Full Judgment Text
CRL.A. NO. 1768 of 2008 REPORTABLE
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1768 OF 2008
GURRALA ANTHONY & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
This appeal has been filed by three of the
accused who stand convicted and sentenced for offences
punishabel under Sections 302 and 341 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code. Two others A5 and A6 were
acquitted by the trial court whereas A1 was acquitted
by the High Court. In other words, out of the six
accused brought to trial only three are before us by
way of this appeal after special leave.
The deceased Srinivasa Rao was working as a
coolie in the Mango Market in Vijayawada and would
leave for work at 4:30a.m. and return home to his
rd
village by 9:30p.m. On 3 April, 2004, P.W. 1 – the
mother of the deceased, received information from P.W.4
to the effect that she had seen her son lying near the
bridge with serious injuries. On receiving this
CRL.A. NO. 1768 of 2008 REPORTABLE
2
information P.W. 1 went to the spot and was told by
those present that accused A1 to A4 had beaten her son
with sticks causing his death. She, accordingly,
lodged a report with the police a short while later.
The investigation made by the police revealed that
several witnesses including P.Ws. 2 and 3 had been
accompanying the deceased while he returned home and
that they had seen the attack on him. It was also
ascertained that A1 to A4 were bad characters and in
the habit of committing thefts in the market and
misbehaving with the women workers and the deceased,
had, on several occasions, admonished them for bad
behaviour which had led to unpleasant scenes between
them. On the completion of the investigation, the
accused were brought to trial for offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 341 of the IPC. During the
course of the trial, the prosecution relied on the
evidence of P.W. 1 admittedly not an eye witness who
gave the story with regard to the motive for the
incident as also the fact that the deceased was
employed in the Mango Market as a labourer, and P.Ws 2
and 3 who were allegedly accompanying the deceased at
the time of the incident and claimed to be eye
witnesses. The trial court relying on this evidence as
CRL.A. NO. 1768 of 2008 REPORTABLE
3
corraborated by the medical evidence, convicted accused
A1 to A4 and acquitted A5 and A6. The High Court in
appeal, acquitted A1 as well. This appeal is before us
at the instance by the remaining accused.
Mr. Nirmal Chopra, the learned counsel for the
appellants has raised several arguments during the
course of the hearing. He has pointed out that in the
background of the fact that P.W. 1 was not an eye
witness and P.Ws. 3 and 4 had been declared hostile
whereas P.W. 2 had denied that he had seen the
incident, there was no evidence against the appellants.
He has further submitted that as the FIR did not
indicate that P.W. -1 or the eye witnesses knew the
appellants and as P.W. 1 had deposed that she was in a
position to identify them, the omission on the part of
investigators in holding a test identification parade
was fatal to the prosecution story. He has further
submitted that police statement under Section 161 of
the Cr.P.C. of both P.Ws. 2 and 3 had been recorded
about 40 days after the incident which also cast a
doubt on their credibility.
Mr. I. Venkatara Narayana, the learned senior
counsel for the respondent-State has, however,
supported the judgment of the trial court and has
CRL.A. NO. 1768 of 2008 REPORTABLE
4
pointed out that the eye witness account of P.W. 2 was
supported by the recoveries of a stone and sticks and
blood stained shirts from the place of incident or from
the person of the appellants, and the prosecution story
thus stood proved.
We have considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties. P.W. 1 – the mother
of the deceased is admittedly not an eye witness. She
had filed a very sketchy FIR on the basis of the
information that she had received from P.W. 4. She had
given the names of four of the appellants in the FIR
and further went on to say that she was in a position
to identify them although it is the admitted position
that they did not belong to her village. As an
identification parade had not been held, the
prosecution story rests almost exclusively on P.Ws 2
and 3 who were initially said to be the eye witnesses
of the incident. P.W. 3 was declared hostile as he did
not support the prosecution in the examination-in-
chief. Mr. Venkat Narayana has, however, pointed out
that in the cross-examination he had supported the
prosecution. On account of this ambivalence, we are
unable to comprehend as to which of the two versions
given by him is the correct one. P.W. 2's statement
CRL.A. NO. 1768 of 2008 REPORTABLE
5
is equally unworthy of belief. He deposed that he was
not an eye witness to the incident and he had reached
the place after the injuries had been caused to the
deceased and had found him lying dead on the floor.
Moreover, we notice that his statement under Section
161 of the Cr.P.C. had been recorded by the police for
th
the first time on 14 May, 2004 whereas the incident
rd
had happened on 3 of April, 2004. When questioned,
P.W. 2 admitted that his statement could not be
recorded earlier as he was not available to the police.
The Investigating Officer too was very categoric when
he admitted that the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3 had
th
indeed been recorded on 14 May, 2004.
In the background of a very uncertain eye
witness account, the recovery of some of the sticks
allegedly used in the murder or the blood stained
shirts have no significance. We, accordingly, allow
the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellants
and order their acquittal.
..................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..................J
CRL.A. NO. 1768 of 2008 REPORTABLE
6
[J.M. PANCHAL]
NEW DELHI
NOVEMEBR 12, 2009.
CRL.A. NO. 1768 of 2008 REPORTABLE
7
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1768 OF 2008
GURRALA ANTHONY & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Vide our separate reasoned order, we have
allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the
appellants and ordered acquittal.
It is stated by Mr. Nirmal Chopra, the learned
counsel for the appellants that the appellants are in
jail. We direct that the appellants shall be set at
liberty forthwith if not required in connection with
any other case.
The reasoned order to follow.
..................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..................J
[J.M. PANCHAL]
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 12, 2009.
CRL.A. NO. 1768 of 2008 REPORTABLE
8