NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 356-358 OF 1999

State of A.P.                                  ….Appellant

Vs.

Rayaneedi Sitharamaiah & Ors. …Respondents

WITH

S.L.P. [CRL.] NOS. 3788-3790 OF 1998

JUDGMENT

B.N. AGRAWAL, J.

1. Out of ninety four chargesheeted accused persons of the police case, who were

committed to the court of sessions to face trial, five persons died during trial

and  case  of  other  five  were  separated as  they  were  absconding.  Thus,  the

remaining  eighty  four  accused  persons  along  with  accused  persons  in  the

complaint case filed for the same occurrence and also committed to the court

of sessions to face trial, were charged and tried and by judgment rendered by

trial court, out of eighty four persons of police case,  five accused persons, viz.,

Rayaneedi Prasad [Accused No. 1, in short “A-1”], Chaganti Satyanarayana

[A-4], Chaganti Subbarao [A-7], Rayani Alias Gammathu Raghavaiah [A-23]

and Rayani Alias Gammathu Anjaiah [A-24] were convicted under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] and sentenced

to undergo imprisonment for life. They were further convicted under Section

148  IPC and  sentenced  to undergo rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  period  of

three years. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

Fifty  accused  persons  of  the  said  case,  viz.,  Rayannedi  Sitaramaiah  [A-2],

Chaganti  Nageswara  Rao  [A-5],  Vankayalapati  Laxminarayana  [A-11],

Yarlagadda  Arjunarao  [A-12],  Pothina  Raghavaiah  [A-13],  Yarlagadda

Butchinaidu [A-14], Daggupati Masthanarao [A-15], Daggupati Nagamna [A-

16],  Perni  Aajaiah  [A-17],  Perni  Pratap  [A-18],  Perni  Venkanna  [A-19],

Kondragunta  Narasimha  [A-21],  Jagarlamudi  Babi  [A-22],  Pothipa

Tirupataiah [A-27], Pothina Rangaiah [A-29], Jagarlamudi Sanjivaiah [A-31],

Jagarlamudi  Ramu  Alias  Radhakrishnamurthy  [A-32],  Pthina

Lakshminarayana  [A-33],  Perni  Venkatasubbaiah  [A-35],  Yarlagadda

Subbarao [A-36], Pothina Akkaiah [A-39], Goturu Alias Gottipati Lakshmiah

[A-40], Goturi alias Gottipati Venkateswarlu [A-42], Daggupati Kishore [A-

43],  Daggupati  Paparao [A-44],  Gottipati  Venkateswarlu  [A-45],  Daggupati

Hari  [A-48],  Pothina  Krishna  Murthy  [A-49],  Yarlagadda  Ramesh  [A-50],

Yarlagadda  Apparao  [A-52],  Kampalli  Veeranarayana  [A-55],  Pothina

Venkatesubbaiah  alias  Venkatasubbaiah  Chowdary  [A-56],  Pothina  Prasad

[A-57],  Daggupati  Brahmanaidu  [A-58],  Veerathu Prasad alias  Ramprasad

[A-59],  Rayaneedi  Venkateswarlu  [A-65],  Pothina  Ranganayakulu  [A-66],

Talluri  Paparao [A-67], Balija Subba Rao [A-68], Pothina Srinivasarao [A-

69],  Yarlagadda  Venkateswarlu  [A-72],  Yarlagadda  Singaiah  [A-73],

Yarlagadda Tirupataiah [A-76], Yarlagadda Veeranarayana [A-80], Mandava

Vithal  alias  Panduranga  Vithal  [A-82],  Gorantla  Tirupathaiah  [A-85],

Daggupati  Anjaiah  [A-86],  Pothina  Gnanayyagari  Subba  Rao  [A-91],

Nadendla  Papa  Rao  [A-92]  and  Jagarlamudi  Satyam  alias  Sriramulugari

Satyam [A-93], though acquitted of the other charges, were convicted under

Section 148, IPC and out of them four persons, viz., A-27, A-35, A-44 and A-65

were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment  for  a  period  of  six  months  whereas  the  remaining  forty  six

accused persons  undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.

The  remaining  twenty  nine  persons  of  the  police  case  and  other  accused

persons of the complaint case were acquitted of the charges.   

