Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the Rs. IPC). The appellants who were A-1, A-2, A-5, A-8, A-11 and A-12 have been found guilty of various offences. A-1, A-2 and A-8 were found guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. A-5, A-11 and A-12 were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. A-9 was acquitted by the High Court by the impugned judgment. A-3 died during the course of appeal. A-4, A-6, A-7, A-10 and A-13 to A-19 were found to be not guilty of the charged offences and they were acquitted by the trial Court.
(2.) Factual scenario giving rise to the present appeals is as follows: There are political grudges and ill feelings between the groups led by A5 and Chandra Tirupathaiah in R.R. Palem village. Al, A3, A4 and A6 to A19 are the followers of A5. P.Ws. 1. to 3 belong to the group of Chandra Tirupathaiah. The wife of A5 and the mother of Chandra Tirupathaiah i.e. Chandra Punnamma contested in the Panchayat elections and was elected as Sarpanch of the village. Since then the group of the accused was waiting for an opportunity to prove their supremacy in the village. While so, on 14.1.1998 at about 7.00 A.M., A.6 and Kilari Manoz and Chintagumpala Vamsee went to the Pathuri lands of Kilari Venkata Subbamma and others to graze their cattle. After some time at about 7.30 A.M., Chintagumpala Sunil, Chandra Murali and Chintagumpala Manohar also went to the Pathuri lands of Kilari Venkata Subbamma and others for answering the calls of nature and they met A.6 and Kilari Manoz and Chinthagumpala Vamsee there. A6 enquired from Chandra Murali about the cricket match, as to whether it was ended as draw by calling as "cricket raddaindira". Then, he replied in the same manner by calling A6 as "match raddu kaledura". By hearing such reply, A6 felt offended and grew wild against Chandra Murali and picked up quarrel with him, and there was a scuffle between them. Kilari Manoz went to the village and informed about the quarrel between A6 and Chandra Murali to the elders and A.2, in spite of the request made by Chintagumpala Manohar not to do so. On the same day, at about 12.00 noon, A2 went to the house of Chintagumpala Manohar and kicked him on his stomach for his prevention and interference with Kilari Manoz when he was proceeding to the village for informing the quarrel to the elders. P.W.3, who is the father of P.W.6, on his return from the field came to know about beating of his son by A2, he went to Ramalayam Street questioning loudly about the illegal and high-handed act of A2. P.Ws.1 and 2 and Chandra Venkateshwarlu (hereinafter referred to as the Rs. deceased) tried their best to convince P.W.3 to adjust the matter. A6, who was passing through the street, heard the cries of P.W.3 and picked up quarrel with him. At about 1.00 p.m. Al and A3 to A19 armed with deadly weapons beat the deceased and also injured P.Ws.1 to 3. A-1 beat P.W.1 with an iron rod on his head. A12 also beat P.W.1 with a stick on his shoulder. A5 beat P.W.2 with a stick on his head and hands. A-1 beat P.W.3 with an axe on his head and A- 11 beat P.W.3 with a stick on his eyebrows. A2 beat the deceased with a stick on his back. A-1 also beat the deceased with an iron rod on his head and all over the body. As a result the deceased fell down with injuries and became unconscious. PWs 1 to 3 fell down with injuries. All the accused hurled stones against P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased. All the accused left the place thereafter. At about 5.00 p.m. P.Ws.1 to 3 went to Lingasamudram Police Station, where P.W.1 gave a statement to the police. P.W.9 recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr. No. 1 of 1998 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and sent the injured-P.Ws.1 to 3 to the Government Hospital for treatment. P.W.11 took up investigation, examined P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.14 visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators-Chandra Venkateswarlu and Choppara Kotaiah, seized sticks, iron rod and stones under a cover of observation report and sent the deceased to the nursing home of P.W.13 for treatment. P.W.13 after examining the deceased declared him dead. On giving death intimation, provision of law was altered to Section 302 IPC. P.W.14 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W.12, the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kandukur conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P10-postmortem certificate opining that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to injury No. 2. On completion of investigation police laid the charge sheet for the above offences. Accused persons pleaded innocence. In order to establish the accusations prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Out of them PWs 1 to 3 were stated to be injured eye witnesses. PW-4 was stated to be another eye witness. Stand of the accused before the trial Court was that the best witness would have been the father of the deceased who was not examined for reasons known to the prosecution. There was inordinate delay in filing the first information report and PWs 1 to 3 are interested witnesses. It was also submitted that in the Ext.P-1 report details have not been given. The trial Court did not find any substance in the plea and as noted above convicted some of the accused persons. In appeal except A-9 the appeal filed by rest of the accused persons was dismissed.
(3.) According to learned Counsel for the appellants the details of the overt act were not given in the FIR. Therefore, there were considerable improvements in the evidence of the witnesses. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged after a long time. It is also submitted that Section 34 IPC has no application to the facts of the present case.;