Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1521-1522 OF 2011
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY ….
APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF A.P. & ETC. ….
RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1102-1103 OF 2011
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1100-1101 OF 2011
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1093-1094 OF 2011
JUDGMENT
S. A. BOBDE, J.
1. This batch of appeals is preferred by the accused against the
JUDGMENT
common judgment and order dated 23rd March 2004 in Criminal Appeal
Nos. 954 and 956 of 2008. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1521-1522 of 2011 are
filed by the Accused No. 1; Criminal Appeal Nos. 1102-1103 of 2011 are
filed by the accused Nos. 2-7; Criminal Appeal Nos. 1100-1101 of 2011
by the accused
Nos. 8-12; Criminal Appeal Nos. 1093-1094 of 2011 are filed by the
Accused No. 2, Konduru Nagure Reddy. Since they arise out of the same
incident/judgment they have been taken up together for disposal.
2. The crime in question is the murder of Mudi Parandhami Reddy in an
Page 1
agricultural field on 25.11.96 in Mettu village in Andhra Pradesh.
According to the prosecution, the deceased was a leader of the Congress
party in the area. He was suspected by the Accused No. 1 Puchalapalli
Parandhami Reddy, a leader of the Telugu Desam Party, as being
responsible for the murder of his father on 25.3.92. Land disputes also
existed between Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2), his brother Pelluru Murali
Reddy (P.W. 3) on one side and A-19, Pelluru Venu Reddy about the
division of survey No. 116. Litigation was pending between them in a
Court. Therefore, Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and Rajagopal Reddy
(L.W. 2) sought the mediation of the deceased Mudi Parandhami Reddy
and it was decided that the deceased would mediate on 25.11.96.
3. On 24.11.96, Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and his brother
Rajagopal engaged farm labour i.e. P.W. 1 (Vakati Ramanaiah), P.W. 2
(Rayapati Venkata Ramanaiah), P.W. 4 (Bandila Mutyhyalaiah) and P.W.
5 (Rayapati Kotaiah) for ploughing the land. On the next day, i.e.
25.11.1996 the deceased had come to the land and sat on a ridge in the
JUDGMENT
field while the ploughing was going on by the labourers. Around 8.00
a.m., A-19, Pelluru Venu Reddy and A-20, Pelluru Sreedhar Reddy came
there and asked that the ploughing be stopped because there was a
dispute over the land. Mudi Parandhami intervened and said that the
dispute will be resolved later and asked the ploughing to go on. At this
the accused went away. Around 10 a.m. the accused party came back.
The accused no.1 hacked Mudi Parandhami with a battle-axe on the
head. After that A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy came and when Pelluru
Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) intervened, A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy, hit him
with the blunt edge of the chilla kathi. Then A-3, Konduru Dayakar
Page 2
Reddy, hacked Mudi Parandhami with an axe on his head. When Pelluru
Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) intervened, A-3, Konduru Dayakar Reddy, hit him
on the left hand. After this A-4, Konduru Ramachandra Reddy, came and
stabbed Mudi Parandhami on his left shoulder. A-5, Putchalapalli
Ramamohan Reddy, then stabbed mudi Parandhami on his chest. A-6,
Putchalapalli Srinivasulu Reddy, then stabbed Mudi Parandhami with a
spear on the left side of his back. Thereafter A-7, Putchalapalli Niranjan
Reddy, stabbed Mudi Parandhami on his back. Then A-8, Avula Sudhakar,
stabbed Mudi Parandhami on his left ear and his abdomen. Thereafter A-
9, Putchalapalli Subrahmanyam Reddy, stabbed Mudi parandhami on the
left side of the chest. A-10, Yellasiri Masthan, then hit Mudi Parandhami
with a stick on the left temple. A-12, Chennur Venkataramana Reddy,
gave a blow on the head to Mudi Parandhami. When Rajagopal Reddy
Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2), intervened A-12, Chennur Venkataramana
Reddy hacked him on the head with the same battle axe and felled him.