2. Three appeals were filed before the High Court against the judgment of the trial

court,  one by  fifty  persons  who  were  convicted under Section 148 IPC, another  by  five

accused persons who were convicted under Sections 302 and 148  IPC and the third appeal

by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging the order of  acquittal  in relation to twenty

persons,  viz.,  Yarlagadda  Nayugamma  [A-8],  Mandava  Radhakrishna  Murthy  [A-9],

Gorantla Anjaiah [A-10], Yarlagadda Udayabhaskara Rao [A-20], Pothina Mohana Rao [A-

28],  Yarlagadda  Anjaneyulu  [A-30],  J.  Ramu  [A-32]  Puvvati  Nageswararao  [A-37],

Yarlagadda Nageswara Rao [A-46], Charukuri Venkateswarlu [A-47], Yarlagadda Somaiah

[A-53],  Yarlagadda  Brahmaiah  [A-54],  Ganta  Tirupathaiah  [A-60],  Daggupati

Krishnamurthy [A-61], Yarlagadda Venkanna [A-62], Daggupati Rattaiah [A-63], Pothina

Laxminarayana [A-64], Chaganti Nayudamma alias Vaddila Nayudamma [A-74], Mandava

Venkatesubbaiah alias Subbarayudu [A-75],  and   Yarlagadda Krishna Murthy [A-90] all

of whom were accused in police case.   No appeal was filed in relation to the remaining  nine

acquitted accused persons of police case and acquitted accused persons of complaint case.

High Court allowed both the  appeals filed by the accused persons and acquitted them of the

charges  and  dismissed  the  appeal  filed  on  behalf  of  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  and

confirmed the order of  acquittal.  

3. Before this Court, three appeals have been filed by the  State of Andhra Pradesh  viz.,

Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1999 against the order of acquittal rendered by the High

Court in relation to fifty accused persons,  Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999 against

the  same  acquitting  five  persons  who  were  convicted  by  the   trial  court  under

Sections 302 and 148 IPC and the third being  Criminal Appeal  No.  358 of  1999

which  is  against the order whereby acquittal  of  twenty accused persons has been

confirmed by the High Court. Apart from filing the appeals by the State, on behalf of

the Tella Zedson [PW-1], three special leave petitions have been filed challenging the

same very order of acquittal which were registered as SLP [Crl.] Nos. 3788-90 of 1998

and the same were directed to be heard along with the said appeals.  

4. Prosecution case in short was that since long time past dispute was going on between

two  communities,  viz.,  Kammas  and  Madigas  [Harijans]  in  village  Karamchedu.

Members of the Kamma community were having grievances against the Madigas as

they were not giving due regard and not extending courtesy to them which was being

extended since time immemorial.  During assembly elections,  members of  Kammas

community  supported  Telugudesam Party  and  the  Madigas  Congress  Party.  The

immediate cause for the incident was that on 16.07.1985 at 3.00 pm A-69 took his

cattle  to  fresh  water  tank  at  Madigapalli,  which  is  commonly  known  as  Madiga

Kunta, and when he was taking out water therefrom for drinking of buffaloes, the

same was protested by Chandraiah [PW-21], upon which he was given a beating by

A-69.  At  that  time,  Munnangi  Suvartha  [PW-20],  who  was  also  present  there,

protested  whereupon  A-69  assaulted  her  also  and  at  that  point  of  time  Pandiri

Nageswara Rao [PW-76] intervened and pacified the matter. Feeling humiliated, A-

69 informed about the incident to his brother-in-law Rayaneedi Prasad [A-1].  Both

of them went to Madiga Kunta and started abusing PW-76, who is nobody else than

brother-in-law  of  PW-20.   At  that  time  A-1  and  A-69  were  pacified  by  PW-76,

thereupon  A-1  and  A-69  went  to  the  house  of  PW-20  along  with  Pothina

Thirupathaiah [A-27]  and others  and abused  and assaulted her  [PW-20].  On the

intervention of PW-76 the matter was again pacified.  A-1, A-69 and their relatives

who  belonged to  Kamma community  felt  humiliated  and they wanted to teach  a

lesson to the Madigas with the help of their caste-men.

