- (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High court whereby the High court affirmedthe order of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellants under s. 302/149 Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life.
(2.) Initially, there were 11 accused including the appellants. The prosecution case in brief was that the appellants and other accused attacked the deceased Sontireddy Venkata Reddy, a lecturer in a college at Warangal inflicting injuries on him to which he succumbed. All the accused including the appellants were prosecuted and tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal on a charge of murdering the deceased Sontireddy Venkata Reddy. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the appellants and others before the learned sessions Judge, accused 6 died and, consequently, the proceedings against him abated. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 7 to 11 but convicted the appellants and accused 3 and 4. On appeal, the high court acquitted the accused 3 and 4 but maintained the convictions and sentences of the appellants. Hence this appeal.
(3.) Mr G. Narashimulu learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has strenuously urged that in view of certain discrepancies between the statements of PWs 5 and 9 during the inquest and the FIR (Ex. P-l) , the High court should have disbelieved the prosecution case and acquitted the appellants. It is true that Public Witness 5 in his statement made at the time of inquest only implicated accused I, 3 and 5 and one brother-in-law of accused 6. Further it was stated by him that the accused were armed with iron rods and sticks with which they inflicted injuries on the deceased. The opinion of the doctor who had conducted post-mortem on the deceased was that the injuries could have been caused only with a blunt weapon. On the other hand, in the FIR (Ex. P-l) it was stated that accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 were armed with sticks with which the injuries were inflicted on the deceased. In view of the discrepancies, it is urged by the learned counsel that the High court should have acquitted the accused. A similar contention was made before the High court. The High court, however, besides these witnesses, has placed reliance upon the evidence of Public Witness 2. It has been found by both the courts below that Public Witness 2 was all along with the deceased and was an eye-witness of the incident. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the high court should have disbelieved the evidence of Public Witness 2 because he is a relation of the deceased. In our opinion this contention has no substance at all. It may be that Public Witness 2 was a relation of the deceased but that did not preclude the High court from placing reliance on his evidence.;