Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1502 OF 2008
BASAVENI RAVI & ANR. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Basaveni Ravi (A-5) and Marri Rajkumar (A-8)
are the appellants. They are aggrieved by the
judgment and order passed by the High Court in
Criminal Appeal No.883 of 2005, dated 24.12.2007,
whereby and where under the High Court has
confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Ld.
JUDGMENT
Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.200 of 2001,
dated 29.04.2005.
2. The circle Inspector of Police, Mandamarri had
filed charge sheet against 9 accused in all before
the Trial Court for the offence under Sections 148
and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860(“IPC” for short) for having assaulted
Page 1
2
and killed the deceased Kumara Swamy, S/o.Gajji
Komuramma (P.W.1).
3. Before the trial court the prosecution had
examined in all 23 witnesses, including P.W.1, who
is the sole eye-witness of the entire incident. In
her evidence before the Trial Court, she has
categorically admitted that A-9 was not present on
the date of the incident. The Trial Court, taking
into consideration the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses,(P.W.1 and P.W.2) has acquitted A-1 and
A-3 apart from A-9, on the ground that both the
aforementioned witnesses had not identified the
presence of A-1 and A-3. However, it has convicted
A-2 and A-4 to A-8 for the offence noted earlier.
This conviction was primarily based on the evidence
JUDGMENT
of P.W.1, who is said to be the eye-witness of the
entire incident.
4. Accused A-2, A-4 to A-8 who were convicted by
the Trial Court had approached the High Court by
filing an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Page 2
3
5. The High Court after re-appreciating the entire
evidence on record, including the evidence of the
sole eye witness P.W.1, has thought it fit to
acquit A-2, A-4, A-6 and A-7, however, confirmed
the conviction and sentence of A-5 and A-8 for the
offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the IPC.
6. The accused A-5 and A-8, aggrieved by the order
passed by the High Court, are before us in this
appeal.
7. Before proceeding further, we note that the
State has not preferred any appeals against the
order of acquittal of A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6 and
A-7. Be that as it may.
JUDGMENT
8. We have heard Shri D. Ramakrishna Reddy,
learned counsel appearing for the appellants and
Shri Amit Nain, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State.
9. We have carefully perused the conclusion
reached by the Trial Court and the High Court for
acquitting all the accused persons except A-5 and
Page 3
4
A-8. The least that we can say is, we are surprised
by the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court
as well as by the High Court. We say so for the
reason that, having acquitted all the other accused
persons on the same piece of evidence available on
record, could not have convicted A-5 and A-8,
though they were charged under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the IPC.
10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion
that the benefit of doubt should also be extended
to A-5 and A-8 as well. Accordingly, while
allowing this appeal, we set aside the conviction
and sentence of A-5 and A-8. We direct the release
of the appellants forthwith, if they are not
JUDGMENT
required in any other case.
Ordered accordingly.
.......................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
.......................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 27, 2012
Page 4