5. Further  prosecution  case  was  that  on  17.07.1985  at  about  7.00  am  the  accused

persons went to Madiga Palli armed with spears, axes, crowbars and stout sticks with

an ulterior motive to commit offences.  When they arrived there deceased Duddu

China Vandanam     (D-1] was washing in a Kostam called “Dharmaraju Kostam”

near a church  when A-6, A-7, A-15 and A-16 upon the instigation of A-14, A-18, A-

36 to A-43, A-66, A-73, A-75, A-76 and A-77 assaulted D-1 with axes and spears. So

far as deceased Tella Moshe [D-2] is concerned, he is said to have been chased by A-

23 to A-25 and assaulted him with spear on his head as well as on his left leg by A-23,

with an axe on right leg and head by A-24 and with a stout stick on his left hand by

A-25. At that point of time upon the instigation of A-1, A-2, A-19, A-36, A-37 & A-77

to A-79;   A-3, A-14, A-16 and A-20 are said to have chased deceased Tella Muthaiah

[D-3] and assaulted him with a stout stick by A-3, with an axe by A-14 and with

spears by A-16 and A-20. Thereupon A-4, A-12 and A-23 to A-26 and some other

persons  are  said  to  have  chased  deceased  Tella  Yevasu  [D-4]  and  assaulted  him

indiscriminately with stout sticks by A-4, A-25 and A-26, with spears by A-12 and A-

23 and with an axe by A-24. Deceased Duddu Ramesh [D-5] is also said to have been

assaulted  by  the  accused  persons.  Thereafter  other  accused  persons  assaulted

Munnangi Ankaiah [PW-2], Manda Pentaiah [PW-5], Chunduru Doss [PW-6], Tella

Symon  [PW-7],  Nune  Visranthamma [PW-8],  Munnangi  Nageswara  Rao  [PW-9],

Tella  Yebu  [PW-10],  Vusurupati  Ramanamma [PW-11],  Tella  Solomon  [PW-12],

Tella Kanthamma [PW-13], Tella Mariyamma [PW-14], Munnangi Laxmaiah [PW-

15], Tella Victoria [PW-16], Duddu Sulochana [PW-17], Benthat Veeraiah [PW-18],

Daddu Yesu [PW-19], Duddu Veeramma [PW-22], Thella Leelamma [PW-24], Pilli

Mastan  [PW-25],  Tella  Mukkanti  [PW-46],  Tella  Moshe  [PW-47]  and  Pandiri

Nageswara Rao [PW-76]. The said five deceased persons succumbed to their injuries.

Although  one  more person  is  said  to  have  received  injuries  but  it  is  not  known

whether  he  received  injuries  during  the  course  of  the  present  occurrence  as  no

accused  person  in  the  present  case  has  been  charged  for  his  murder.  After  the

occurrence the accused persons fled away.

6. A First Information Report [hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR’] was lodged in which the

police  upon  registration  of  the  case  took  up  investigation  and  upon  completion

thereof  submitted  chargesheet  against  ninety  four  accused  persons  whereupon  a

complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate in which apart from ninety four

accused persons  against  whom chargesheet  was submitted names of  seventy more

persons were disclosed who were not sent up by the police. Learned Magistrate took

cognizance in both the cases and summoned accused persons of both the cases and

they were committed to the Court of Sessions to face trial.  

7. Defence of the accused persons was that they were innocent, had no complicity with

the crime and no occurrence much less the occurrence alleged had taken place but

they were falsely implicated on account of two factions in the village.  

8. Trial in both the cases was taken up jointly and only one set of evidence was recorded

therein.  Prosecution  examined  104 witnesses  and  adduced  documentary  evidence.

Defence examined four witnesses and adduced documentary evidence. Some of the

accused persons had taken the plea of alibi.

9. During trial out of the accused persons of police case five persons died and cases of

five were separated, consequently 84 persons were tried along with accused persons

of complaint case. Upon conclusion of trial, out of 84 accused persons of police case,

trial court convicted five accused persons under Sections 302 and 148 IPC whereas

fifty accused persons under Section 148 IPC. The remaining 29 accused persons of

police  case  and  the  other  accused  persons  of  complaint  case  were  acquitted.  On

appeal being preferred by the convicted accused persons their convictions have been

set  aside  whereas  appeal  filed  by  the  State  challenging  the  order  of  acquittal  in

relation to 20 persons of police case has been dismissed by the High Court whereupon

the present appeals have been filed by the State by special leave and special leave

petitions by Tella Zedson [PW-1] as stated above.

