Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was unjustified in altering the conviction; the prosecution had proved a common intention under Section 149 IPC, and the trial court's conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC stands restored.

Summary

The State of Andhra Pradesh prosecuted six accused for the murder of Cherukuri Kalidas, alleging that they entered his bedroom at night armed with deadly weapons and killed him, with the assault witnessed by his wife and relatives. The trial court convicted five of the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove a common intention and altered the conviction to Section 304(1) IPC for one accused and Section 326 IPC for two others, acquitting the rest. The Supreme Court examined the eye‑witness testimony, the medical evidence and the circumstances of the night‑time trespass, concluding that the prosecution had indeed established a common object of the unlawful assembly to assault and murder the deceased. Consequently, the Court restored the trial court's conviction under Section 302/149 IPC and set aside the High Court's modification, allowing the State's appeal and dismissing the accused's appeals.

Issues considered

The prosecution proved the existence of a common intention among the accused under Section 149 IPC for the murder of the deceased.
Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder (Section 302) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304(1)) and grievous hurt (Section 326).
The reliability and sufficiency of eye‑witness testimony in identifying the accused.
The appropriate conviction and sentencing under the Indian Penal Code for the acts committed.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 304(1), s. 307, s. 324, s. 326, s. 449, s. 450

Subjects

murdercommon intentionunlawful assemblysection 149 IPCeye-witness testimonyconvictionappealIndian Penal Codeculpable homicidecriminal law

Judgment

STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH A
v.
VEDDULA VEERA REDDY AND ORS. ETC.

FEBRUARY 19, 1998

[M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] B

Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 149, 302, 304 Part I and 326-
Afurder-Accused entering into the room of deceased with deadly weapons
at the dead hours of night-Assaulted the deceased causing his instant
death-Evidence of eye witnesses-Corroboration by medical evidence- C
Conviction and sentence by Trial Court- -On appeal, High Court altered the
conviction on the ground that prosecution had failed to prove the common
intention of the accused-Validity of-Held, accused were members of unlm1ful
assembly sharing common object to assault the deceased-Identified by all
the eye witnesses-Evidence of eye witness suffers from no infirmity-Thus D
High Court not justified in acquitting the accused of the offences punishable
under sec;tion 3021149 and convicting them under section 3041326-Trial
Courts order of conviction and sentence restored.

Respondent A-1 to A-5 were prosecuted for an offence under section
302/ 149 IPC. The prosecution case was that 'C' and A-1 were brothers. E
There father, before his death divided the property amongst his sons, daughters
and wife. 'C' went to Iran and during his absence his share of prope1iy was
looked after by A-1. On his 'return back, he took the management of his
property and asked A-1 to furnish the accounts. This caused enmity between
f
the brothers. On the fateful day 'C' along with his wife PW-3 came to the
F
' village and afte1· taking dinner went to sleep in their room. PW-2, the mother
and PW-1 the sister also went to sleep in another room. At the dead hours
of night A-1 along with five associates armed with deadly weapons entered
the room and started attacking 'C'. PW-3 raised alarm and hearing her
cries PW-1 and PW-2 came to the room. When they tried to interfere, they
were also assaulted by the accused. 'C' succumbed to his in.iuries. Charges G
were framed against the accused. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses
including three eye witnesses.

The Trial Court convicted A-1 to A-5 and sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment for life. HowCYer, on appeal the High Court on the ground that
the prosecution had failed to prove the common intention of the accused, H
1007
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) l S.C.R.

A acquitted them of the offences punishable under section 302/149 IPC and
instead convicted them under section 304/326 IPC. Aggrieved by the order
of the High Court, the present a)l)leals were filed.

