http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 685-686  of  1992

PETITIONER: RACHAPALLI ABBULU & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF A.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/04/2002

BENCH: R.P. Sethi & K.G. Balakrishnan

JUDGMENT:

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.

       18 persons were charge-sheeted before the Court of Sessions, East Godavari Division  at Rajahmundry in Andhra Pradesh, for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and for other allied offences.  One accused, by name,  Rachapalli Bhanuraju was absconding and his case was separated and only 17 persons were tried by the Court.  Out of them, Sundarapalli Apparao (A4), Sundarapalli Kama Raju (A5), Vajrapu Satyanarayana (A9), Ghetla Veeraraju (A13), Chetla Suribabu (A14) and A17 were acquitted of all charges.

Arellasattabbayi (A7) was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC for causing injury to the wife of Thota Abbayi (D-2).  Rachapalli Abbulu (A2), Chakk idala Nageswara Rao (A3), Nitta Subbarao (A6), Chakkidala Papamma (A8), Mokamati Jayara (A10), Mokamati Satyanarayana (A11), Sundarapalli Veeraraju (A15) and Sanku Daveedu Raju (A18), were found guilty of offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for having caused  the death of Thota Nagaraju (Deceased 1) and Rachapalli Abbulu (A2), Chakkidala Nageswara Rao (A3), Mokamati Jayara (A10), Mokamati Satyanarayana (A11), Injamalla Yesudasa (A12), Arella Bhadra Rao (A16) and Sanku Daveedu Raju (A18) were found guilty of the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for having caused the death of Thota Abbayi (Deceased 2).  In all, 10 accused persons were found guilty  of the  offences punishable under Section  302 read with Section 149, IPC.   They went up in   appeal before the High Court and by the impugned judgment their appeals were dismissed.    Aggrieved by the same,  the present appeals are preferred.   Briefly stated, the facts of the case are thus.

       The appellants and the two deceased persons belonged to the same community,  but they  led two different  factions. One group was under the leadership of deceased Thota Naga raju (D-1) and the other group was  led by absconding first accused Rachapalli Bhanaraju.  All th ese persons were the residents of Patha Peddapuram village.  There used to be frequent quarrels between these two groups of persons and some criminal cases were registered against them.  I n view of   frequent quarrels  between these two groups, a police picket was posted in the loc ality. However, due to the parliamentary elections in the  area, the armed police picket was withdr awn from the village on 25.12.1984.  Taking advantage of this situation, on 27.12.1984 at about  1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

p.m., the accused persons came to the residence of Thota Nagaraju (D-1).  At that time Thota Nagaraju (D-1) was sitting in the verandah of his house and was taking his mid-day meal.  Al l the accused persons,  armed  with spears, knives and sticks started attacking him.  Thota Nagara ju (D-1) tried to run away, but he was chased and surrounded by the accused.  According to the prosecution, Rachapalli Bhanuraju (A1) and Rachapalli Abbulu (A2) caused various injuries on the body of  Thota Nagaraju (D-1).     PW2, the wife of  Thota Nagaraju (D-1), tried to inte rvene in order  to rescue her husband,  but she was also beaten up by Rachapalli Abbulu (A2).  After causing injuries to Thota Nagaraju (D-1), the accused went to the house of his brother Thota Abbayi (D-2).  On seeing the group of persons, Thota Abbayi (D-2) ran away  to a nearby publ ic lavatory, but all the accused persons  managed  to  drag him out of the lavatory and caused multiple injuries on his person.    The   accused  persons   also caused  injuries  to the w ife      of Thota Abbayi  (D-2).

       At about 1.30 P.M., the  Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddampuram,  [PW-19] received information regarding the incident.   He immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and f ound the two dead bodies lying there.   He recorded Ex. P-1 statement made by PW-1 and returned t o the police station and registered Crime No. 210/1984 at Peddampuram Police Station.  PW-20, the Inspector of Police, Peddampuram, who was on election duty,    reached   the place of incident at 3.30 PM and took over the investigation.   He  inspected  the scene of offence a nd prepared a sketch of the same.   He    held  inquest over the dead body of the two deceased persons.   PW-2 and PW-3,   who were injured,   were examined by Assistant  Surgeon attached to Peddampuram Govt.  Hospital  and   issued  Ex.  P-8  & P-9 wound certificates.   PW-15 Assistant Surgeon conducted the post mortem examination on the body   of   deceased   Thota Nagaraju,  while PW-16 conducted the post-mortem examination   on   the body of deceased Thota Abbayi.   Multiple ante-mortem injuries  were  found on  both the dead bodies.

