Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
PETITIONER:
PEDDA NARAYANA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/04/1975
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
UNTWALIA, N.L.
CITATION:
1975 AIR 1252 1975 SCR 84
1975 SCC (4) 153
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1986 SC 250 (39)
R 1991 SC1853 (8)
D 1992 SC 49 (15)
R 1992 SC 891 (15)
ACT:
Evidence-Appreciation of-Omission of details in First
and Inquest Report-Effect of-Code of Criminal Procedure (Act
5 of 1898) s. 174-Scope of.
HEADNOTE:
The first accused borrowed money from the deceased and as
the money was not repaid the deceased filed a suit against
him. Angered by being drawn into litigation, A. 1 to A. 3
and three others came upon the deceased in a jeep driven by
A. 4, and A. 1 to A. 3 getting down from the jeep stabbed
the deceased with daggers and while the deceased was falling
down carried him away in the jeep. The companion of the
deceased at the time when the occurrence took place gave the
first information to the police. Three days after the
incident the dead body was recovered, and inquest was held.
The four accused were charged with offences of murder and
kidnapping, but the trial court acquitted them for the
reasons : (i) the First Information did not contain the
overt acts attributed to each of the accused; (ii) details
of the overt acts were not mentioned in the Inquest Report
and therefore it must be inferred that the eye witnesses did
not mention the overt acts to the police; (iii) there was no
reliable evidence identifying the dead body, and (iv) the
motive was not sufficient to impel the accused to murder the
deceased.
On appeal the High Court convicted A. 1 to A. 3 for offences
tinder s. 302 read with ss. 34 and 148 and under s. 364 read
with s. 34 I.P.C.- A. 4 was convicted under s. 302 read with
s. 149 and under s. 364 read with s.-34, I.P.C.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court of A. 1 to A. 3 and
allowing that of A. 4,
HELD : The High Court rightly believed the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses and there was no error in its approach
to the case. [91 A-B].
(1) The witness who gave the first information must have
been extremely perturbed having seen the attack on his
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
companion. Even so, all the essential details which a first
information should contain are there. The names of the
accused and the circumstances of the murderous assault are
mentioned. Shorn of minute detail the broad picture
presented by the prosecution was mentioned in the first
information which was lodged soon after the occurrence. it
is neither customary nor necessary to mention every minute
detail in the first information. [88 A-C]
(2) The object of the inquest proceedings under s. 174 Cr.
P.C. is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under
suspicious circumstances or whether it was a case of
unnatural death, and if so, what was the apparent cause of
death. The question regarding the details as to how the
deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what
circumstances is foreign to the proceedings. Therefore,
neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the
police to have mentioned details of all the overt acts of
the accused in the inquest report. From such absence of
details in the inquest report it was wrong to presume that
the witnesses did not mention the details to the police
during investigation. [89 C-E]
(3) The dead body was identifiable and was identified by
the son of the deceased, the witness who gave the first
information and a co-villager. [90 E]
85
(4) Various persons react to circumstances in different
ways and it is difficult to say when a motive would be
sufficient for a crime. Moreover, in view of the
independent testimony of eye witnesses, whom the High Court
has believed the question of motive become academic. [90G-
H].
(5) This is not a case where two views are possible. The
only possible view is that taken by the High Court and the
High Court rightly reversed the acquittal under s. 417 Cr.
P. C. [91 C-D].
6(a) The medical evidence showes that the deceased must have
died before the body was put in the jeep and so the charge
of kidnapping fails. [91D-E].
(b) As regards A. 4 there is no reliable evidence to prove
actual complicity in the murder. He is a young boy of 18
engaged as a driver. His name is not mentioned in the first
information to the police as having taken any part in the
assault. [91 H].
(c) Therefore, he could not be convicted for murder. He
could be guilty of the offence under s. 201 I. P. C. but he
was acquitted of that charge by the trial court. The High
Court had not convicted him under that section and no appeal
against his acquittal has been filed in this Court and hence
he could not be convicted of that offence either. [92 C-D].
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 92 of
1971.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 31st December, 1970 of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 868 of
1969.