Allowing the a)lpeals, this Com1

B HELD : 1.1. The evidence of the eye witnesses suffers from no infinnity
whatsoever and the ttial court had committed no error in convicting A-1 to
A-5 under Section 302/149 IPC and also on other counts. The High Com1
was totally unjustified in alte1·ing the conviction from one under section 302/
149 IPC to that under section 304 Part-I and 326 IPC. (1016-B; 1013.;AJ
c
1.2. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 the sister and the mother of A-
l resJJectively, unmistakably proves that A-1 to A-5 trespassed into the room
at 2 A.M. with deadly weapons where 'C' was sleeJJing with his wife. The
actual assault was witnessed by his wife PW-3 and she has stated all necessary
details about the assault caused by A-1 to A-5. Her evidence was su)lported
D by mother and sister of A-1. The evidence of these three witnesses
unmistakably indicates that 'C' died on the spot because of several injuries
caused by A-1 to A-5. This evidence finds ouppo11 from the medical evidence
of PW-15 who performed the autopsy on the dead body. In the teeth of this
conclusive evidence, the High Court was totally unjustified in altering the
E nature of offence and convicting A-1 for an offence punishable under Section
304 )!art-I. [1013-C-EJ

2. The findings of the High Court that the prosecution failed to establish
common intention on the )!art of A-1 to A-5 to commit the murder is totally
unsustainable. High Court lost sight of fact that at the dead hours of night
F A-1 to A-5 tresspassed into the room with deadly weapons where 'C' was
sleeping. It can be inferred with absolute certainty that they were members
of an unlawful assembly who came together at the dead hours of the night
with deadly wea)lons, shared a common object to assault 'C' and in pursuance
thereof assaulted him resulting into his instantaneous death. A-1 to A-5
G were identified not only by PW-3 but also by PW-2 and PW-1, mother and
sister respectively of A-1. Despite their com·incing, consent and satisfactory
evidence on record, the High Com1 held that the prosecution has failed to
establish a common intention on the pat1 of A-1 to A-5 to commit the murder
of 'C'. The High Court has totally overlooked the evidence of eye witnesses
H which has proved the common object of the unla\lful assembly of A-1 of A-
STATEOFA.P.v. V.V.REDDY[S.P.KURDUKAR,J.) 1009

5 attracting the 11rovisions of section 149 IPC. A
(1016-B-C; 1014-H; 1015-A-DJ

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICJION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
1631-31of1996 ETC.

From the Judgement and Order dated 22.11.95 of tile Andhra Pradesh B

.'
'r
High Court in Cr!. A. Nos. 290 and 332 of 1995 .

G. Prabhakar for the Appellant.

G. Prakash Reddy and G. Narasimhulu for the Responsdents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
S.P. KURDUKAR, J. Cherukuri Sambaiah was an affluent person having
lands and house at village Pedda Makkana in Guntur District. He had left
behind three sons, two daughter> and a widow. Cherukuri Seetharamaswarny
(A-1) is his third son whereas Cherukuri Kalidas (since deceased) was his D
second son. Appasani Vasumathi Devi (P.W.I) is one of the daughters of
Chcrukuri San1baiah who was married to Nageswara Rao of village Takkellapadu.
After the death of her husband she has been residing at her parents house
at Pcdda Makkana. Cherukuri Sambaiah during his life-time divided his
properties amongst his sons, daughters and his wife Cherukuri Saraswathamma
(P. W.2). Cherukuri Kalidas (since deceased) was a doctor having two wives, E
namely, Pushpavani and Tripuranani Hemalatha (P.W.3) who are sisters.
Cherukuri. Kalidas and his two wives went to Iran and stayed there for abol!t
ten years. During his absence the property allotted to his share was looked
after by A-1. Chcmkuri Kalidas returned to Guntur from Iran five years before
the incident that took place on 24.6. I 991 and opened his clinic at Guntur. F
Chcrukuri Kalidas on his return used to go to his village Pedda Makanna
occasionally and took over the management of his property from A-l. The
mother of Cherukuri Kalidas and A-I were residing together in the village
Pedda Makanna and her share comprising of ten acres of land was also
looked after by him. Cherukuri Kalidas asked A-I to furnish the account of
his properties in his possession during his stay at Iran. This caused an ill- G
feeling between Cherukuri Kalidas and A-I. The dispute between the two
brothers was sought to be resolved by the villagers but their efforts failed
and because of this the people of the said village were divided into two
groups. This acrimony also resulted into some incidents between these two
groups including the incidents of throwing of bombs on each others which H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1998] 1 S.C.R.

