- (1.) The appellant was tried and convicted by the Special Judge, Warangal, for various offences under the Hyderabad Penal Code. These correspond to Sections 302, 307, 347 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentences awarded under the first two sections respectively being death and life imprisonment, and separate sentences of two years' rigorous imprisonment under the latter two. The two learned Judges of the High Court, who heard the appeal differed Manohar Pershad. J upholding the convictions and the sentences and M. S. Ali Khan, J. acquitting the appellant. The third learned Judge A. Srinivasachari, J. on reference which was occasioned by the difference of opinion agreed with Manohar Pershad. J Leave to appeal to this court was granted by the two agreeing Judges.
(2.) The occurrence which led to the prosecution of the appellant took place on September 13, 1948, which was the beginning of the first day of Police action in Hyderabad. The appellant, who was Reserve Inspector of Police stationed at Mahbubabad at the material time, according to the Prosecution story, visited two villages Rajole and Korivi accompanied by a number of Razakars and the Police. He arrested Janaki Ramiah (P. W. 5) and Nerella Ramulu (P. W. 9) at Rajole and took them to Korivi. Outside this village in the waste land he spotted four men going to their fields and shot at them with his gun. The deceased Mura Muthiah and Somanaboyamma Muthandu (P. W. 2) were injured in the knee, while the other two Kotta Ramiah (P .W. 3) and Kanchan Latchiah (P. W. 4) were uninjured. The latter two hid themselves behind the babul trees. P. W. 2 also ran away and hid himself in the bajra' fields a few yards away but the deceased remained, where he fell. The appellant searched for the three persons who had run away. He caught P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 and brought them to the spot where the deceased was lying but he could not trace P. W. 2. The appellant seeing that Mora Muthiah was not dead, shot him in the chest and killed him. the whole party consisting of P. W. 3 P. W. 4, P. W. 5and P. W. 9 then went to Korvi village. The appellant stayed at the house of one Maikaldari in the village and spent the night there. Maikaldari and one Berda Agiah (P. W. 8) both asked the appellant why he had arrested P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 for they were not Congressmen. Upon this the appellant released them. The Prosecution story proceeds that the father (P. W. 1) of the deceased saw the appellant in the night of the 13th September and asked him why he had killed his son. The appellant without saying more advised him to cremate the dead body. P. W. 1 borrowed wood from the people and cremated the body. Four months later the appellant went and stayed at the Government bungalow Korivi, sent for P. W. 1 and offered him Rs. 200/- as hush money for not disclosing the offence. The offer was refused. P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 who had been released told that father of P. W. 2 next morning that his son was lying injured in the 'bajra' field. He went and had P. W. 2 removed the hospital where his injuries were attended to. On the same morning the appellant, who had detained P. W. 5 and P. W. 9 in custody, asked them to pay Rs. 200/- when they would be released. P. W. 5 went with a constable to the house of P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 and borrowed Rs. 100/- from each of them. On this being paid he was leased. P. W. 9 was unable to pay any money and he was left off.
(3.) The defence was a denial of the offence. The appellant denied having gone to the village in question or having committed any of the offences attributed to him. He stated that he was posted at Mahbubabad in order to stop the subversive activities of the communists and that the witnesses being communists had falsely implicated him. He produced witnesses in defence.;