Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 495
NonReportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2132 OF 2011
Thatireddigari Maheswara Reddy … Appellant
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh ... Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
The appellantaccused no.2 has been convicted for the
1.
offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). There were eleven
accused who were charged with the murder of one Shiva
Prasad Reddy (for short, ‘the deceased’) by hacking him with
hunting sickles. The accused were charged with offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 148 and 302 of the IPC.
Accused nos.5 and 9 died during the pendency of the trial.
The Trial Court found that the charge under Section 120B of
Signature Not Verified
the IPC has not been proved against any accused. The Trial
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2024.07.09
16:39:09 IST
Reason:
Court also found that accused nos.6, 7 and 8 were not guilty
Criminal Appeal No.2132 of 2011 Page 1 of 7
of any offence and were acquitted. The Trial Court convicted
accused nos.1 to 4 and accused nos.10 and 11 for the
offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 of the IPC.
2. Apart from the present appeal, there were appeals
preferred by the coaccused bearing Criminal Appeal nos.
th
2130 and 2131 of 2011. By the order of this Court dated 13
July 2023, the appeals were disposed of as the learned
counsel representing the appellants therein made a statement
that the appellants have been granted permanent remission.
Therefore, they were not pressing the appeals. The appellant,
in this appeal, was enlarged on bail. However, the order
th
dated 13 July 2023 records the statement of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellantaccused no.2 has
decided to surrender so that his application for permanent
remission can be considered. Therefore, this Court directed
that after surrendering, if an application is made by the
appellantaccused no.2 for a grant of permanent remission,
the same shall be decided within six weeks from the date of
th
making the application. However, the order dated 4 October
2023 records that the appellantaccused no.2 has changed
his mind and decided not to surrender. In the said order, it is
recorded that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
accused no.2 stated that the appellantaccused no.2 wants to
prosecute the appeal on merits.
3. PW1 and PW3 are brothers of the victim of the offence,
who are the eyewitnesses. Apart from PW1 and PW3, PW2
Criminal Appeal No.2132 of 2011 Page 2 of 7
was also an eyewitness. The prosecution's case is that the
deceased was a practising lawyer at Gooty. The deceased and
his brothers were residing in Peddavadugur village. Every
day, the deceased used to travel from his residence to the
Court at Gooty by his motorcycle. The deceased had
contested the election for the post of President of the Water
Users Association of Peddavadugur village against the
appellantaccused no.2. The election was won by the
appellantaccused no.2. The allegation is that accused no.1
and other communist party leaders helped the appellant
accused no.2. A couple of months after the election, the
Excise Police raided the house of the appellantaccused no.2
and seized illicit brandy and accordingly, a case was
registered against accused no.2. According to the prosecution
case, the appellantaccused no.2 suspected that the deceased
was responsible for the raid and seizure. The incident
th
occurred on 26 July 1997. Twenty days before the said
incident, the Congress party had convened a meeting in the
village, and the deceased was elected as convenor of the
Congress party. It is the case of the prosecution that the
Excise Police also booked a case against accused no.1, who
carried an impression that the deceased was responsible for
the action taken by the Excise Police. On the date of the
incident, the deceased left the village between 9:00 am and
9:30 am and proceeded to the Court at Gooty. On the same
day, PW1 to PW3 had visited Pamidi village. After
completing the work, at 5:00 pm, the three prosecution
Criminal Appeal No.2132 of 2011 Page 3 of 7
witnesses boarded a truck at Pamidi, which gave them a lift to
Miduthuru crossroads. After getting down from the truck,
they were waiting for a conveyance to reach their village. In
the meanwhile, they saw the deceased coming from Gooty
side on his motorcycle. While he was negotiating a curve near
Miduthuru at 6:00 pm, PW4, by raising his hand, requested
the deceased to stop his motorcycle. The deceased stopped
the motorcycle and told PW4 that he could not accommodate
him. After that, the deceased went some distance ahead and
the accused persons, armed with hunting sickles, came from
nearby bushes and attacked and hacked the deceased on
various parts of his body. When PW1 to PW3 rushed to help
the deceased, the accused threatened them and ran away.
Though PW1 to PW3 shifted the deceased to a Government
hospital at Gooty, he was declared dead before admission.