P. Basi Reddy and G. Narayanarao, for the appellants.
P. Rama Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J.-Appellants A-1 to A-3 have been convicted
under s. 302 read with s. 34 I.P.C. as also under s. 148
I.P.C. They are also convicted under S. 364 read with s. 34
I.P.C. A-1 to A-3 have been sentenced to imprisonment for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
life under s. 302 read with S. 34 and A-4 has been awarded
the same sentence under s. 302 read with s. 149 I.P.C. Under
s 364 read with s. 34 the four appellants have been awarded
five years rigorous imprisonment each. In view of the
sentences passed, no separate sentence was imposed under ss.
147 and 148 I. P. C. The accused had been acquitted by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Anantpur, in the State of Andhra
Pradesh. On appeal against acquittal filed by the State
before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the appeal was
allowed and the appellants A-1 to A-4 were convicted and
sentenced as mentioned above. Against these convictions,
the present appellants have preferred this appeal to this
Court. As the High Court had awarded the sentence of life
imprisonment after reversing the order of acquittal passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, the appeal to the Supreme
Court lies even on facts and as a matter of right under s. 2
of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate
Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.
The prosecution case may conveniently be divided into four
separate parts-Part-I constitutes the immediate motive for
the murder
86
of the deceased; Part 11 relates, to the visit of the
deceased to Anantpur where he was shadowed and threatened
and forms the genesis of the occurrence; Part III consists
of the actual murderous assault on the deceased resulting in
his death and the last part-Part IV-relates to the recovery
of the dead body three days after the occurrence. This is
rather an unfortunate case where the appellants sought to
hit upon a preconceived plan to do away with the life of
the deceased animated by rancor and hatred resulting from
the act of the deceased in embroiling the accused in a
litigation over a monetary transaction.
In order to understand the case put forward by the
prosecution it may be necessary to give briefly a resume of
the four stages of-. the prosecution case.
Part-I. The story of the prosecution begins with, the
purchase of a jeep by A-1 and his brother being jeep No.
A.I.A. 2781 from one Kona Rama Subbareddi for a
consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. In order to meet the
consideration of the jeep A-1 and his brother had borrowed a
sum of Rs. 6,900/- on April 18, 1964 from the deceased after
executing a promissory note in his favour. As this money
was not paid by A-1 to the deceased, the deceased brought a
suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Anantpur for
realisation of the amount. Some time in the year 1969 A-1
filed an Insolvency Petition before the Subordinate Judge
showin- his debts to the tune o@ Rs. 1,96,000/-. The suit
filed by the deceased was posted on February 6, 1969 for
evidence to be given by A-1 and this appears to have been
the immediate provocation and occasion- for planning the
murder of the deceased by the appellants.
Part-II. In view of the fact that the suit was posted to
February 6, 1969 the deceased along with P. W. 1-who will
hereafter be referred to as Chinna-proceeded to Anantpur on
February 5, 1969 and reached there at 8-30 P.M. It is said
that while P.W. 1 China and the deceased were alighting from
the bus they saw A-1, A-2 and A-4 sitting in the jeep near
the petrol pump which is situated near the bus-stand.
Chinna and the deceased then went to the house of N.
Narayana Rao, P.W. 20 who was their counsel and stayed there
for the night. On the next day i.e. February 6, 1969 the
suit was adjourned and after the adjournment of the case
Chinna and the deceased went to the place where they were
staying and on the way some persons with big mustaches
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
appear to have threatened them. Chinna, however, did not
take the threat seriously and proceeded to his destination.
Part-III. On the night of February 6, 1969 the deceased and
Chinna went to witness a picture called "Tenali Ramakrishna"
in Raghuveera Talkies and it is said that some of the
accused had also followed the deceased and went to see the
cinema show. After returning from the picture, while the
two persons namely Chinna and the deceased were proceeding
south to north and had covered 20 feet from the hotel where
they had taken their food, suddenly a jeep came and stopped
near the deceased. According to the prosecution A-1 to A-3
87
got down from the jeep along with three other strangers and
surrounded the deceased. Chinna was about one bara away
from the deceased. Thereafter A-2 stabbed the deceased with
a dagger on his stomach and A-1 stabbed him on the left side
of the chest and when the deceased was about to fall A-3 is
said to have stabbed the deceased with a dagger on his left
knee. When Chinna P.W. I wanted to intervene he was
threatened by the three stranger-who were armed With daggers
and was pushed aside by those strangers. Before the
deceased could fall down on the ground he was put into the
jeep and carried away.
