http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1393 of 2004

PETITIONER: Mallappa Gori Malla Reddy @ Reddy M.R.

RESPONDENT: State of Andhra Pradesh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/04/2008

BENCH: B.N. AGRAWAL & G.S. SINGHVI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O  R  D  E  R CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1393 OF 2004

       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

       The sole appellant, along with fourteen other accused persons, was tried  and, by judgement rendered by the Trial Court, Parlapalli Chinna Narasimhareddi  [Accused No.6], Mallappagari Chinna Mallareddi alias Usanna [Accused No.7],  Thathireddi Mallesureddi [Accused No.9], Parlapalli Mallareddi [Accused No.10],  Sangati Chennakrishnareddi [Accused No.13] and Gundladurthy Pedda Subbareddi  [Accused No.14] were acquitted, whereas appellant was convicted under Section 302  of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’] and sentenced to  undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo  further imprisonment for a period of one month.   He was  also  convicted under  Section 148 I.P.C. and ....2/-

- 2  Section 25(1B)(a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous  imprisonment for a period of three years on each count and to pay fine of Rs.100/-  under Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, in default, to undergo further  imprisonment for a period of one month.  Thathireddi Sreenivasulreddi [Accused  No.2] was convicted under Section 302/114 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo  imprisonment for life and was awarded fine of Rs.100/-; in default, to undergo further  imprisonment for a period of one month.  Accused No.2 and Mallappagari Mallareddi  [Accused No.3], Sangati Gangireddi [Accused No.4], Pamireddi Venkataramanareddi  [Accused No.5], Gundladurthy Subbareddi [P.W.8], Parlapalli Pedda  Narasimhareddi [P.W.11] and Parlapalli Ramakrishnareddi [P.W.15] were convicted  under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a  period of three years.  Accused Nos.3,4,5,8,11 and 15 were also convicted under  Section 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay file  of Rs.100/-; in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month.  Mallappagari Mallareddi [Accused No.3] and Pamireddi Venkataramanareddi  [Accused No.5] were further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and  sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay  fine of Rs.100/-; in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one  month.  Sangati Gangireddi [Accused No.4], Gundladurthy Subbareddi [Accused  No.8], Parlapalli Pedda Narasimhareddi [Accused No.11] and Parlapalli  Ramakrishnareddi [Accused No.15] were further convicted under Section 3 of the  Explosive  Substances  Act  and sentenced to undergo rigorous ....3/-

- 3 - imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-; in default, to  undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month.  All the sentences, however,

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

were ordered to run concurrently.  Trial against Pamireddi Gangireddi @ Mobbodu  [Accused No.12] abated, as the same died during the pendency of the trial.  Against  the order of acquittal, no appeal was filed before the High Court, whereas, on appeal  being filed by the eight convicted accused persons, including the appellant, while  other seven accused persons have been acquitted, the convictions of the appellant  have been upheld.  Hence, this appeal by special leave. The prosecution case  has been supported by the evidence of four eye witnesses, namely, Sangati Chinna  Veera Reddy [P.W.1], Karnati Gangi Reddy [P.W.2], P. Narayanamma [P.W.3] and  K. Gangi Reddy [P.W.4].  All the aforesaid four witnesses have received injuries and  their evidence is consistent with the first information report.  That apart, the  prosecution case has been corroborated by the medical evidence.  In our view, the  High Court was quite justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant and no  ground for interference by this Court is made out.         The criminal appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed.