Full Judgment
N.V. Hanumanthappa, J.
1. When the Criminal Appeal No. 66/96 was taken up for arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants therein and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Criminal Appeal No. 65/96 which is pending before the learned single Judge is almost connected to Criminal Appeal No. 66/96 filed against the judgment and order in S.C. No. 222/92. S.C. No. 222/92 and S.C. No. 50/92 are the case and the counter case. Time, place and the alleged offence are same. Some of the witnesses in S.C. No. 222/92 are the accused in S.C. No. 50/92 and vice versa. To avoid confusion, both the learned counsel requested that the said appeal, viz., Criminal Appeal No. 65/96 pending before the learned single Judge may also be directed to be posted before this Bench to be heard simultaneously with Criminal Appeal No. 66/96. Sri C. Poornaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 65/66 submitted that he has no objection to hear the appeal simultaneously along with Criminal Appeal No. 65/96. That is how these two appeals are heard one after the other in order to understand the facts properly and of course, disposed of by separate judgments.
2. Now we have taken up Criminal Appeal No. 65/96 directed against S.C. No. 50/92.
3. The Inspector of police, Kanigiri, filed charge-sheet in this case against the accused 1 to 13 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Kanigiri, in which Court it was registered as P.R.C. No. 16/91. The Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Kanigiri by order dated 11-12-1991 committed the case to the Court of Session, Prakasam Division, Ongole. Originally the case was made over to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kandukur for disposal according to law. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Ongole for being tried along with another case which arose out of same transactions and which was disposed of in S.C. No. 222/96. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both sides, framed the following charges :
'Charge No. 1 : On 29-1-1991 at about 10 a.m. at Nalturi Gollappalli A-1 to A-13 were the members of unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly i.e., to kill L.Ws. 1 to 9 (Dabbugottu Nagain, Mithukula Srinivasulu @ Sreenu, Uppalapati Kondaiah, Muthukula Venkateswarlu, Mithukula Narsaiah, Pallapati Suryanarayana, Uppalapati Kondaiah, Mithukula Venkateswarlu and Pallapati Malakondaiah) committed the offence of rioting and at that time A-1 to A-13 were armed with deadly weapons i.e., iron rods, sticks and stone and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C.
Charge. No. 2 :- At the same time, same date and place stated in charge No. 1, A-1 to A-7 and A-9 to A-12 voluntarily caused hurt to L.Ws 1 to 9 (as stated their names in charge No. 1) by means of iron rods, sticks and stones and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324, I.P.C.
Charge No. 3 :- On the same date, time and place as stated in Charge No. 1, A-3 voluntarily caused grievous hurt to L.W. 4 (Mithukula Venkateswarlu) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
Charge No. 4 :- On the same date, time and place as stated in Charge No. 1, A-3 and A-4 voluntarily caused grievous hurt to L.W. 1, L.W. 2, L.W. 4 and L.W. 9 (Dubbugottu Nagaiah, Mithukula Srinivasulu @ Sreenu Mithukula Venkateswarlu and Pallapalli Malakondaiah) by means of iron rods and stones which are the instruments for stabbing used as weapons of offences likely to cause death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326, I.P.C.
Charge No. 5 :- On the same day, time and place as stated in Charge No. 1, A-1 to A-7 and A-9 to A-12 with common object did an act i.e., beat P.Ws. 1 to 9 with such intention and under such circumstances, that if by that Act A-1 to A-7 and A-9 to A-12 caused the death of L.Ws 1 to 9 and would have guilty of murder and that caused hurt to the said L.Ws 1 to 9 by the said act and that thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. r/w 149, I.P.C.
4. The said charges were read over and explained to the accused but they pleaded not guilty. Then evidence was let in. On prosecution side, 13 witness were examined as P.Ws. 1 to 13 and 14 documents were marked as Exs. P-1 to P-14. No witnesses were examined on defence side except marking Exh. D-1 to D-17, Xerox copy of FIR, Xerox copies of statements of P.W. 1 and another, and the wound certificates of A-10, A-6, A-3, A-11, A-13, A-14 and Dabbugottu Malakondaiah, Dega Kondaiah and Dega Venkgamma. After closure of the evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Then arguments were heard on both sides.
5. After scrutinising the evidence, the trial Court found that it was a case of free fight. A-1, A-6 and A-7 are liable for causing injury to P.W.
