles in which they travelled. They might have spontaneously decided to do away with the deceased. Therefore, they resorted to beat the deceased with stones which are also sufficiently dangerous to cause the death of the deceased. Though there is no premeditation on the part of the accused to attack the deceased by executing the plan prepared by them, the accused on immediately seeing the deceased and others coming in the opposite direction entertained an idea to eliminate both the deceased and in that process they resorted to secure the weapons in the form of stones available at the scene of offence and attacked the deceased. Therefore simply because there was no premeditation on the part of the accused to attack both the deceased, they are not entitled for any benefit of doubt if the offence is otherwise proved against them. This point is accordingly held against the appellants. Therefore simply because there was no premeditation on the part of the accused to attack both the deceased, they are not entitled for any benefit of doubt if the offence is otherwise proved against them. This point is accordingly held against the appellants. Point No. 6: ( 27 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that non-mentioning of the names of several accused in Ex. P-1-complaint creates a doubt about the participation of all the accused in the commission of offence. Therefore they are entitled for a benefit of doubt on this count. In this connection, the law laid down by the Supreme Court strikes to our mind. ( 28 ) IN Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel v. State of gujarath the Supreme Court held that non- mentioning of the names of some of the accused by simply mentioning that there was an assembly of 16 to 17 persons is not fatal to the prosecution case. ( 29 ) IN Kowuri Surya Bhaskar Reddy v. State of A. P. the Supreme Court held that when all material facts relating to an incident are available, absence of the names of certain accused cannot be made one of the grounds to discard the testimony of the witnesses. ( 30 ) IN the complaint (Ex. P-1) given by p. W. 1 the names of A-1 to A-5 and Madiredy venkatramana Reddy were mentioned as the assailants along with 15 to 20 persons of brahmanakotkur. P. W. 1 further mentioned in Ex. P-1 that A-1 and Madireddi venkatramana Reddy instigated other accused to catch hold of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and other witnesses andbeat them. P. W. 1 further mentioned that he came to know that A-6 also participated in the commission of offence along with A-1. In the charge-sheet, the police did not show the name of Madireddi venkatramana Reddy as the accused, but, on the basis of 162 Cr. P. C. statements of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and others, included the names of A-7 to a-19. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against A-1 to A-19 under one head or the other, except A-9 whose case was separated, since he was absconding and not arrested by the police as on that date. P. Ws. 1 to 4 gave the particulars regarding the participation of the accused and the overt acts attributed to them. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against A-1 to A-19 under one head or the other, except A-9 whose case was separated, since he was absconding and not arrested by the police as on that date. P. Ws. 1 to 4 gave the particulars regarding the participation of the accused and the overt acts attributed to them. In this regard, it may be convenient if we refer to the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 4 regarding the role played by each accused and the section of law that is going to be attracted on the basis of the roles attributed to each them. ( 31 ) P. W. 1, the de facto complainant, deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 10-45 a. m. by the time D-1, D-2, P. Ws. 2 to 4, himself and others reached the sence of offence on motorcycles, two lorries and one blue colour jeep came in the opposite from the direction of Kurnool. The jeep was stopped across the road obstructing the passage to the motorcycles. The two lorries were also stopped on the road by the side of the jeep. About 15 to 20 persons got down from the jeep and the lorries. A-1 to A-4, a-6, A-7 and A-16 were among those who got down from the vehicles along with the remaining accused present in the courit. A-1 to A-4 and some others dragged D-1 and D-2 from the motorcycle to the left side of the road by beating and throwing them on the road. A-1 instigated all the accused by uttering "ee Naakodukulanu Rallotho Kotti champandira". A-2, A-3, A-6 to A-8, A-16 and some other picked up napa stone slabs from loose stonewall kathuvagoda of the field and threw on D-1. At the same time, A-4, a-5, A-12, A-18 and some others accused picked up the same type of stones and threw them on D-2. In the meanwhile A-1 and madireddi Venkataramana Reddy instigated other accused pointing out other witnesses and himself to attack them. On that shouting p. Ws. 2 to 4, himself and others returned to his house at Nandikotkur and informed to his brothers-in-law and inmates of the house about the