       On 9.1.1985, accused A2 to A6, A11, A15, A16 & A18 were arrested.  Later,  the other accused were also  arrested.   The first accused, however,  was  reported  absconding.    Ch arge sheet  was   filed  against   all the accused.  On the prosecution side PW1 to PW20 were examined and   on the  defence side DW1 to DW3 were examined.    Out   of  the  prosecution witnesses, PW1 to PW10  were examined as eye  witnesses.

       PW-1, Itha Merry, is the daughter of deceased Thota Nagaraju.  She deposed that A-1, A-2, A-6 & A-15 caused injuries on deceased Nagaraju by knife and other weapons.   She also deposed that A-2 & A-11 beat her mother, PW-2.   PW-2, Thota Appayamma,  is the wife of deceased Thota Nagaraju.    She  also narrated the entire incident and deposed that she had seen A-2, A-6, A-15 and A-3 causing injuries to deceased Thota Nagaraju.   Evidence of these two witnesses is further corroborated  by  PW-5 Bathiya Yohan, PW-6 Nuthalapati China Appara o and PW-7 Thota Daveedu.   PW-10 also deposed regarding the entire incident.    As  regards injuries  caused  to  deceased Thota  Abbayi,   PW-3 and PW-4, in their depositions,   gave details regarding the   injuries caused   to the deceased.   Their   evidence  also  is   fu lly supported     by   PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-10.

       The  evidence   of   the  eye witnesses is  fully corroborated by the medical eviden ce that the two deceased persons sustained extensive injuries.  The evidence of  PW-15, Dr. (Mrs.) Swarnalatha, who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of  Thota Nagaraju, shows  that    D-2  had sustained    as   many   as    21   injuries   on   his   body.    M ost      of  these injuries were incised wounds and both bones of the left hand of the deceased were completely cut off at the wrist joints.   PW-15  also examined injured PW-2, Thota Appayamma, who had sustained two contusions, one on the right elbow joint and the other on the right  back of t he chest at the infra scapular region.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

       PW-16, Dr. P. Subbarao, conducted the post mortem examination on the body of deceased Thota Abbayi.    He had also  sustained as many as  12  injuries on his body and mo st of the injuries were incised wounds.  Injury no. 3 was on the right side of the neck just 2- 1/2" below the injury no. 2 and carotid arteries  and  internal jugular veins were cut.

       From   the extent  of  injuries  sustained   by  the two  deceased  persons, it is c lear that the ocular version  given by  the various witnesses is true and correct.

           There is overwhelming evidence on the prosecution side  to show that the appella nts came to the place of incident in a group and caused various injuries to deceased  Thota Naga raju and Thota Abbayi.   These witnesses were extensively cross-examined,     but nothing could b e brought out in their evidence to show that they were either not present or that they had not  seen the incident.   Their evidence also would show that most of the accused were armed with  var ious deadly weapons and that they  had come to the scene of occurrence  with the purpose to cause the death of the two deceased persons and to  cause injuries to others.   It is proved beyon d doubt that the appellants formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and their common objec t was clearly discernible from the way in which they caused the death of the two deceased persons.

The  defence side examined DW-1, a notary public who gave evidence to the effect that PW-1 to PW-10  had  visited his office and  sworn to affidavits,  the contents of  which  we re      read out  by him  to these witnesses and  that  those affidavits were filed before the Sessions C ourt. DW-2 was a Municipal Councilor, who claimed to have identified these witnesses before DW-1. DW-3 is a finger print expert who was examined to prove the thumb impression of these witnesses in  the  various affidavits filed before the court.   In these affidavits, PW-1 to  PW-10 had stated that  they did not see the occurrence.   However, when confronted with the affidavits , these  witnesses denied  them and  chose to depose before the court.   The practice adopted  by the defence side in getting the affidavits of these witnesses in advance is to be deprecated . That,  in a way,   amounts   to  an attempt  aimed at dissuading the witnesses  from speakin g truth before the court.   The trial Judge as well as the High Court rightly rejected the def ence contention.   These witnesses appear to be illiterate persons.   Their so-called affidavits  must have been either cooked-up or obtained by playing a fraud on them.   This type of interferen ce in the criminal justice shall not be encouraged and is to be viewed seriously.

There was some semblance of doubt regarding the presence of some of the accused at the place of occurrence and those accused were  given the benefit of doubt  by  the Sessions Court.

We  do not  find any reason to interfere with the findings  recorded by   the   Sessions Courts,   which were  affirmed by the High Court.   These appeals are   without   any  merit s  and are  dismissed accordingly.     The appellants who are on bail shall surrender to their  bai l  bonds to serve out the remaining   sentence.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

                                                       .J                                                         [ R.P. Sethi ]

                                                       .J                                                         [ K.G. Balakrishnan ] April  8,  2002.