A gave rise to the registration of crimes against them as also proceedings under
Section 107 Cr.P.C.

2. On or about in the month of May 19, 1991, a month prior to the
incident in question one Rangavali who was running· a private school died
of heart attack and in that connection Mr. Boddu Sambasivarao, the sympathiser
B of the said lady teacher filed report against A-1 alleging that he caused her
death by administering the poison. A-1 believed that he was involved falsely
in the said crime at the instance of Cherukuri Kalidas and it was this belief
...
1

that led to further strained relation between them.

3. It is alleged by t11e prosecution that on 25.6.1991 at about 6 p.m.
C Cherukuri Kalidas along wit11 his wife Tripuranani Hemalatha (P.W.3) came to
Pedda Makkana on t11e scooter. After taking dinner t11ey went to sleep in their
room. Cherukuri Saraswathamma (P.W.2) t11e motlier and Appasani Vasumathi
Devi (P.W. 1) the sister also went to sleep in another room. A-I was having
his house aqjacent to t11e house of Cherukuri Kalidas. It is alleged by the
D prosecution that during that night at about 2 a.m. A-1 and his five associate
armed with deadly weapons entered into the room where Cherukuri Kalidas
was sleeping with his wife Tripuranani Hcmalatha (P.W.3). During t11e night
~.n electric bulb was also burning in the house. A-1 and his five associates
started attacking Cherukuri Kalidas wit11 deadly weapons. When Tripuranani
Hemalatha (P.W.3) got up, she raised an alarm and tried to intervene but in
E vain. A-1 and his associated also caused injuries to her. His sister Appasani
Vasumathi Devi (P.W.l) and Cherukuri Saraswathamma (P.W.2), the motller,
after hearing the cries of Cherukuri Kalidas came to the room and found that
A-1 and his five associates were assaulting Cherukuri Kalidas and when they
tries to intervene they were also assaulted by tllese assailant~. P.W. l and
F P.W.3 sustained bleeding injuries whereas Dr. Kalidas was found lying dead
on the floor. The deceased and the injured were t11ereafter removed to t11c
general hospital, Guntur for medical treatment. Cherukuri Kalidas was declared
dead and oilier injured persons were referred to tlle experts for better treatment.
Dr. D. Veeraraju (P.W.16) sent an intimation to t11e IVtll Additional Munsif
Magistrate. Guntur who came and recorded the dying declaration (Exb. P-1)
G ofTripuranani Hemalatha (P.W.3). V. Anjaneyulu (P.W.9), tlle Head Constable
attached to the Government General Hospital received an intimation about tlle
incident along wit11 the copy of tlle dying declaration which he forwarded to .~
Kot11apet Police Station. Samasivrao, tlle Head Constable (P.W.10) registered
t11e crime under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 read witll Section 149 IPC
H at about 12 noon on 26.6.91 and transferred tlle same to SHO, Sattenapalli
STATEOFA.P. v. V.V. REDDY [S.P. KURDUKAR, J.] 1011
Rural Police Station for investigation since the jurisdiction vested in that A
police station. The crime came to be registered accordingly at Sattenpalli
Police Station and the copies of the FIR wen~ forwarded to the concerned
Magistrate and other police officers. S.A. Rahaman (P. W.17), the Sub-Inspector
of Police commenced the investigation. A-4 to A-6 came to be arrested on
9.7.1991 whereas A-1 to A-3 were apprehended on 27.7.1991. After completing B
the necessary investigation a charge-sheet against the necessary investigation
a charge-sheet against these accused persons came to be filed before the
Magistrate at Guntur who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at
Guntur for trial.

4. The Learned Sessions Judge framed charges against A-1 to A-6 C
under Sections 120-B, 449, 148, 302, 307/149, 324/149 !PC. All the accused
denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. They
pleaded that they were innocent and they had been falsely implicated in the
present crime. To prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 19
witnesses of whom Appasani Vasumathi Devi (P. W. l), Cherukuri
Saraswathamma (P. W.2), and Tripuranani Hemalatha (P. W.3) were the eye D
witnesses. Apart from the ocular evidence of these witnesses the prosecution
•., also relied upon documentary evidence including t11e post-mortem examination
report in respect of Cherukuri Kalidas (deceased) and the injury certificates
in respect of C. Saraswathan!ma (P.W.2) and T. Hemalatha (P.W.3) issued by
the doctors. Certain other circumstances which were pointer to the guilt of E
the accused were also relied upon by the prosecution. A-1 to A-6, however
did not lead any evidence and test contended on t11eir statements recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C..