Part-IV. On February 9, 1969 P.W. 16 and the Inspector of
Tadipatri Went to Cherlepalli for the purpose of
investigation where P.W. 16 received information that a dead
body was lying near the Railway gate at Taticherla. The,
police party proceeded to that place and found a dead body
lying on its back with injuries on the body. The body was,
however, in a bloated condition. Subsequently.proceedings
for inquest under s. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
were taken and after the usual investigation a charge-sheet
was submitted against the appellants. We might mention here
that the F.I.R. in the case was lodged by P.W. I Chinna on
February 6, 1969 before the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Anantpur Police Station and is Ext. P-1 in the case.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge after consideration of
the evidence produced before him acquitted the accused
without considering,, the intrinsic merits of the evidence
produced before him on purely general grounds and what he
called inherent improbabilities arising out of the case.
The High Court in appeal against the acquittal of the
accused found that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was
not at all justified in acquitting the accused and that the
reasons given by him were wholly untenable in law and
accordingly the High Court reversed tile order of acquittal
and convicted A-1 to A-4. The acquittal of A-5 was,
however, upheld by the High Court and we are not concerned
with him in this appeal.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants tried to
support the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge and pointed out a number of circumstances which
according to him cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the
prosecution case. In the first place, it was argued that
the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that as
the F.I.R. did not contain the overt acts attributed to each
of the accused, the story of the prosecution must be held to
be an after-thought. Dealing with this aspect of the matter
the High Court pointed out that the F.I.R. was lodged soon
after the occurrence and there was no occasion for the
informant to have mentioned all the material particulars in
the F. I. R. which had to be narrated and proved at the
trial. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the
reasons given by the High Court. In fact we find from the
perusal of Ext. P1 that all the essential details that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
F.I.R. should contain are given there. The names of the
accused are clearly mentioned, the circumstances leading to
the murderous assault on the deceased Linganna have
88
been set out. It has also been mentioned that the accused
got down from the jeep along with three strangers and
stabbed the deceased and then carried him away in the jeep.
It is also mentioned that the occurrence had taken place
because the deceased had filed a civil suit against A-1
which constituted the motive for the, murder. Thus shorn of
minutes detail the broad picture presented by the
prosecution was undoubtedly revealed in the F.I.R. which was
lodged very soon after the occurrence. In our opinion, it
is neither, customary not necessary to mention every minute
detail in the F.I.R. Chinna P.W.1 must have been extremely
perturbed because the deceased Linganna had been suddenly
attacked by a number of assailants and his body was carried
away. It is in that state of mental agony that he was not
able to give further details in the F.I.R. We are,
therefore, clearly of the opinion that the reasons given by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge for rejecting the
prosecution case are wholly untenable in law.
Another point taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
was that in the inquest report details of the overt acts’
committed by the various accused have not been mentioned in
the relevant column. The learned Judge in fact has assumed
without any legal justification that because the details
were not mentioned in the requisite column of the inquest
report, therefore, the presumption will be that the eye
witnesses did not mention the overt acts in their statements
before the police. To begin with it seems to us that the
learned Additional Session Judges" approach is legally
erroneous. A statement recorded by the police during the
investigation, is not at all admissible and the proper
procedure is to confront the witnesses with the
contradictions when they are examined and then ask the
Investigating Officer regarding those contradictions. This
does not appear to have done in this case. Further more,
proceedings for inquest under s. 174 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure have a very limited scope. Section 174 of the
Code as it then stood read as follows :
"174. Police to enquire and report on
suicide. etc.
(1) The officer in charge of a police
station or some other police officer specially
empowered by the State Government in
that behalf, on receiving information that a
person-
(a) has committed suicide; or
(b) has been killed by another, or by an
animal, or by machinery, or by an accident; or
(c) has died under circumstances raising a
reasonable suspicion that some other person
has committed an offence; shall immediately
give intimation thereof to the nearest
Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and,
unless otherwise directed by any rule
prescribed by the State Government, or by any
general or special order of the District or
Sub divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to
the place where the body of such deceased
person is and there, in the presence of two or
more respectable inhabitants of the
neighborhood, shall make an investigation and
draw up a report
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
89
of the apparent cause of death, describing
such wounds, fractures, bruises and other
marks of injury as may be found on the body,
and stating in what manner, or by what weapon
or instrument (if any) such marks appear to
have been inflicted.