In the incident Mudi Parandhami Reddy died. P.W. 3 (Murali Reddy) L.W.
2 (P. Raja Gopal Reddy) and L.W. 3 (Pelluru Karunakar Reddy) were
JUDGMENT
injured.
4. Since no doctor was available at Vakadu, one Subrahmanyamm
Reddy brought a car and Veluru Gopal Reddy, P.W. 6, Pelluru Murali
Reddy P.W.3 took him in the car to the Government Hospital, Gudur.
However, since his condition was critical the hospital authorities advised
them to take him for special treatment to Tirupati. On 26.11.1996 the
Additional District Munsif, Tirupati recorded the Dying Declaration of P.W.
2 - P Rajagopal Reddy (the injured) at the Government Hospital,
Tirupati. P.W. 17, K. Bala Reddy, Inspector of Police, Vakadu conducted
inquest over the body of the deceased Mudi Parandhami Reddy and sent
Page 3
his body for post mortem to the Government Hospital, where PW 13, Dr.
M.C. Narashimhulu, conducted post mortem over the body of the
deceased.
5. First Information Report was lodged after about seven hours.
The Investigating Officer, Mr. K. Prasad Rao, P.W. 14, recorded the
statement of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) at the Government Hospital,
Gudur and registered Crime No. 175 of 1996 and recorded the confession
of accused No. 2 (Konduru Nagure Reddy) and recovered M.Os 1 to 10.
Rest of the investigation was conducted by K. Bala Reddy (Inspector of
Police), P.W. 17. The post mortem was conducted by Doctor M.C.
Narasimhulu (P.W.13). The wound certificate showed the following ante-
mortem injuries:
“(1) A bone deep lacerated injury of about 3" x 1/2"
extending from middle of skull to the left parietal bone.
Blood stains present with congestion. Deeper to it sub
scalp congested and dark. L shaped fracture of skull in
mid line for about 3 ½” and to the right side of parietal
bone. Brain coverings congested and dark. Subdural
haematoma present over the middle of brain. Brain matter
congested and dark. There is basal fracture of skull
transversely from one petrous part of the bone to the
other and fracture of right parietal bone, blood clots and
congestion present over the base of skull and at the
fractured areas. Injury is ante mortem.
JUDGMENT
(2) Swelling over right fronto parietal area of skull.
Deeper to it sub-scalp congested with dark blood clots.
Injury ante mortem.
(3) Cut injury cartilage deep of about 1" over the upper
part of helix of left ear present. Blood stains present with
congestion. Injury is ante mortem.
(4) Skin discoloured dark with swelling over left parotid
region and a part of left face. Deeper to it dark blood clots
with congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.
(5) An incised injury of about 2 ½” x ½” x unknown depth
in between 3rd and 4th intercostals space just medial to
the mammary plane. Blood stains and congestion present.
Deeper to it fracture of 3rd rib, severing the 3rd
intercostals space entering the thoracic cavity injured
irregularly left lung by cutting irregularly and injured the
Page 4
anterior part of heart muscle opening the heart chambers
(auricle and ventricle) for about 2 ½” . Blood clots and
congestion present at the intercostals region, over the
lung injury and over the heart. Injury ante mortem in
nature.
(6) Another incised injury of about 2" x ½” x unknown
depth over the 4th intercostals area just medial to
mammary plane on left chest. Blood stains and congestion
rd
present. Deeper to it the 3 intercostals space opened and
left 4th rib fractured and entered the thoracic cavity.
Congestion and blood clots present at the fractured site
and intercostals area. Injury is ante mortem in nature.
(7) A cut injury bone deep of about 2" x ½” over the 5th
intercostals space in the left anterior axillary line. Blood
stains and congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.
(8) Another cut injury bone deep of about 1 ½” x ½” over
the 7th left intercostals space in the anterior axillary
plane. Congestion and blood stains present. Injury is ante
mortem.