10. Out  of  fifty  respondents  of  Criminal  Appeal  No.  356  of  1999  five  persons,  viz.,

respondent no. 19 - P.V. Subbaiah [A-35], respondent no. 25 - D. Papa Rao [A-44],

respondent no. 28 - P. Krishna Murthy [A49], respondent no. 35 - D. Brahmanaidu

[A-59] and respondent no. 48 - P.G. Subba Rao [A-91] died. Likewise, in Criminal

Appeal No. 357 of 1999 respondent no. 2 - C. Satyanarayana [A-4], respondent no. 3 -

C. Subba Rao [A-7] and respondent no. 4 - R. Raghavaiah [A-23] died during its

pendency. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 1999 is concerned, therein also three

persons, viz., respondent no. 1 - Y. Naidumma [A-8], respondent no. 3 - G. Anjaiah

[A-10] and respondent no.  15 -  Y. Venkanna [A-62] died.  In this way these three

appeals in relation to the aforesaid eleven respondents abated. In these appeals out of

seventy five respondents eleven persons having died only sixty four persons remain.  

11. In  Criminal  Appeal  No.  358  of  1999,  we  are  required  to  consider  cases  of  17

respondents only, three having died.  In relation to these seventeen respondents the

High Court has confirmed order of acquittal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the  appellant  State  could  not  point  out  any  infirmity  either  in  the  judgment  of

acquittal rendered by the trial court or the same confirmed by the High Court. In our

opinion, the view taken by the trial court and upheld by the High Court in relation to

these accused persons was reasonable one and same cannot be said to be perverse in

any manner as such no interference by this court is called for.

12. Now we are required to consider cases of forty seven respondents in these appeals,

forty five respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1999, viz.,  A-2, A-5, A-11,  A-

12, A-13 A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-19, A-21, A-22, A-27, A-29, A-31, A-32, A-

33, A-36, A-39, A-40, A-42, A-43, A-45, A-48, A-50, A-52, A-55, A-56, A-57, A-58, A-

65, A-66, A-67, A-68, A-69, A-72, A-73, A-76, A-80, A-82, A-85, A-86, A-92, A-93,

and two respondents, viz. A-1 and A-24 in Criminal Appeal No.357 of 1999.

13. First we proceed to consider the cases of two respondents, viz., R. Prasad [A-1] and

R. Anjaiah [A-24] in Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999, who are respondent nos. 1 & 5

therein respectively.  

14. So far as A-1 is concerned, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence of

three  witnesses,  viz.,  Munnangi  Ankaiah  [PW-2],  Pilli  Mahalaxmi  [PW-58]  and

Duddu Subbulu [PW-59]. PW-2 has stated about his own assailant and assailants of

D-4 and D-5. So far as A-1 is  concerned, as per prosecution case,  he was not the

assailant of D-1 for which he was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC.

PW-2 has nowhere stated in his evidence that this accused was present at or near the

place where D-1 was assaulted. According to his evidence he could not see who killed

D-1. This being the position, the evidence of this witness can be of no avail to the

prosecution for convicting this accused for the charge of murder of D-1.  

15. The  next  witness  in  this  regard  is  Pilli  Mahalaxmi  [PW-58].  This  witness  has

disclosed the name of Rayaneedi Prasad [A-1] for the first time in Sessions Court

after seven years of the date of the alleged occurrence as he did not disclose his name

in his statement made before the police as would appear from the evidence of two

investigating officers, viz., D. Sridhar Reddy [PW-102] and E. Purna Prakash [PW-

104] wherein they have categorically stated that this witness did not even mention

before them the name of A-1. Thus, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of this

witness so far the charge of murder against this accused is concerned.

16. Last witness is Duddu Subbulu [PW-59] who in his evidence in court has nowhere

disclosed  the  name of  A-1  as  such  for  convicting  this  accused  for  the  charge  of

murder his  evidence  cannot  be  relied upon.  Thus  to prove the charge of  murder

against  A-1 evidence of PWs. 2, 58 and 59 having not been found to be credible, and

there being  no other evidence against him, we are of the view that the High Court

was quite justified in acquitting him of the charge under Section 302, IPC.  

17. Coming now to the case of Rayani alias Gammathu Anjaiah [A-24] who has been

acquitted by the High Court of the charge under Section 302 IPC it may be stated

that to prove the charge under Section 302, IPC against this accused the prosecution

has placed reliance upon the evidence of  two witnesses,  viz.,  Munnangi  Abraham

[PW-4] and Manda Pentaiah [PW-5].  