5. The learned tiial judge after very careful scrutiny of the oral and
documentary evidence on record by his judgment and order dated 5.4.1995 F
held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
complicity of A-6 and accordingly acquitted him of all the charges. The
learned trial judge, however found the prosecution evidence acceptable against
A-1 to A-5 and accordingly convicted them under Sections 449, 302/149 and
326/149 IPC. A-1 was also convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt
to Appasani Vasumathi Devi (P.W.l) and Cherukuri Saraswathamma (P.W.2) G
with a knife. Having recorded the above convictions the learned trial judge
sentenced A-1 to A-5 to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable
under Section 302/149 IPC and also sentenced each one of them to various
terms of imprisonment on oilier counts. All substantive sentences were ordered
to run concurrently. H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] I S.C.R.

A 6. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by
the trial court Vaddula Veera Reddy (A-2) and Vaddula Verna Reddy (A-3)
A..
preferred Criminal Appeal l'<o.290/95 whereas Cherukuri Seetl1aramaswamy
(A-1) and Ramasani Hari Babu (A--l) and Ramasani Sankrnrao (A-5) preferred
Criminal Appeal No.332 of 1995 to tl1e High Court of Andl1ra Pradesh at
Hyderabad. Since both tl1e appeals arose out of a common judgment, the High
B Court heard them together; and vide its common judgment and order dated
November 22, 1995 allowed the appeals partly. While setting aside the order ' -
of conviction of A-1 under Section 302/149 IPC it convicted him for an offence "
punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC simpliciter and sentenced him to
suffer RI for eight years. In upholding tl1e conviction of A-1 under Sections
c 449 and 324 IPC tl1e High Court sentenced him to suffer RI for two years and
one year respectively. As far as A-3 and A-4 are concerned their conviction
and sentence under Section 302/I -l9 IPC were set aside and in its place they
were convicted under Section 326/149 IPC and sentenced each one of them
to undergo RI for four years. While upholding the conviction of these two
accused under Section 449 and 324 !PC the High Court sentenced both of
D tl1em to undergo RI for two years and one year respectively. The High Court
found A-2 and A-5 not guilty of any offence and accordingly acquitted them
of all the charges. The substantive sentences awarded to A-1, A-3 and A-
·-
4 were ordered to run concurrently.

E 7. The State of Andlrra Pradesh aggrieved by the judgment and order
passed by the High Court filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 1631-32/92 by Special
Leave. Criminal Appeal Nos.1633-34/96 by Special Leave are filed by Cherukuri
Seetharamaswa1ny (A-1), Vaddula Vema Reddy (A-2) whereas Ramasani Hari
Babu (A-4) filed Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 1997 in tl1is Court by Special
Leave challenging their order of conviction and sentence passed by the High
F Court.
/..
8. It may be stated thai the State of Andhra Pradesh did not challi:nge
the order of acquittal of Sanikommu Sambi Reddy (A-6) passed by the trial
court and, therefore, tl1e said order of acquittal has become final. Since these
appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the High Court the~· are
G being disposed of by this judgment.

9. We may first deal with tl1e appeals filed by the State of A.P. which {J
would decide the fate of otl1er two sets of Criminal Appeals filed by the
accused/appellants. We have very carefully gone through the judgments of
H the courts below as well as the oral and documentary evidence on record. We
STATEOFA.P. v. V.V. REDDY [S.P. KURDUKAR,J.] 1013

,it have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and in our A
considered opinion the High Court has committed a serious error while
acquitting A-1 to A- of the offence punishable under Section 302/149 !PC and
convicting A-1 under Section 304 Part -1 !PC and A-3 and A-4 under Section
326 !PC.

