Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.557 OF 2008
GARLAPATI KRISHNA APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF A.P REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh in Criminal
th
Appeal No.1113 of 2004 dated 11 August, 2006. By the impugned
judgment and order, the High Court has affirmed the findings and the
conclusions reached by the II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court No.II) in S.C.No.159 of 2001 dated 21.04.2004. The Trial
Court, after ignoring the minor contradictions, has come to the
conclusion that the Prosecution has proved the case against the
accused person. Accordingly, it has convicted and sentenced the
accused person to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.').
We have heard Mr.A.T.M.Ranga Ramanujam, learned senior
counsel for the appellant. The learned senior counsel would contend
that the finding and conclusion reached by the Trial Court is fully
perverse and, therefore, requires interference of this Court. In
support of this contention, the learned senior counsel would take us
through the evidence of P.W.Nos.1,2,6, 16 and 17.
We have carefully perused the evidence that was read to us
2
by Shri Ranga Ramanujam. After reading the evidence, we cannot
agree with the submission that the findings of the Trial Court as
well as the High Court suffers from the vice of perversity. In that
view of the matter, we cannot accept the submission of the learned
senior counsel Shri Ranga Ramanujam.
The learned senior counsel would further contend that
there is enormous delay in lodging the First Information Report
before the jurisdictional police authority. In the present case,
the incident took place at 10.30 p.m. on 10.02.2000. On the next
date i.e. on 11.02.2000 at 7.00 a.m. F.I.R. was lodged.
This aspect of the matter has been taken note of by the
High Court and the High Court has stated as under :
“In the case covered by the above decision, the incident
occurred opposite to the police station. When there was a
delay of 12 hours in giving the complaint, the Court
entertained a doubt about the genuineness of the version
given by the prosecution at a belated stage and made the
above observation. But in the present case, the offence
took place at about 10.30 p.m. Immediately, they took the
deceased to the hospital and the doctor on examining the
deceased declared dead and they remained at the hospital
till the morning and the report was presented to the
police at about 7.00 a.m. on the next day morning. This
is a case against the sole accused. There was consistency
in the version of the prosecution from the beginning that
the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased.
The accused is no other than the neighbour of the deceased
and related to them. If there are number of accused and if
overt acts are attributed to such accused, one can
apprehend that the people who have not participated in the
commission of offence were also arrayed as accused after
due deliberations by taking sufficient time. But here
there was only one accused who was inimical towards the
deceased, therefore, the delay in preferring the complaint
by itself is not a ground to threw away the prosecution
case when there is sufficient material to establish that
3
the accused is responsible for the commission of the
offence, the above decision is not applicable to the facts
of the case.”
We have carefully seen the conclusions reached by the High
Court. In our opinion, this is the only conclusion that could have
been taken by the High Court keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case. The view that is taken by the High Court
cannot be characterized as a perverse finding. In that view of the
matter, the submission of the learned senior counsel cannot be
accepted by us.
Accordingly, we do not see any infirmity in the judgment
and order passed by the Trial Court which is affirmed by the High
Court. Therefore, confirming the order and judgment passed by the
High Court, we reject the appeal filed by the appellant. Ordered
accordingly.
......................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
.......................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 03, 2011