occurrence. ( 32 ) IT is the specific evidence of P. W. 1 that a-1 to A-8, A-12, A-16, and A-18 participated in the commission of offence along with others. On that shouting p. Ws. 2 to 4, himself and others returned to his house at Nandikotkur and informed to his brothers-in-law and inmates of the house about the occurrence. ( 32 ) IT is the specific evidence of P. W. 1 that a-1 to A-8, A-12, A-16, and A-18 participated in the commission of offence along with others. ( 33 ) IN the cross-examination, P. W. 1 stated that he knows A-1 to A-8, A-12, A-16 and a-18. During the course of evidence when the court asked him to identify A-8, A-12, a-16 and A-18 he correctly identified them in the court. But, he conceded that he did not mention the names of A-7, A-8, A-12, A-16 and A-8 in Ex. P-1 complaint. The police have not conducted test identification parade of other accused. He further conceded that he did not give the descriptive particulars of accused persons whose names he does not know either in the complaint Ex. P-1 or in his 161 Cr. P. C. statement. ( 34 ) P. W. 2 - Erram Bhaskar Reddy a resident of West Prthakota Village deposed that by the time he reached the scene of offence along with P. Ws. 1,3,4, D-1 and D-2 and others on motorcycles, they observed one jeep and two lorries coming in the opposite direction and after reaching the sence, the jeep and the lorries were stopped on the road. Then A-1 to A-8 and other accused present in the court got down from the vehicles and pulled both the deceased from their motorcycles, dragged them, beat them and threw them on the road. A-1 instigated other accused by uttering "ee naakodukulanu Napa Ralla tho Kotti Champandi ra". He further deposed that A-6 to A-8 and other accused persons picked up napa stones and threw them on the deceased persons. A-1 also instigated others pointing out him and other witnesses and uttered "ee NAA kodukulanu Pattukoni Veseyendi RA" and the other accused chased them. They returned back to the house of P. W. 1 and informed about the occurrence to the inmates of the house. He did not give the names of other accused and stated that he does not know the other accused persons by their names and he did not give their descriptive particulars. He further deposed that no identification parade of accused persons whom he knows by faces was conducted. He did not give the names of other accused and stated that he does not know the other accused persons by their names and he did not give their descriptive particulars. He further deposed that no identification parade of accused persons whom he knows by faces was conducted. He denied a suggestion that p. W. 1, himself, P. Ws. 3 to 4 and others did not witness the occurrence and that after knowing about the occurrence they in consultation of Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy brought Ex. P-1 into existence. ( 35 ) P. W. 3 a resident of Lakshmipuram village and an agriculturist deposed that on the fateful day by the time they reached near the scene of offence at about 10-45 a. m. they noticed one jeep and two lorries coming in the opposite direction and their stopping across the road obstructing the way to all their motorcycles. The accused present in the court were among the persons who got down from the vehicles on the fateful day. According to him, out of all the persons got down from the vehicles, five or six persons each caught hold of D-1 and D-2 separately, dragged both of them and pushed them on. the road. He further deposed that A-1 instigated other accused saying that "ee Naa kodikulanu Rallatho Kotti Champandira" immediately A-2 to A-9, A-11, A-14 and 3 or 4 others threw napa stones on D-1 and D-2. He further deposed that in the meanwhile "" a-1 instigated other accused by shouting "vallanu Kooda Pattukoni Vesyendira" i. e. , catch hold of the witnesses and attack them. P. W. 3 is able to give the names of ten accused as mentioned above, but did not give the names of other accused. He denied a suggestion that at the instance of Byreddi Rajasekhar reddy he deposed falsely. ( 36 ) P. W. 4, Kadumuru Nagi Reddy of nandikotkur, an agriculturist, deposed that he knows some of the accused by their names and some of them by their faces. On the fateful day by the time they reached near the sence of offence,one blue jeep and two lorries came from the opposite direction and stopped across the road obstructing the motorcycle of both the deceased from proceeding further. A-1 and about 15 to 20 of his followers got down from the vehicles. The accused present in the court were among them. A-1 and about 15 to 20 of his followers got down from the vehicles. The accused present in the court were among them. Some of the accused caught hold of D-1 and D-2, pulled them from the motorcycle and pushed them on the road. A-1 instigated other accused by uttering "ee Naa Kodukulanu Rallatho Kotti champandira . He further deposed that A-4 to A-8, A-10, A-13, A-15 to A-17 and five others picked up stones and threw them on d-2. He further deposed that A-1 also instigated other accused pointing out him and other witnesses and shouting that "veelani Kooda Pattukoni Veseyendi RA". Therefore, they returned to Nandikotur to the house of P. W. 1 due to fear of accused and informed the inmates of the house. As per the evidence of this witness, 10 persons as mentioned above have participated in the commission of offence. ( 37 ) THE version of P. Ws. 1 to 4 is establishing the presence of A-1, A-4, to A-8. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 established the presence of A-2 and A-3 at the scene. Though p. W. 1 stated about the presence of A-12, a-16 and A-18, at the scene of offence, there is no corroborative evidence from other witnesses about their presence at the scene, except A-16, about whose presence P. W. 4 corroborated with the evidence of P. W. 1 p. W. 2 did not speak about the presence of any of A-9 to A-19 at the time of occurrence. Though P. W. 3 stated about the presence of a-9, A-11 and A-14, there is no corroboration from other witnesses to his evidence about their participation. Though P. W. 4 stated about the presence of A-10, A-13, A-15 and a-17 there is no corroborative evidence from any of the witnesses about their presence at the scene of offence. ( 38 ) SINCE there was no sufficient corroborative evidence from the prosecution in respect of A-10 to A-19, the learned Sessions judge expressed a doubt about their participation in the commission of offence and acquitted them under Section 235 (1) cr. P. C. ( 39 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, however, held that as there was sufficient corroboration from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 the prosecution established the respective charges framed against A-1 to A-8. P. C. ( 39 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, however, held that as there was sufficient corroboration from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 the prosecution established the respective charges framed against A-1 to A-8. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly held a-1 to A-8 guilty for the respective charges levelled against them. ( 40 ) AFTER going through the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 4 we are in complete agreement with the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution established the presence and participation of A-1 to A-8 in the commission of the offences at the time of occurrence and they are not entitled for the benefit of doubt on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of A-10 to A-19 at the time of occurrence. This point is accordingly answered against the appellants who are a-1 to A-8 before the Sessions Court. Point No. 7: ( 41 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since P. Ws. 1 to 4 are partisan witnesses, it will be very dangerous to automatically accept the evidence of those witnesses and their evidence has to be weighed with suspicion. ( 42 ) THERE is interesting development of case law on this aspect also. ( 43 ) IN Ashok Kumar Pandey (3 supra) the supreme Court held that the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a partisan or interested or both, if otherwise the same is found to be credible. ( 44 ) IN State of U. P. v. Ramswaroop the supreme Court held that it is wrong to ignore the testimony of eye-witnesses by stating that they are either partisan witnesses or close relatives of the deceased. There is no rule of law to the effect that the evidence of partisan witnesses cannot be accepted. The fact that the witnesses are associated with the faction opposed to that of the accused by itself does not render their evidence false. Interested evidence is not necessarily false evidence. Therefore, merely because the eyewitnesses are associated with one faction or the other, their evidence should not be discarded and it should no doubt be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. Interested evidence is not necessarily false evidence. Therefore, merely because the eyewitnesses are associated with one faction or the other, their evidence should not be discarded and it should no doubt be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. ( 45 ) IN Baitullah v. State of U. P. the Supreme court held that the evidence of an interested witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is an interested one and it is normally expected that a witness would not leave out real culprits and rope in innocent persons. ( 46 ) IN Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar the supreme Court held that even if a legal portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to the end. A maxim Falsus in uno, falsus inmnibus has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. It has to be appraised in each and every case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects. ( 47 ) IN Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab the supreme Court held that merely because one portion of evidence of eye-witnesses is disbelieved does not mean that the court is bound to reject all of it. Non-acceptance of eye-witnesses account regarding involvement of the co-accused in the offence would not render their evidence in respect of involvement of the accused suspect. ( 48 ) IN Sukhdev Yadav v. State of