(2)
(3) When there is any doubt regarding the
cause of death, or when for any other reason
the police officer considers it expedient so
to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the
State Government may prescribe in this behalf,
forward the body, with a view to its being
examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon; or
other qualified medical man appointed in this
behalf by the State Government, if the state
of the weather and the distance admit of its,
being so forwarded without risk of such
putrefaction on the road as would render such
examination useless."
A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the
object or the proceedings under s. 174 is merely to
ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious
circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the
apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the
details as to bow the deceased was assaulted or who
assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted
appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the
proceedings under s. 174. In these circumstances,
therefore, neither in practice nor in law was it necessary
for the police to have mentioned these details in the
inquest report. The High Court has adverted to this point
and has rightly pointed out as follows
"The learned Sessions Judge bad also stated
that the details regarding the weapons armed
by each of the accused and which accused had
attacked on which part of the body of the
deceased are not found in the inquest report
and from this he sought to draw the inference
that the statements of the witness now, found
recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. could not
have been the statements then read over to the
panchayatdars. Column 9 of the inquest report
shows that the injuries on the deceased were
caused by knives and daggers. Column 11 (a)
shows that Al to A3, A4 and A5 with 3
strangers came in the jeep driven by A4, got
down the jeep, stabbed the deceased with
daggers and knives, pushed P.W. 1, lifted the
deceased, put him in the jeep, and drove’ away
the jeep and death was the result of the
injuries inflicted. The object of holding any
inquest as can be seen from Section 174
Cr.P.C. is to find whether a person died a
natural death, or a homicidal death or due to
suicide. It was therefore not necessary to
enter all the details of the overt-acts in the
inquest report. From the mere fact that these
details were not noted in the inquest report
it cannot be concluded that the statements
given by the witnesses and read over at
90
the inquest did not contain those overt-acts
and the statements now produced are those of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
the witnesses which were taken later."
The High Court has thus rightly explained that the omissions
in the inquest report are not sufficient to put the
prosecution out of Court and the learned Additional
Sessions Judge was not at all justified in rejecting the
prosecution case in view of this alleged infirmity.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge was- also of the
opinion that there was no reliable evidence to identify the
dead body of the deceased Linganna and on that ground the
prosecution case could be rejected. This line of reasoning
adopted by the Additional Sessions Judge is not borne out by
the facts. The High Court pointed out in their judgment
that there, was sufficient evidence before the Court to
identify the body of the deceased. It is true that the dead
body of the deceased was bloated but P.W. 16 the Sub-
Inspector deposed in his evidence that the features of the
body were quite clear and visible. The photographs of the
body were taken by P.W. 19 and on seeing the photographs the
High Court was satisfied that the body was easily
identifiable. P.W. I Chinna who was fully known to the
deceased and who had accompanied him to Anantpur and in
whose presence the murder took place said that he went to
the place where the body was lying and identified the body.
The High Court also pointed out that P.W. I said that the
belt, M.O. 6 which was usually worn by the deceased was also
found on the dead body, which completely clinches the issue.
Although P.W. I was cross-examined at very great length it
was not suggested to him that the dead body found was not
that of the deceased. The body of the deceased was also
identified by another co-villager, and also by the son of
the deceased. In these circumstances, therefore, there was
abundant evidence to prove the identification of the dead
body and the finding of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge is based on a misreading of the evidence on this
point.
The learned Sessions Judge further held that the motive
ascribed to the appellants for committing the murder of the
deceased was not sufficient to impel them to plan the
murder of the deceased. This finding of the learned
Sessions Judge is based purely on speculation. Various
persons react to circumstances in different ways and it is
difficult to weigh the reaction of the persons in golden
scales with absolute computorised accuracy. There is no
doubt that the deceased had drawn the accused in a long
litigation involving thousands of rupees as a result of
which he had to attend the Court at Anantpur on various
dates. The sequence of circumstances under which the
deceased was murdered clearly shows that there could not
have been any other motive but the institution of the suit.
The High Court has also pointed out that the prosecution has
established good and sufficient motive for the murder of the
deceased. Futher more, in view of the independent testimony
of P.Ws 1, 2 and 3 whom the High Court has believed, and we
see no reason to differ from the view of the High Court, the
question of motive becomes more or less academic. On this
point also, in our opinion, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has taken an absolutely wrong view.