(9) Another cut injury bone deep of about 2 ½” x ½” in
the mid axillary line on 5th left intercostals space. Blood
stains and congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.
(10) Cut injury skin deep of about ½” x ½” in 7th left
intercostals area in the mamillary plane. Blood stains and
congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.
(11) Another cut injury of about ½” x ½” skin deep just
below the above injury.
(12) Another cut injury of about 2" x ½” x unknown depth
over the lower aspect of back of left chest present.
Internally the last rib fractured on the back in the
posterior mid line on left side entering the abdominal
cavity and injured the left kidney for about ¾.
Congestion and blood clots present over the injured areas
internally. Thoracic cage contained clotted blood for about
1 ½ liters. Blood clots also present in abdominal cavity.
Injury is ante mortem.
JUDGMENT
(13) Another cut injury bone deep of about 1 ½” x ½”
over the line on lumbar area. Blood stains and congestion
hyoid bone, normal. Neck tissues normal. Stomach
contains of about 1 oz of coffee coloured fluid. Genitals
normal. Intestines normal.”
The doctor opined that the deceased died due to shock from head injury
and injury to the brain and heart and other multiple injuries and
hemorrhage.
6. Since Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2) was injured and critical, his
Page 5
dying declaration was recorded on 26.11.1996 by the IInd Additional
District Munsif, Tirupati.
7. At the trial the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The defence
examined D.Ws 3 to 6 to prove their plea of alibi. P.W. 1 (Vakati
Ramanaiah), P.W. 2 (Rayapati Venkata Ramanaiah) and P.W. 11 (SK
Ahmed Basha) turned hostile. The prosecution did not examine Rajagopal
Reddy (L.W. 2), Mohan (L.W. 11) and Karunakara Redddy (L.W. 3).
Charge-sheet was filed against 20 accused under Sections 147, 148 and
302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against all the accused, under
Sections 307 and 326 against A2, A3 and A12, under Section 307 read
with Section 149 IPC and under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC
against A-1, A-4 to A-11 and A-13 to A-20. Upon considering the
evidence and after hearing, the IIIrd -Additional District & Sessions Judge
(Fast Track), Nellore found none of the accused guilty for the offences
they were charged with and acquitted them.
8. The plea of alibi has been rejected by the Trial Court as well as
the High Court. Rejection of this plea is based on complete improbability
JUDGMENT
of the plea and is not necessary to consider it any further, particularly,
since it was not pressed seriously before us. In Appeal and Revision, the
High Court considered the entire evidence on record and found that:
(a) Accused Nos. 1 to 12 are found guilty under
Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.) for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and
302 read with Section 149 of IPC for causing the death of
the deceased Mudi Parandhami Reddy and further under
Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC for causing simple
injuries to P.W. 3. They were awarded rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year each for the
offences under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC;
(b) Accused 1 to 12 were further sentenced to
'imprisonment for life' for the offence under Section 302
Page 6
read with Section 149 of IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-
(Rupees one thousand only) each, in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for one month each;
(c) Accused 2 and 3 were further sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each for the offence
under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC;
(d) All the sentences were directed to run concurrently;
(e) Accused 13 to 20 were found not guilty for the
offences with which they were charged and the High Court
confirmed the judgment of the trial Court acquitting those
accused. Both the criminal appeal and the criminal
revision were allowed in part and the judgment of the trial
court was set aside.
9. Shri Altaf Ahmed and Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, relied on the
decisions of this Court in Rohtash vs. State of Haryana , (2012) 6 SCC
589 and Murugesan vs. State , (2012) 10 SCC 383, for the principles
reiterated by this Court for interfering with an order of acquittal. In
Rohtash (supra) to which one of us (Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.) was a party,
this court held that an order of acquittal is liable to be interfered with
only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and
the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse. Interference in a routine
JUDGMENT
manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there
are good reasons for interference. In Rohtas (supra) this Court
observed:
“27. The High Court interfered with the order of acquittal
recorded by the trial court. The law of interfering with the
judgment of acquittal is well settled. It is to the effect
that only in exceptional cases where there are compelling
circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be
perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order
of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind
the presumption of innocence of the accused and further
that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of
innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the
other view if possible should be avoided, unless there are
good reasons for interference. [ Vide State of Rajasthan v.