Bihar the supreme Court held that if the evidence in its entirety appears to be trustworthy it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of presence of minor variations in evidence. ( 49 ) IN the light of the above legal position, we wish to examine whether it can be safe to accept the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4. ( 50 ) P. W. 1 is the son of D-2. ( 49 ) IN the light of the above legal position, we wish to examine whether it can be safe to accept the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4. ( 50 ) P. W. 1 is the son of D-2. According to him, both the deceased were followers of byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy an M. L. A. of telugu Desam Party. There is political rivalry between A-1 and Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy. Mr. Rajasekhar Reddy defeated A-1 s uncle by name Mandra Gidda Reddy in 1994 assembly Elections. During the election period A-1 and his followers asked D-2 to support Congress candidate and if he fails to support and make Vysy a community people to support the Congress candidate, he has to face the consequences. But D-2 openly supported and actively worked for the success of Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy. Since the time Rajesekhar Reddy got elected as top M. L. A. , A-1 and his followers bore grudge against D-2. According to the further version of P. W. 1, A-1 suspected that Byreddi rajasekhar Reddy and his followers were responsible for the kidnap and killing of madireddi Sambasivareddy and in retaliation the accused killed D-1 and D-2. ( 51 ) IN the cross-examination P. W. 1 stated that he is not a sympathizer of Byreddi rajasekhar Reddy, but he is liking the developmental activities of Rajasekhar reddy since 2 or 3 years prior to the occurrence. P. W. 1 further stated in the cross- examination that prior to 1994 the father of rajasekhar Reddy was a Congress M. L. A. from Nandikotkur constituency and at that time A-1 and A-6 were the followers of the father of Rajasekhar Reddy. He further stated that during 1994 elections Rajasekhar Reddy shifted from Congress party to Telugu Desam while A-1 and A-6 remained in the Congress party. It was suggested to P. W. 1 that the followers of Rajasekhar Reddy attempted to kill A-1, A-6, and their associates prior to the date of this occurrence. ( 52 ) THE above information furnished by p. W. 1 discloses a fact that both the deceased were strong supporters of Byreddi rajasekhar Reddy and A-1, A-6 and other accused were the supporters and followers of Gidda Reddy. We have already held that the prosecution established the presence of a-1 to A-8 at the time of occurrence. ( 52 ) THE above information furnished by p. W. 1 discloses a fact that both the deceased were strong supporters of Byreddi rajasekhar Reddy and A-1, A-6 and other accused were the supporters and followers of Gidda Reddy. We have already held that the prosecution established the presence of a-1 to A-8 at the time of occurrence. But, at the same time, there is no material placed by the accused through their witnesses or by eliciting from the prosecution witnesses that p. W. 1 consulted Byreddi Rajasekhar Redd/ and Ex. P-1 complaint was prepared as per his directions implicating all the accused in this case. There are no material contradictions in the evidence of P. W. 1 to suspect the truthfulness of his evidence and to disprove his presence at the time of occurrence. We have no hesitation to hold that P. W. 1 witnessed the occurrence and there is no material to hold that the appellants-accused were falsely implicated in this case. ( 53 ) P. W. 2 a resident of West Prathakota and an agriculturist is an independent witness and not a factionist or a political rival of the accused. Except making a suggestion that he did not witness the occurrence, the accused could not elicit any material to hold that P. W. 2 is a partisan witness. We therefore, have no hesitation to hold that P. W. 2 is an independent witness and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that he is an independent witness. ( 54 ) P. W. 3 a resident of Lakshmipuram village. He was not attributed with any political affiliation or faction background, except making a suggestion that he is a partisan of Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy, the appellants-accused could not elicit any thing from this witness to attribute any bias towards them. The learned Sessions Judge therefore rightly held that P. W. 3 is also an independent witness and the truthfulness of his evidence cannot be doubted. We find no grounds to interfere with the said finding of the learned Sessions Judge and we hold that the evidence of P. W. 3 can be safely accepted without any suspicion. ( 55 ) P. W. 4 stated in his cross-examination that a false criminal case was registered against him and D-1 for attacking the police station. We find no grounds to interfere with the said finding of the learned Sessions Judge and we hold that the evidence of P. W. 3 can be safely accepted without any suspicion. ( 55 ) P. W. 4 stated in his cross-examination that a false criminal case was registered