18. Munnangi Abraham (PW-4) stated that a large number of Kammas, including all the

accused persons, were gathering under the  neem tree and were armed with spears,

axes,  sticks  and  casurina  sticks.  Apprehending  that  something  untoward  may

happen, when the witness started running towards the tank, accused Chatanti Subba

Rao (A-27), Puvvada Rattaiah Nageswara (A-57) and Puvvada Rattaiah (A-91) were

running behind him.  The witness then stated that D-2 and D-3 were running and

accused  Yarlagadda  Butchinayudamma  (A-14),   Gammathy  Anjaiaha  (A-24),

Pothina  Krishna  Murthy  (A-49),  Yarlagadde  Siviah  (A-51),  Daggupeti

Brahmanayudu  (A-58)  armed  with  sticks,  axes  and  spears  were  chasing  them

shouting that they should be done to death.  During the course of cross-examination,

it was suggested to the witness that in his statement made before the police he did not

state that he was chased by the accused persons which suggestion was denied by him

though Investigation Officer, PW-104 deposed that PW-4 did not state before him

that some of the Kammas chased him. No suggestion was given to the witness that he

did  not  make any statement before the police that  the aforesaid accused persons,

including A-24, chased D-2 and D-3.  Thus the statement of this witness in court that

the aforesaid accused persons, including A-24, chased D-2 and D-3 is quite consistent

with his statement made before the police and shows complicity of A-24 to prove the

charge of murder, as such we do not find any ground to reject his evidence so far

charge of murder against A-24 is concerned.

19. Another witness to prove the charge of murder against A-24 is    Manda Pentaiah

[P.W. 5]. This witness categorically stated in his evidence that nine accused persons

named by him including A-24 stabbed Tella Moshe (D-2) with spear when he was

hiding himself in a manure heap. During the course of cross examination the witness

admitted that he did not state before the police or C.B. C.I.D Police about the nine

Kammas assaulting D-2, while he was hiding himself in a manure heap.  From the

aforesaid statement it cannot be said that the witness had not stated before the police

that the nine Kammas, including A-24 assaulted D-2, rather it appears that he did not

state before the police that at the time when D-2 was assaulted by the nine Kammas

he was  hiding  himself  in  manure heap.   Thus  we find  that  the statement  of  this

witness  in  court  that  A-24 and other  eight Kammas assaulted D-2 with  spears  is

consistent  his  with  previous  statement  and  the  same  is  corroborated  by  medical

evidence.  

20. Thus, we are of the view that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond

reasonable doubt against A-24 so far as the charge of murder of D-2 is concerned and

the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court acquitting him of the charge

under Section 302 IPC suffers from the vice of perversity.      

21. Now we  proceed  to  consider  cases  of  47  accused  persons,  i.e.,  forty  five  accused

persons of Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1999 and two persons of Criminal Appeal No.

357 of 1999 in relation to the charge under Section 148 I.P.C.  A-1 has been named by

Tella Mariyamma [PW-14], Tella Victoria [PW-16], Duddu Sulochna [PW-21], Tella

Bennu [PW-45], Tella Singaiah [PW-51], Tella Bujji [PW-53], Duddu Issack [PW-

57],  Duddu Makaiah [PW-66],  Duddu Bhaskar  Rao [PW-72],  Pandiri  Nageswara

Rao [PW-76], Tella Papaiah [PW-78] and Kommuri Lyman [PW-79] as member of

unlawful  assembly.   A-2  was  identified  by  Munnangi  Laxmaiah  [PW-15],  Tella

Victoria  [PW-16],  Tella  Salomi  [PW-30],  Tella  Singaiah  [PW-51]  and  Duddu

Makaiah [PW-66] who have specifically stated that this accused was present at the

place  of  occurrence  and  was  armed  with  lathi.   A-5  was  been  named  by  Tella

Soloman [PW-12], Tella Yesobu [PW-32] and Tella Subba [PW-55] as a member of

the unlawful assembly and was armed with a stick. So far as A-11 is concerned, no

witness stated that he was member of unlawful assembly. A-12 was identified by PW-

38 and PW-68 as a person who was present at the place of occurrence with a spear.

