- (1.) These appeals arise from the following facts: The deceased, Y. Penchal Reddy and accused No. 1. P. Yellaiah along with several other persons had occupied some government land in Bhagat Singh Nagar and were residing in tenements that had been raised by them. A dispute had however arisen between the group represented by the deceased and that by P. Yellaiah with regard to the sale of plots. In the elections to the association, the deceased was elected as President and the group represented by P. Yellaiah was defeated. It appears that on account of the bitter relations between the two groups, one Mallaiah belonging to the group of the accused was killed in 1993 wherein the deceased was named as the main accused. He was however acquitted by the trial court. A few days prior to the present incident some violence had taken place and a meeting being held by the deceased was disturbed by the members belonging to the accused party. On 18th March, 1997 at 10.00 A.M., PW 1 Mohd. Hussain accompanied by the deceased was going to Chinthal and when they reached near Omkar Rice Mill, a group of four persons aged about 25 years came from the opposite direction and after putting chilly powder in the eyes of the deceased and PW 1, inflicted multiple stab injuries on the deceased. Mohd. Hussain PW 1 rushed the injured to the C.D.R. Hospital immediately but he was declared dead on arrival. He then went to the police station which was adjoining the hospital and gave a statement at about 11 A.M. which was recorded by PW 11 for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of the I.P.C. On completion of the investigation, a charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was framed against the accused G. Raju ( A-4), Hari Lal (A-5), M.A. Sathar (A-6) and Shivaji (A-7) and under Section 302 read with 109 was framed against accused P. Yellaiah (A-1), K. Satyanarayana (A-2), and M. Ashok (A-3).
(2.) The prosecution in support of its case placed reliance on the evidence of 11 witnesses and several other pieces of incriminating evidence. The trial court held that PW 1 and PW 4, Mohd. Hussain and Sathi Reddy respectively were eye witnesses to the incident as the latter too had been walking just ahead of the deceased at the time of the attack. The Court observed that the test identification parade had been conducted wherein PW 1 had identified four of the accused i.e. A-4 to A-7 whereas PW 4 had identified only two of them i.e. A-4 and A-7 in Court PW 1 had identified only A-3 to A-6 meaning thereby that A-3 had been identified for the first time in court and that A-7 who had been identified at the time of the test identification parade had not been identified in the court. The Court also observed that PW 4 had identified only A-4 and A-7 at the test identification parade but in the witness box he had identified A-4 to A-7 as the culprits. The trial court accordingly held that the evidence as to the involvement of A-3 to A-7 was doubtful and that there was no evidence whatsoever to connect A-1 and A-2 to the offence. The trial court accordingly ordered that: A4 to A6 are found guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C and they are convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. The other accused are not guilty for the offences charged against them and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The accused Nos. 2 and 7 shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.
(3.) Two appeals were thereafter taken to the High Court by the three convicted accused. The court opined that both the eye witnesses were consistent insofar as the involvement of A- 4 was concerned. The court then held that insofar as A-5 and A-6 were concerned, the eye witnesses account at the test identification parade did incriminate them and PW 1 had asserted that he had been able to see the accused as he had been wearing spectacles at the time when the chilly powder had been thrown in his face. The court also held that there was no reason whatsoever to disregard the test identification parade proceedings insofar as these accused were concerned, as they had been conducted in the presence of a Magistrate and the suggestion by the defence that the accused had been shown to the eye witnesses before the parade could not be believed. It was also found that the presence of the two witnesses at the spot at the relevant time had to be accepted, more particularly as PW 4 had no substantial connection with either of the parties and was truly an independent witnesses. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the judgment and order of the trial court was maintained. It is in these circumstances that the present appeals are before us by way of special leave.;