against him and D-1 for attacking the police station. He further stated that another criminal case was also filed against him and some others alleging that they attacked the jinning factory of A-1 and injured his gunman. He further stated that he is a sympathizer of Telugu Desam Party and not a follower of Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy. He denied a suggestion that he is a strong follower of Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy, that he did not witness the occurrence and that the case was foisted against the accused at the instance of Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy. ( 56 ) THE appellants-accused, except citing the solitary incident of this witness allegedly attacking the jinning mill of A-1 and causing injury to his gunman, could not elicit any further information during his cross- examination to establish that he is a partisan witness. The accused did not elicit any further information as to how long back the said case was registered against this witness and what was the result. In the absence of those particulars and in view of the contention of this witness that the cases were foisted against him, he cannot be branded as a partisan witness. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly accepted the evidence of this witness and we are not inclined to differ with the view of the learned Sessions Judge. ( 57 ) P. WS. 1 to 4 belong to various places. They have mentioned in their evidence that they gathered in the morning at a namakaranam function of the grandson of one Viswanadha Shetty at kanyakaparameswari Temple, Nandikotkur and all of them along with the deceased decided to proceed to Kurnool to attend the marriage of the daughter of one Soodireddy rangareddy. Accordingly they proceeded on the motorcycles together from nandikotkur and on the way this incident occurred. Though the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the witnesses did not produce the invitation cards for namakaranam function and Wedding, there was no suggestion to these witnesses that no such functions took place. Accordingly they proceeded on the motorcycles together from nandikotkur and on the way this incident occurred. Though the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the witnesses did not produce the invitation cards for namakaranam function and Wedding, there was no suggestion to these witnesses that no such functions took place. The witnesses with one voice gave the names of the persons who invited them and the nature of function for which they were requested to attend. Simply because the witnesses did not produce the invitation cards it cannot be said that they are not telling the truth. The people belonging to various places congregating at one place at Nandikotkur and proceeding together to reach Kurnool is a clear indication that they received invitations from the persons who were performing the functions and proceeded to go for that purpose. Except a bald suggestion that the accused were falsely implicated, the presence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 at the time of occurrence was not improbabilished by the accused by eliciting any kind of information against their version. The learned Sessions Judge therefore rightly held that P. Ws. 1 to 4 witnessed the occurrence. We have no doubt in our mind about the truthfulness of the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 4 about the involvement of A-1 to a-8 in the commission of offence. This point is accordingly answered. Point No. 8: ( 58 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that there are many laches in the investigation done by the police which led to any amount of doubt about the truthfulness of the story narrated by the prosecution. Therefore, the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt. ( 59 ) IN this regard, we shall refer to certain judgments of the Supreme Court. ( 60 ) IN Sukhdev Yadav (10 supra) the supreme Court held that in the event of there being credible evidence on record, a lapse on the part of the prosecution, if do not have any effect of causing any prejudice to the accused, it cannot be used to impeach the testimony of eye-witnesses. ( 60 ) IN Sukhdev Yadav (10 supra) the supreme Court held that in the event of there being credible evidence on record, a lapse on the part of the prosecution, if do not have any effect of causing any prejudice to the accused, it cannot be used to impeach the testimony of eye-witnesses. ( 61 ) IN State of Rajasthan v. Kishore the supreme Court while dealing with the offence under Section 302 IPC held that the mere fact that the Investigating Officer committed irregularities or illegalities during the course of investigation would not and does not cast doubt on the prosecution case nor trustworthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that count. In the case covered by the above decision, the supreme Court also made the following observation: the High Court has not considered the evidence in legal perspective, but felt it doubtful like doubting Thomas with vaccinating mind to accept the prosecution case for invalid reasons and