A-13 was identified by Tella Moshe [PW-47] and Duddu Prasad [PW-68] as a person

present at the time of the occurrence with a spear.  A-14, according to the evidence of

Tella Sundaramma [PW-34] and Tella Moshe [PW-38] was armed with an axe and

was  present  at  the  time  of  the  occurrence.  A-15  was  identified  as  a  member  of

unlawful  assembly armed with a stick by Duddu Veeramme [PW-22] and Duddu

Prabhakar [PW-23].  About A-16, Tella Moshe [PW-47] and Duddu Makaiah [PW-

66] have stated that this accused was member of the unlawful assembly.  A-17 was

identified by Duddu Makaiah [PW-66] and Kommuri Lyman [PW-79] as a person

who was present at the time of the occurrence with other accused persons.  A-18 was

identified by Pilli Mahalakshmi [PW-58] and Duddu Bennu [PW-61] as a member of

the unlawful assembly who was armed with axe.  A-19 was identified by Munnangi

Laxmaiah [PW-15] and Benthat Beeraiah [PW-18] as a person who was at the place

of occurrence along with other accused persons.  A-21 was identified by Pilli Mastan

[PW-25] and PW-58 as a person who was present at the place of occurrence along

with other accused persons.  About A-22, Tella Mariyamma [PW-14] stated that he

was member of the unlawful assembly and was armed with a stick. So far as A-24 is

concerned,  he  was  identified  as  a  member of  unlawful  assembly  as  well  besides

assailant by PW-4 and PW-5. A-27 was identified by Tella Yebu [PW-10], Munnangi

Suvatratha [PW-20] and Tella Bennu [PW-45] as a person armed with an axe.  A-29

who was identified by Tella Prakasam [PW-35] and Tella Sundaramma [PW-38] as a

person who was armed with spear.  A-31 was identified by PW-38 as a person armed

with an axe.  A-32 has been named by PW-15 as a person present along with accused

person. So far as A-33 is concerned, no witness has stated that he was a member of

the unlawful assembly.  A-36 was named by Tella Ammaiah [PW-62] who was not

examined by the police and no explanation is forthcoming for the same. A-39 was

identified by PW-15, PW-35 and Duddu Yacob [PW-42] as a person who was present

along with other accused persons and armed with spear.  So far A-40 is concerned no

witness  stated that  he  was  member of  unlawful  assembly.  A-42 was identified  by

Duddu Prabhakar [PW-23], Thella Leelamma [PW-24], Tella Sujanamma [PW-26],

PW-28,  PW-35  and  Duddu  Marthamma  [PW-48]  as  a  member  of  the  unlawful

assembly.  A-43 was identified by PW-15, Tella Ankamma [PW-63] and Kommuri

Lyman [PW-79] as a person present with other accused persons.  A-45 was identified

to be member of unlawful assembly by a solitary witness Tella Prakasanm [PW-35].

A-48 was named by PW-3 and PW-47 as a person who was present along with other

accused persons.  A-50 was identified by PW-13, PW-16, Duddu Sulochana [PW-17]

and PW-79 as a member of  the unlawful  assembly.   A-52 was identified by Tella

Anandam [PW-39] as a person present with other accused persons.  A-55 was named

by PW-17 and Duddu George [PW-41] as a person present along with other accused

persons.  A-56 was identified by PW-15 and Tella Singaiah [PW-51] as a member of

unlawful assembly.  A-57 has been named by Tella Kanthamma [PW-13], PW-15 and

Tella Anandam [PW-39] as a person present along with other accused persons.  A-58

was identified by the solitary witness PW-79.  A-65 was identified by Tella Yacob

[PW-31] and Duddu Issack [PW-57] as a member of the unlawful assembly.  A-66

was identified by PW-14 and Tella Leelamma [PW-24] as a person present along with

other  accused  persons.   So  far  A-67 is  concerned,  no  witness  stated  that  he  was

member of the unlawful assembly.  A-68 has been identified by Duddu Bennu [PW-

61] as a member of unlawful assembly.  A-69 was named by PW-15, PW-20, Katti

Chandraiah [PW-21], PW-35, Duddu Masthnamma [PW-40], PW-45 and Tella Bujji

[PW-53] as a person present along with other accused persons.  A-72 was identified

by Tella Symon [PW-7] and Benthat Veeraiah [PW-18] as a member of  unlawful

assembly.  A-73 was named by Pilli Mastan [PW-25] and Tella Yesobu [PW-32] as a

person  who  was  present  with  other  accused  persons.   A-76  was  identified  as  a

member of the unlawful assembly by PW-32 alone.  Likewise A-80 was identified as a

member of unlawful assembly by PW-57 alone.  A-82 was identified by PW-15 and

PW-41 to be a person who was present along with the accused persons.  A-85 was

named by Tella Rebunu [PW-36], PW-39 and PW-58 as a member of the unlawful

assembly.   A-86 was identified by PW-13, PW-16, PW-17, PW-41 and Tella  Yesu

[PW-74] as a person who was present with other accused persons.  A-92 is said to

have been identified by PW-18 alone.  So far A-93 is concerned no witness stated that

he was member of the unlawful assembly.   