10. We may presently point out how the High Court has recorded B
inconsistent and unsustainable findings. At the outset it needs to be stated
that there was no challenge to the fact that Cherukuri Kalidas died a homicidal
death as a result of several injuries sustained by him during the incident in
question. He died on the spot. The evidence of Appasani Vasumathi Devi
(P.W. l) and Chemkuri Saraswatliamma (P.W.2) the sister and tl1e motlier of A- C
1 respectively. Unmistakably proves that A-1 to A-5 tresspassed into tl1e
room at 2.00 a.m. on 26.6.1991 witl1 deadly weapons where Cherukuri Kalidas
was sleeping with his wife. The actual assault was witnessed by his wife
Tripuranani Hemalatha (P.W.3) and she has stated all necessary details about
the assault caused by A-1 to A-5. Her evidence was supported by mother and
-· sister of A-1. The evidence of these three witnesses unmistakably indicates D
that Cherukuri Kalidas died on the spot because of several injuries caused
by A-1 to A-5. This evidence finds support from the medical evidence of Dr.
K. Mahipal Reddy (P.W.15) who performed the autopsy on the dead body. In
t11e teetl! of tl!is conclusive evidence in our view the High Court was totally
unjustified in altering tl1e nature of offence and convicting A-1 for an offence E
punishable under Section 304 Part - I. The reasons recorded by the High Court
in its judgment in this behalf are as under:

"To connect a person to the offence alleged, the nature of evidence
should be clear, cogent and convincing free from doubts,
inconsistancies and improbabilities. As far as the part played by A- F
1 is concerned, we have to agree with tile finding of the learned
Sessions Judge that he was responsible for causing death of ilie
deceased. But the point is whether his role to be brought witl1in tlie
ambit of Section 302 I.P.C. or any otl1er Section. The part played by
him as per the evidence of the witnesses comes within tl1e ambit of
Section 304 (1) of I.P.C. As far as the part played by A-3 and A-4 are G
concerned, since the findings are that their role resulted in grievous
hurt on the body of the deceased and simple injuries on other
witnesses i.e. P. W. l to 3. But the same does not disclose any common
inten_tion along with A-1. Hence iliey are not liable to be punished
under Section 302 I.P.C. or Section 304-I of!PC, but under Section 326 H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A ofl.P.C.

Since, we have reached the above conclusion, the conviction and
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge against accust-d l to 5
deserves to be set-aside. Hence, the same is set aside and in their
placed the following order is passed:
B
The Criminal Appeals are allowed. So far as A-1 is concerned, the
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur
are set aside and he is convicted for an offence punishable under
Section 304 Part-I of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of eight years. He is also convicted for an
c offence punishable under Section 450 of I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years. He is also
convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year.
It is ordered that these sentences shall run concurrently.

D So far A-3 and A-4 are concerned, the conviction and sentence
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur the same are set aside
and in its placed they are convicted for an offence punishable under
Section 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisorunent
for a period of four years. They are also convicted for an offence
E punishable under Section 450 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years. Further, they are
also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C.
and sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for aperiod of one
year. It is ordered that these sentences shall run concurrently".