Page 7
Talevar (2011) 11 SCC 666 and Govindaraju v. State
(2012) 4 SCC 722].”
10. In Murugesan (supra), this Court has observed as under:
“21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had
emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo
Swarup is to be found in para 42 of the report in
Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka : 2007 (4)
SCC 415. The same may, therefore, be usefully noticed
below: (SCC 432)
“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view,
the following general principles regarding powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an
order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-
appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which
the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of
such power and an appellate court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds",
"very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in
the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise
the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to
review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
JUDGMENT
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind
that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption
in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly,
the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
Page 8
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial court.
(Emphasis supplied)”
11. According to the learned counsel the trial court has rightly
disbelieved the prosecution case, particularly, in view of the evidence of
Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and the non-examination of Rajagopal
Reddy (L.W. 2). Other witnesses from the initial list have also been
examined. As found by the trial court, the learned counsel submitted that
the depositions of several witnesses of the prosecution is without any
credibility and even the presence of some of them on the scene of the
crime is doubtful or, they are interested witnesses. A conviction based on
such evidence is not tenable. It was also submitted by the learned
counsel that the evidence of PW-3, who claims to be present, is itself
doubtful. Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) is the younger brother of
Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2), whose son is K. Reddy. A-19, Pelluru Venu
Reddy, is the elder brother of PW 3. A-20, Pelluru Sreedhar Reddy is son
of A-19, Pelluru Venu Reddy. Admittedly, there is a dispute pertaining to
land between Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2)
JUDGMENT
on one hand and A-19, Pelluru Venu Reddy and A-20, Pelluru Sreedhar
Reddy, on the other. Therefore, the animus of this witness against the
accused is clear. Moreover, the evidence of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3)
is itself unreliable because the witness deposed that the A-1 -
Puchalapalli Parandhami Reddy, hacked the deceased with a battle axe
whereas the injury on the head shows that it must have been caused by
blunt side of an axe. The injury in question i.e. injury No. 1, is as
follows:
“(1) A bone deep lacerated injury of about 3" x ½”
extending from middle of skull to the left parietal bone.
Page 9
Blood stains present with congestion. Deeper to it sub
scalp congested and dark. L shaped fracture of skull in
mid line for about 3 ½” and to the right side of parietal
bone. Brain coverings congested and dark. Subdural
hematoma present over the middle of brain. Brain matter
congested and dark. There is basal fracture of skull
transversely from one petrous part of the bone to the
other and fracture of right parietal bone, blood clots and
congestion present over the base of skull and at the
fractured areas. Injury is ante mortem.”
12. The doctor has opined that this injury could have been caused by
a blunt object. According to the learned counsel the witness did not say
that the accused reversed the axe while hitting the deceased on the head
as the injury shows, and therefore he is lying or was not present. In the
first place, we find that other witnesses have given the same deposition.
It is possible that the statement of the witness is slightly inaccurate or
the witness did not see properly which side of the axe was used. It is
equally possible that the sharp edge of the axe is actually very blunt or it
was reversed just before hitting the head. It is not possible to say what
is the reason. That is however no reason for discarding the statement of
the witness that A-1 - Puchalapalli Parandhami Reddy hit the deceased
without a battle axe, as is obvious from the injury. Moreover, it is not
JUDGMENT
possible to doubt the presence of this witness, who has himself been
injured. Dr. M.C. Narasimhulu, P.W. 13, Medical Officer, has stated in his
evidence that on 25-11-1996 at about 3.30 p.m., he examined this
witness - P.W.3 - P. Murali Reddy and found the following injuries:
rd
“(1) Diffused swelling with tenderness over middle 1/3
and back of left forearm.