22. In this way, out of the aforesaid 45 respondents of Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1999

who were facing charge under Section 148 I.P.C.,  A-22 (Respondent No-13), A-31

(Respondent  No-16),  A-32  (Respondent  No.-17),  A-45  (Respondent  No-26),  A-52

(Respondent  No-30),  A-58  (Respondent  No.  34),  A-68  (Respondent  No-39),  A-76

(Respondent No-43), A-80 (Respondent No-44) and A-92 (Respondent No-49)  have

been identified as a member of unlawful assembly by a solitary witness, as such it is

not safe to place reliance thereon in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

So far A-11 (Respondent No. 3), A-33 (Respondent No-18), A-40 (Respondent No-22),

A-67 (Respondent No-38) and A-93 (Respondent No-50) are concerned, no witness

stated that they were members of unlawful assembly.  As such it is not possible to

convict them for the charge under Section 148 I.P.C.  As regards, A-36 (Respondent

No-20) it appears that the sole witness examined during trial was not examined by the

Police  and in absence of  any explanation  for the same, it  is  not  possible  to place

reliance upon his evidence.  

23. Thus, we are of the view that the order of acquittal passed by the High Court in

relation to the aforesaid sixteen accused persons of Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1999

acquitting them of the charge under Section 148 I.P.C. cannot be said to be perverse

in any manner.   

24. So  far  as  the  remaining  accused  persons,  viz.,  twenty  nine  accused  persons  of

Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1999 and two, viz., A-1 and A-24 of Criminal Appeal No.

357 of 1999 are concerned, having perused the evidence of witnesses, we are of the

view that prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge under Section 148 I.P.C.

and High Court was not justified in acquitting them.  

25. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1999 against respondent Nos. 19, 25, 28, 35

and 48 is held to have abated in view of the fact that they died during the pendency of

appeal and the appeal is dismissed against Respondent Nos. 3, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22,

26, 30, 34, 38, 39, 43, 44, 49 and 50. The appeal against the remaining twenty nine

respondents is allowed, the impugned order of acquittal passed by the High Court

acquitting them of the charge under Section 148 IPC is set aside and the order of

their conviction under Section 148 recorded by the trial court is restored. Criminal

Appeal  No. 357 of 1999 in relation to respondent Nos.  2,  3 and 4 is held to have

abated in view of the fact that they died during the pendency of this appeal and the

appeal filed against respondent No. 1 is dismissed so far as charge under Section 302

I.P.C. is concerned but allowed in relation to charge under Section 148 I.P.C., the

judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court in relation to the charge under

Section 148 I.P.C is set aside and his conviction under Section 148 I.P.C. recorded by

the Trial Court is restored. But so far as appeal in relation to respondent no. 5 is

concerned,  the  same  is  allowed,  the  impugned  order  passed  by  the  High  Court

acquitting him of the charges under Section 302 and 148, IPC is set aside and the

order of Trial Court convicting him under Section 302 and 148, IPC is restored. Bail

bonds of the said respondents of Criminal Appeal  Nos. 356 of 1999 and Criminal

Appeal Nos. 357 of 1999 in relation to whom conviction recorded by Trial Court has

been restored, are cancelled and they are directed to be taken into custody forthwith

to serve out the remaining period of sentence for which the matter must be reported

to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial

court. The other respondents of these appeals are discharged from the liability of bail

bonds. Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 1999 in relation to respondent nos. 1, 3 and 15 is

held to have abated in view of the fact that they died during the pendency of this

appeal. The appeal in relation to the remaining seventeen respondents is dismissed

and they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds.  

26. In view of the afore-mentioned order passed in the appeals, it is not necessary to pass

any further order in the Special Leave Petition [Crl.] Nos. 3788-90 of 1998 which are

accordingly disposed of.

…………………… J. [B.N. AGRAWAL]

…………………… J. [G.S. SINGHVI]

December 19, 2008 NEW DELHI.