Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SANKARA NAGAMALLESWARA RAO & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/1998
BENCH:
G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
With Criminal Appeal No. 8/91.
J U D G M E N T
NANAVATI,J.
Both these appeal arise out of the judgment of the
andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1031/87.
Criminal Appeal No. 691/90 if filed by S. Nagamalleswara (A-
3) and S. Babu Rao (A-4). Criminal Appeal No. 8/91 is filed
by V. Mankyala Rao (A-2).
The appellants have been convicted under Section 302
IPC for causing death of K. Sivaramakrishnaiah. Their
conviction is based upon the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 and
the two dying declarations - Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.13. The High
Court confirmed their conviction mainly relying upon the two
dying declarations. It held that though PWs.1, 2 and 3 are
partisan witnesses their evidence could be utilised for the
purpose of corroboration.
Learned counsel for the appellants was not able to
point out how PWs.2 and 3 who were not related to the
deceased could be regarded as partisan witnesses. As their
services were hired for the day for cultivating his land
they were with the deceased while he was returning from his
field and when the incident took place. Nothing was brought
on record to show that they has any enmity with the
deceased. The trial court had rightly placed reliance upon
their evidence. As stated earlier, the High Court has also
relied upon their evidence though for the purpose of
corroboration. The dying declaration Ex.P.15 was recorded by
the Investigation officer at about 7.15 p.m. and Ex.P.13 was
recorded by the Judicial Magistrate at about 9.30 p.m. Both
the dying declarations have been found as genuine and true
and nothing could be urged by the learned counsel for taking
a contrary view. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and the two
dying declarations Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.13 clearly establish
that the appellants were responsible for causing the death
of K. Sivaramakrishnaiah.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants that as no injuries were caused on the vital
parts of the deceased, they should not have convicted under
Section 302 IPC. This contention cannot be accepted because
the medical evidence clearly shows that the deceased has
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
died due to the injuries caused to him and the injuries were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Though not on the vital parts, the injuries caused were
serious. Therefore, the appellants have been rightly
convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.
As we find that they have been rightly convicted these
appeals are dismissed.
The appellants were released on bail during the
pendency of these appeal. Their bail is cancelled and they
are ordered to surrender to custody to serve out the
remaining part of their sentence.