p 11. In the preceding paragraph of its judgment the High Court has
referred to the evidence of eye witnesses and curiously observed that assuming
if their evidence is acceptable it would only show that A-1, A-3 and A-4 have
caused injuries on various parts of the body of Cherukuri Kalidas (deceased)
but they had no common intention to cau~e iajuries which would result into
his death. The entire premiss of the discussion of the evidence of Appasani
G Vasumathi Devi (P.W. 1) Cherukuri Saraswathamma (P.W. 2) and Tripuraneni J
Hemalatha (P.W.3) made by the High Court was totally contrary to the evidence
r-~
of these eye witnesses. The most important circumstance which the High
Court lost sight of was that at the dead hours of the night A-1 to A-5
tresspassed into the room with deadly weapons where Cherukuri Kalidas was
H sleeping. What could be their common object ? Can it not be with absolute
STA TE OF A.P. v. V.V. REDDY [S.P. KURDUKAR, J.] 1015
certainty inferred from the proved facts that they (accused) were members of A
an unlawful assembly who came together at the dead hours of the night with
the deadly weapons, shared a common object to assault Cherukuri Kalidas
and in pursuance thereof assaulted him resulting into his instantaneous
death ? Answer has to be in the affirmative. A-1 to A-5 were identified not
- r only by Tripuranani Hemalatha (P.W. 3) but also by Cherukuri Saraswathamma
' (P.W. 2) and Appasani Vasumathi Devi (P.W.l) mother and sister respectively
B
of A- 1. Despite such convincing, cogent and satisfactory evidence on record
the High Court held that the prosecution has failed to establish a common
intention on the part of A-1 to A-5 to commit the murder of Cherukuri Kalidas
and also to cause injuries to Chemkuri Saraswathamma (P.W.2) and Tripuranani
Hemalatha (P.W.3). The finding of the High Court in this behalf is beyond the c
comprehension of a prudent man. The further finding that A-1 to A-5 did not
share common intention while causing a murderous assault on Cherukuri
Kalidas is equally wrong. The High Court has totally overlooked the evidence
L
of eye witnesses which has proved the common object of the unlawful
-) assembly of which A-1 to A-5 were members, attracting the provisions of
Section 149 IPC and in pursuance thereof committed the murder of Cherukuri D
Kalidas. As against this the learned trial judge in its exhaustive and well
reasoned judgment had very carefully scrutinized the evidence of Appasani
Vasumathi DeYi (P.W. l). Cherukuri Saraswat11amma (P.W.2) and Tripuranani
Hemalatlia (P. W.3) in a proper perspective and had rightly concluded that A-
1 to A-5 shared a common object while committing the tresspass into the E
room of Cherukuri Kalidas to assault him with the deadly weapons which
common object they (accused) carried out. Cherukuri Saraswathan1ma (P.W.2)
and Teripunmani Hemalatha (P.W.3) are the injured witnesses of whom the
former is the mother and latter the wife. They tried to intervene during tl1e
t, assault on Cherukuri Kalidas but they were also not spared by A-1 to A-5
who caused serious injuries to t11em as would be evident from the medical F
evidence on record. On the face of such conclusive material on record we are
surprised that t11e High Court observed t1Iat t11e prosecution has failed to
establish a common intention to commit the murder of Cherukuri Kalidas. l11e
~ finding of the High Court in this behalf to say t11e least is totally unsustainable.

«..., 12. The learned counsel for t1Ie accused vehemently urged t11at the
G
alleged incident took place during the night and it was impossible for any of
t11e eye witnesses to identify the accused/appellants. TI1e eye witnesses have
roped in the accused/appellants because of t1Ic enmity. Moreover these eye
witnesses are t1Ie close relatives of t1Ic deceased and, therefore, it would not
be safe to accept their evidence on the issue of identity of A-1 to A-5. We H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.

A see no substance in any of these contentions. In the absence of any material
on record it is difficult to reject or to discount in any manner tl1e evidence
ofTripuranani Hemalatha (P.W.3). Cherukuri Saraswathamma (P.W.2) is the
mother of A-1 and she had no axe to grind against her own son (A-1) and
oilier accused. After going through tl1e evidence of tl1ere three witnesses we
B are satisfied that their evidence suffers from no infinnity whatsoever and !he "
trial court had committed no error in convicting A-1 to A-5 under Section 302/
149 IPC and also on other counts. The High Court in a very perfunctory
manner has considered the evidence of Ille eye witnesses and thereby
committed a gross error in acquitting A-1 to A-5 of tl1e offence punishable
under Section 302, 149 IPC. The judgment of the High Court is thus
C unsustainable and stands set aside.

13. In the result Criminal Appeal Nos. 1631-32 of 1996 filed by the State
of A.P. are allowed. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1633-34of1996 and 324of1997 filed
by A-1, A-3 and A-4 are dismissed. The judgment and order dated 5.4.95
passed by Ille Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur is restored. If any of the \.
D accused is on bail he shall surrender to his bail bond forthwith to serve but
tl1e remainder of his sentence.

S.V.K.l. C.A. Nos. 1631-32/96 allowed.
C.A. Nos. 1633-34/96 and 324/97 dismissed.

-