91
We have been taken through the entire evidence of P.W. 1, 2
& 3 who are independent witnesses and against whom no animus
has been established by the accused and we do not see any
reason to disbelieve their evidence. The High Court,
therefore, rightly believed their evidence in order to
accept the prosecution case. We do not find any error of
law in the approach made by the High Court.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
It was, however, submitted by Mr. Basi Reddy, learned
counsel for the appellants that this was a case in which
another view was also possible on the evidence and,
therefore, the High Court ought not to have interfered with
the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, as held by this Court in several cases.
After going through the evidence and circumstances of the
present case, however, we are clearly of the opinion that
the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is wholly
inapplicable to the instant case and, therefore, the
contention advanced by the counsel for the appellants in
this Court is overruled. This is not at all a case where a
second view was possible. On the other hand it was a case
where the learned Additional Sessions Judge had given
untenable reasons and where his approach was not only
perverse, but also legally erroneous. In such
circumstances, it can not be disputed that the High Court
had ample powers to reverse the order of acquittal under s.
417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As regards the case of A-4, we find that it stands on a
different footing and there does not appear to be any legal
evidence against this appellant. We are also satisfied that
there is no reliable evidence to prove the charge under s.
364 I.P.C. According to the medical evidence the deceased
sustained as many as six injuries. The position and the
nature of the injuries particularly on the various parts of
the body clearly show that they must have been inflicted on
the deceased outside the jeep and not when the body was
carried in the jeep of A-1. The medical evidence also shows
that the deceased could have died instantly within minutes
of the occurrence. On the other hand there is absolutely no
evidence to show that any injury was inflicted either when
the deceased was put into the jeep or when he was carried
away in the jeep. From these circumstances, therefore, it
is manifest that all the six injuries must have been caused
during the course of the occurrence on the spot before the
body was put into the jeep and in all probability the
deceased must have died at the spot. If this was so, then
the charge under s.364 I.P.C. must necessarily fail, because
there was no question of kidnapping the deceased for the
deceased had died even before he was kidnapped. So far as
A-1 to A-4 are concerned, this question is more or less
academic because they have already been convicted by the
High Court under s. 302 read with s. 34 and A-4 under s. 302
read with s. 149 I.P.C. As regards A-4 is concerned, we are
satisfied that there is no reliable evidence to prove his
actual complicity in the murder of the deceased. The case
of the prosecution is that A-4 who is a young boy of 18
years was employed as a driver of the jeep after the same
was purchased by A-1. It is true that A-4 had taken A-1 to
A-3 to the scene of occurrence. But this was a part of his
duty and that by itself would not show a complicity in the
offence of murder which was committed later. Although in
the course of the trial the
92
witnesses have stated that this appellant also tried to take
the body in the jeep while he was sitting there or that he
had come out of the jeep, this evidence cannot be accepted
because it is nowhere mentioned in the F.I.R. that A-4 had
taken any part in the assault on the deceased. There is
only a reference to the three strangers and A-1 to A-3 and
there is no reference to A-4 excepting that he was driving
the jeep. In these circumstances we are unable to agree
that A-4 had shared the common object of murdering the
deceased at any stage. The only offence that could have
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
been committed by A-4 was under s. 201 I.P.C. because after
the deceased was put into the jeep he knew fully well that
he had been assaulted by the appellants and was being taken
away for the purpose of disposal of the dead body.
Unfortunately, however, though A-4 was charged under s. 201
he was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
and even the High Court has not convicted him under that
section. No appeal against his acquittal has been filed in
this Court. In these circumstances therefore it is not
possible for us to convict him for the first time under s.
201 I.P.C. in the present appeal. For these reasons
therefore it follows that A-4, namely, Budekula Kullayappa
is entitled to acquittal as his complicity in the actual
assault on the deceased has not been proved. Nor has it
been proved that he had shared the common object of the
crime with others.
The result is that convictions and sentences passed on all
the appellants under s. 364 read with s. 34 I.P.C. are set
aside. The orders of conviction and sentence under s. 302
read with s. 34 in so far as A-1 to A-3 are concerned are
upheld. The appeal of A-4 is allowed and the order of the
High Court convicting him under s. 147 and under s. 302 read
with s. 149 is set aside and he is acquitted and is directed
to be released forthwith. The appeals of A-1 to A-3 are
dismissed.
V.P.S. Appeals
partly allowed
93