3. A-3 is liable for beating P.W.
4. A-4 is liable for causing injuries to P.W.
5. A-2 and A-12 are liable for beating P.W.
6. A-2, A-9 and A-13 are liable for beating P.W.
7. A-6, A-11 and A-12 are liable for beating P.W. 8 and A-4 and A-10 are liable for beating P.W.
9. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted A-3 under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. A-1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C, A-16 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 weeks for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. A-3 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 weeks for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. A-4 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. A-2 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. A-12 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. A-2 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. against P.W.
7. A-9 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. against P.W.
7. A-13 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 weeks for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. against P.W.
7. A-6 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. against P.W.
8. A-11 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 weeks for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. against P.W.
8. A-12 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. against P.W.
8. A-4 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. against P.W.
9. A-10 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. against P.W. 9.
6. Aggrieved by the said convictions and sentences, the present criminal appeal is filed.
7. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the accused-appellants contended that the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court is quite incorrect. It is clear from the evidence that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused. The trial Judge should not have placed reliance on the highly interested and discrepant testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 9. Their evidence is not consistent with their earlier statements and is falsified by the medical evidence. Thus arguing, he sought that the appeal be allowed.
8. Whereas Sri Kailashnath Reddy, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the entire judgment and order passed by the trial Court is a well considered one. The findings given by the trial Court and the conclusion reached as to the offence committed by the accused are quite just and based on proper appreciation of the evidence. If the trial Court had not appreciated the evidence properly, there would not have been acquittal of A-1 to A-13 for the offence under Section 148, I.P.C. There is no infirmity in the order of the trial Court. The convictions and the sentences ordered by the trial Court are just and no interference is warranted. Thus arguing, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
9. In order to know whether the trial Court is justified in reaching the conclusion of convicting the accused for the offences referred to above, we once again went through the entire evidence and the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution case is that there were two groups in Nelaturi Gollappalli village. One led by P.W. 9 of Congress-I Party and another led by A-5 of Telugu Desam Party. In the year 1987, A-5 was elected as Sarpanch unanimously. Since then differences developed between the two groups. About four days prior to 22-1-91 there was a scuffle between both the groups in which the accused asked for performing the marriage of the daughter of P.W. 9 with rajaka people and the other side asked for performance of the marriage of daughter of A-5 and A-6 with Mutharasa people. A mediation was held on 21-1-1991 which failed. On 22-1-1991 at about 10 a.m. in pursuance of their common object of taking revenge to kill the opposite group, A-1 to A-13 armed with iron rods, sticks and stones attacked P.W. 1 near a bore pump in the main bazar of the village which ensued in a free fight. A-3 beat P.W. 1 with an iron rod on left hand thumb and right side of the head; A-4 beat P.W. 2 with iron rod on left upper arm; A-6 beat P.W. 2 with a stick on the head; A-1 beat P.W. 3 with a stick on left fore-arm; A-5 beat P.W. 3 with a stone on left hand; A-7 beat P.W. 3 with stone on left shoulder; A-3 beat P.W. 4 with a stone on nose and left shoulder, left leg; A-4 beat P.W. 5 with iron rod on head; A-2 beat P.W. 6 with iron rod on right side of the head; A-12 beat P.W. 3 with a stick on right ear; A-2 beat P.W. 7 with a stone on left thigh and A-9 beat P.W. 7 with iron rod on right upper arm; A-4 beat P.W. 8 with a stick on right fore-arm, left hand finger and A-11 beat P.W. 8 with stone on right shoulder; A-4 and A-10 beat P.W. 9 with iron rod on head. It is clear from the evidence as appreciated by the trial Court that though the prosecution failed to establish a case for the offence under Section 148, I.P.C., the trial Court is justified in reaching to the conclusion that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 323, I.P.C. and some of them under Section 324, I.P.C. for which they are convicted and sentenced as stated supra. The persons similarly placed in Criminal Appeal No. 66/96 which is now disposed of by us, have been convicted for an offence under Section 323, I.P.C. holding that the sentence already undergone is sufficient. On a strict scrutiny of both oral and documentary evidence, we hold that the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 323 and 324, I.P.C. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is disposed of confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 323 and 324, I.P.C. However, the sentences of the accused have been reduced to the period already undergone by them in addition to paying fine amount by them, as stated supra.
10. Order accordingly.