wrongly gave to the respondent the benefit of doubt. ( 62 ) IN State of U. P. v. Hari Mohan the supreme Court while noticing laches in the investigation and considering the observations of the trial court that the investigating Officer did not collect some valuable evidence though available apparently for ulterior purposes, that the conduct of the Investigating Officer indicated that he was negligent and irresponsible and accordingly the Supreme Court made the following observation: we are at pain to place on record our displeasure regarding the conduct of investigation in the case. ( 63 ) THE Supreme Court while making the above observation held that the defective investigation cannot be made a basis for acquitting the accused, if, despite such defects and failures of the investigation, a case is made out against all the accused or any one of them. ( 64 ) IN Allarakha K. Mansoori v. State of gujarath the Supreme Court while dealing with Sections 160,161 and 162 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 held that the defective investigation by itself cannot be made a ground for acquittal while observing that the defects in the investigation holding it to be shaky and creating doubts also appears to be the result of the imaginative thought of the trial court and the tiral court was not justified in holding that the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded late by the police and that there was any chance of manipulation. ( 65 ) IN the case on hand, The non-seizure of the lorries in which the accused alleged to have travelled, motorcycles of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and other persons, non-recording of the statement from the doctor at the Government hospital, Nandikotkur, non-seizure of wedding card from any of the houses of both the deceased or P. Ws. 1 to 4 are some of the laches in the investigation. But after going through the entire record we, are of the view though there are some laches in the investigation made by the Inspector of Police, they are relating to the subsequent events and as there is sufficient direct evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the laches, if any, in the investigation become insignificant and they will not have any bearing on the strength of the prosecution case and the appellants are not entitled for any benefit on this ground. ( 66 ) BOTH the deceased met with homicidal death. The evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 11, the doctors who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead bodies of the deceased, and the contents of Exs. P-6 and p-7 are amply establishing that both the deceased were done to death with heavy blunt weapons like M. Os. 1 to 9. The assailants adopted an ingenious method of causing injuries to the heads of both the deceased without wasting their time by causing injuries to non-vital parts of the body. Though the assailants did not use the traditional weapons, the manner of attack and the nature of injuries caused to both the deceased clearly indicated that they have determined to do away with the lives of both the deceased without giving any scope for survival. The number of injuries found on the bodies of both the deceased is also indicating the anguish of the assailants towards the deceased. ( 67 ) P. WS. 1 to 4 have categorically stated about the participation of A-2 to A-8 in dragging both the deceased from the motorcycle, throwing them on the road and beating them with stones. The number of injuries found on the bodies of both the deceased is also indicating the anguish of the assailants towards the deceased. ( 67 ) P. WS. 1 to 4 have categorically stated about the participation of A-2 to A-8 in dragging both the deceased from the motorcycle, throwing them on the road and beating them with stones. The accused could not find any contradictions in the statements given to the police by these witnesses, except one contradiction in the statement of p. W. 1 about the alighting of A-1 to A-5, cherukucherla Raghuramaiah, Madireddi venkatramana Reddy and 15 to 20 others from the jeep. Though P. W. 1 gave only the names of A-1 to A-6 and Madireddi venkatramana Reddy in Ex. P-1 complaint, he has given the names of A-2 to A-8 in the statement recorded by the police along with the statements of P. Ws. 2 to 4 which were recorded on the same day and P. Ws. 1 to 4 have categorically stated in the evidence about the participation of A-2 to A-8 in killing both the deceased. The learned Sessions judge discussed this aspect at length and ultimately came to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of A-2 to A-8 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 147, 302 IPC and convicted them for those offences. After going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge we arc convinced with the reasoning given by him in finding A-2 to A-8 guilty for the offences mentioned above. Since the learned sessions Judge imposed minimum sentence of imprisonment for life, it needs no interference. Point No. 9: ( 68 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since Ex. P-1 doesn t disclose instigation by A-1 before the attack