KAKI RAMESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)In these two appeals the six appellants have challenged the judgment of the High court of A. P. by which the conviction as awarded on them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Vijayawada was upheld. Of the six appellants, three in Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 1982, who are Kaki Ramesh, Dadimadugula Pedda Baburao and Dadimadugula Chinna Baburao, have come to be convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code; the remaining three, namely, Senagasetti Subba Rao; Paladugu Veerayya and Senagasetti Durga Prasad, who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 1982, have been found guilty under S. 302/149.
(2.)The prosecution case which need be noticed for the disposal of the appeals is that the six appellants along with many others had attacked one Raja Babu on the night of 3/8/1979 while the deceased and his brother Public Witness 1, nephew Public Witness 2 and mother Public Witness 3 were sleeping in their house. The attackers were armed with axes, spears and sticks. On hearing the shouts, Public Witness 1 opened the door when the members of the unlawful assembly entered forcibly in the house of the deceased and when he was about to get up from his bed, appellant 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 1982, namely, Kaki, cut him with an axe on his neck and asked others to drag the deceased out. Onthis being done, he was attacked by two other appellants of this appeal with axes. On seeing this, PWs 1 and 2 ran away to a distance; Public Witness 3 the old mother having fled away a little earlier. After the accused party left, these PWs came back to the place where the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. Town police station Vijayawada was informed about the matter soon thereafter, which set the police in action and after conclusion of the investigation, the six appellants were booked for trial and came to be convicted as aforesaid, which convictions were upheld by the High court on appeals being preferred.
(3.)Shri Natarajan, learned Senior Advocate, who has addressed principally on behalf of the appellants has raised four submissions to persuade us that the conviction of the appellants was not warranted by law. These contentions are that there being no clinching matter on record about any lamp being inside the room where the first assault on deceased was made, the identity of the assailants is a matter of doubt. Secondly no blood having been found inside the room, the occurrence had not taken place in the manner urged by the prosecution. It is then submitted there being no abrasion on the back of the deceased, the story of his having been dragged out is doubtful. The final submission is that the room being small, all the members of the unlawful assembly could not have entered the same, as is the prosecution case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.