PW1 to PW3 supported the prosecution. However, PW4 to
PW6 did not support the prosecution and were declared
hostile. The Trial Court and the High Court believed the
testimony of PW1 to PW3.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
accused no.2 submitted that PW1 and PW3 were interested
witnesses, being the deceased's brothers. They were chance
witnesses. Admittedly, PW1 to PW3 were together. The
learned counsel submitted that the evidence of PW1 to PW3
cannot be treated as a gospel truth. PW4 to PW6 did not
Criminal Appeal No.2132 of 2011 Page 4 of 7
depose before the Trial Court about the presence of the
appellantaccused no.2 at the time of the incident. The
learned counsel submitted that the prosecution did not
establish the motive for the murder. He, therefore, submitted
that once the testimony of PW1 to PW3, who were interested
witnesses, is discarded, it is a case of no evidence against the
appellantaccused no.2. The learned counsel appearing for
the respondentState supported the impugned judgment.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
5. We have carefully perused the prosecution witnesses'
evidence, and especially the evidence of PW1 to PW3. PW1
knew the accused. In his evidence, he has ascribed a specific
role to the accused. He stated that his deceased brother
initially received injuries on his left elbow dorsum part at the
hands of accused no.1 by use of hunting sickles. The
appellantaccused no.2 attacked his deceased brother on the
head. Accused no.11 assaulted the deceased on the left hand
below the wrist on the dorsum part and also attacked his lips.
Accused no.10 assaulted the deceased on the left side of the
neck. Accused no.3 assaulted the deceased on his left thigh
below the hip. Accused No. 4 assaulted the deceased on the
left side of the back. Both PW2 and PW3 have assigned
similar roles to the accused. Their examinationinchief is
very consistent on this part. After carefully perusing their
crossexamination, we find that no material contradictions or
omissions have been brought on record. As far as PW4,
Criminal Appeal No.2132 of 2011 Page 5 of 7
PW5 and PW6 are concerned, they did not support the
prosecution by stating that at the time of incident, the
deceased was attacked by some unknown persons. PW5 is
the owner of a hotel. PW1 to PW3 were sitting near the
hotel just before the incident. PW6 was running a tea stall
near the hotel of PW5.
As PW1 and PW3 are closely related to the deceased,
6.
we have meticulously examined their testimony. We find their
testimony is reliable. No material contradictions or omissions
have been brought on record in their crossexamination.
Only because an eye witness is a member of the deceased's
family, the evidence of such a witness cannot be
per se,
discarded. If the evidence of an eyewitness who is a close
relative of the deceased is cogent, reliable and credible, it can
always be relied upon. Regarding the role of appellant
accused no.2, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is consistent. All
three of them have ascribed a clear role to the appellant
accused no.2 of assaulting the deceased with a hunting
sickle. In this case, even the evidence of PW2 is very reliable,
who is not related to the deceased.
Apart from the testimony of these three witnesses,
7.
which is very consistent, there is no dispute about the
identity of the accused as accused nos.1 to 4, 10 and 11 were
known to these three prosecution witnesses. There was a
recovery of hunting sickles at the instance of accused nos.1 to
4. The handles of the hunting sickles were found stained
Criminal Appeal No.2132 of 2011 Page 6 of 7
with human blood. Moreover, there is no delay in lodging the
complaint by PW1.
The evidence of PW19, Dr Ranganna, who conducted
8.
the postmortem, shows that the deceased suffered a total of
16 injuries. The cause of death is due to shock and
haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. The medical officer
opined that the injuries could be caused by hunting sickles.
He gave this opinion after the seized hunting sickles were
shown to him. In the circumstances, there is no reason to
disturb the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. We grant time of
one month to the appellantaccused no.2 to surrender for
undergoing the remaining sentence. After the appellant
accused no.2 surrenders, we direct the respondentState to
consider the case of the appellantaccused no.2 for grant of
permanent remission in accordance with the applicable policy
after taking into consideration the fact that the coaccused
have been granted the benefit of permanent remission. The
respondent state shall take appropriate decision within a
period of two months from the date on which the appellant
accused no.2 surrenders.
..…………..………J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
..…………..………J.
(Pankaj Mithal)
New Delhi;
July 08, 2024.
Criminal Appeal No.2132 of 2011 Page 7 of 7