on both the deceased, there is no scope to say that a-1 is liable for punishment under Sec. 302 read with 109 IPC. He therefore requested that the conviction given by the Sessions court for the offence under Section 302 read with 109 IPC may be set aside. ( 69 ) P. W. 1 stated in his evidence that A-1 came along with others in the jeep and two lorries to the scene of offence. He therefore requested that the conviction given by the Sessions court for the offence under Section 302 read with 109 IPC may be set aside. ( 69 ) P. W. 1 stated in his evidence that A-1 came along with others in the jeep and two lorries to the scene of offence. A-1 along with A-2 to A-4, A-6, Cherukucherla raghuramaiah, and some others dragged both the deceased from the motorcycle to the left side of the road by beating and throwing them on the road. Then, A-1 instigated all the accused saying "ee Naa Kodukulann Ralla tho Kotti Champandi Raa". Accordingly, other accused attacked both the deceased. and caused injuries to them with stones. It was also stated by P. W. 1 in his evidence that A-1 and one Madireddi Venkataramana Reddy instigated other accused showing P. W. 1 and other witnesses to beat them by uttering ee naakodukulanu Pattukoni veseyendi Raa . P. Ws. 2 to 4 also repeated the same version which was given by P. W. 1 in his evidence attributing instigation to A-1 before beating both the deceased and after beating them pointing P. Ws. 1 to 4 and others. Simply because there was no specific mention in ex. P-1 about the instigation by A-1, we are not inclined to interefere with the finding of trial court. The conviction of A-1 under section 302 read with 109 IPC is accordingly confirmed. Point No. 10: ( 70 ) THE evidence adduced by the prosecution amply establish that A-1 has a grouse against D-1 and D-2 for not supporting congress-I candidate Gidda Reddy in 1994 general Elections and he warned them with dire consequences, if they fail to support the congress-I candidate. It is also established through evidence that both the deceased supported and worked for Byreddi rajasekhar Reddy to win the Assembly election as a Telugu Deasm Party candidate. The prior day incident of kidnapping madireddi Sambasiva Reddy and his murder alleged to be committed by Byreddi rajasekhar Reddy and his followers also added fuel to the grouse of A-1 against both the deceased and Byreddi Rajasekhar Reddy. On the fateful day A-1 and his followers were proceeding in jeep and lorries towards nandikotkur since there was information about the death of Madireddi Sambasiva reddy and the tracing of his dead body within the police limits of Nandikotkur. On the fateful day A-1 and his followers were proceeding in jeep and lorries towards nandikotkur since there was information about the death of Madireddi Sambasiva reddy and the tracing of his dead body within the police limits of Nandikotkur. It was a coincidence that both the deceased were proceeding towards Kurnool in the opposite direction along with P. Ws. 1 to 4 and others on motorcycles which led to confrontation at the sence of offence. Since a-1 and his men were more in number, they could prevent both the deceased and their men to proceed further and attacked both the deceased by availing the opportunity of their unexpected meeting with them. There is ample evidence from the prosecution establishing that A-1 was a member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of killing both the deceased. Though there was a charge under Sec. 147 ipc framed against A-1, the learned Sessions judge inadvertently or due to oversight observed that no charge under Section 147 ipc was framed against A-1. Since there is sufficient evidence available on record about this charge also, we are inclined to give a finding on this charge and A-1 is accordingly found guilty under Section 147 IPC, he is convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years. ( 71 ) IN the light of the above discussion and findings, we record the following results in the appeals. ( 72 ) IN the result, Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2002 preferred by A-5, Criminal Appeal no. 148 of 2002 preferred by A-1, A-6 to A-8, and Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2002 preferred by A-2 to A-4 are dismissed b y confirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court. ( 73 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 842 of 2002 preferred by the State challenging the acquittal of A-10 to A-19 is dismissed. ( 74 ) THE delay of 151 days in filing Criminal appeal (SR) Mo. 16462 of 2002 is condoned. Criminal Appeal (SR) No. 16462 of 2002 preferred by the State questioning the non- finding of trial court for the charge under section 147 IPC against A-1 and non- conviction of A-2 to A-8 under Section 148 ipc is allowed in part insofar as it relates to a-1. A-1 is found guilty under Section 147 ipc, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years. A-1 is found guilty under Section 147 ipc, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years. The sentence of a-1 under Sections 302 read with 109 IPC and under Section 147 IPC shall run concurrently.