(2) A lacerated injury skin deep of about ½” over the back
of head. Bleeding present with tenderness and swelling
around.”
13. We are also not impressed by the finding of the trial court that
Page 10
there is discrepancy between the statement of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W.
3) and his oral testimony because he said in the statement that he saw
the tractor in which the accused had arrived just before the house of A-
19, Pelluru Venu Reddy and deposed that the house could not be seen
from where he was standing. Such a discrepancy does not detract from
the basic credibility of this witness, who along with his brother has been
injured in the attack.
14. Besides, the evidence of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3), there is a
similar deposition by P.W. 4 (Bandila Mutyhyalaiah) and P.W. 5
(Rayapati Kotaiah) who were engaged by Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3)
and his brother and P.W. 6 (Veluru Gopal Reddy) and P.W. 7 (Manneti
Chenchaiah), who had accompanied the deceased.
15. The evidence of P.W. 4 (Bandila Mutyhyalaiah) and P.W. 5
(Rayapati Kotaiah) was attacked on the ground that they were engaged
by Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and P.W. 5 (Rayapati Kotaiah) and
therefore are interested witnesses and not reliable. Such a contention
cannot be accepted. There was no reason for these witnesses to falsely
JUDGMENT
depose. It is equally true that there is no mention of these witnesses i.e.
PWs 4 and 5 in the F.I.R. We do not find anything significant in their non-
mention since they were apparently from a different village and it is
possible that their names were left out.
16. Their depositions are clear and consistent about the incident and
are on the following line. That at about 7.30 or 8 a.m., P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and
5 were ploughing the land with nagallu. The deceased was sitting on the
northern side of the ridge. P.W. 6 (Veluru Gopal Reddy), Chenchaiah
L.W.10 and Mohan L.W.11 were standing on the eastern side. Meanwhile,
Page 11
accused 19 and 20 came there and objected for ploughing the land. The
deceased intervened and informed that the disputes will be settled later
and asked them to plough the land. On that, A- 19 and 20 left the fields.
On the same day at about 10 a.m., A-1 came to the scene and hacked the
deceased with a battle-axe on the head. After that, A-2 came and when
P.W.3 intervened, accused No. 2 beat P.W.3 with the butt end of a
chilakathi on the head. Then accused No. 3 came and hacked the
deceased with an axe on the head. When P.W.3 intervened, accused No. 3
beat with the same axe on the left hand of P.W.3. Thereafter, accused No.
4 came and stabbed the deceased on the left shoulder. A-5 stabbed the
deceased on the chest. A-6 stabbed the deceased with a spear on the left
side back portion. A-7 stabbed the deceased on the back side. A-8
stabbed the deceased on the left ear and also on the abdomen. A-9
stabbed the deceased on the left side chest portion. A-10 beat the
deceased with a stick on the left temple. A-11 stabbed the deceased with
a chilakathi on the left side of the chest and on the left tempo. A-12 beat
the deceased with an axe on the head. When Rajagopal Reddy L.W.2
JUDGMENT
intervened, A-12 hacked him with the same battle-axe on the head. Due
to that blow, he had fallen on the ground. After 15 minutes,
Subrahmanyam Reddy, resident of Thimmareddyvagu, brought a tractor
to the scene. P.W 6, P.W.3 and Subrahmanyam Reddy took the injured
Rajagopal Reddy L.W.2 in the said tractor to Vakadu for treatment as his
condition was serious. As there was no doctor available at Vakadu,
Subrahmanyam Reddy brought a car and himself, Rajagopala Reddy
L.W.2, P.W.3 and Subrahmanyam Reddy together took him to the
Government Hospital, Gudur. There they were advised to take the injured
L.W.2 to Tirupati for expert treatment and thereafter he returned back to
Page 12
the house.
17. Deposition of P.W. 6, who accompanied the deceased fully
corroborates the version of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3). He stated that
PW 3 and LW 2 came to the house of the deceased and requested him to
mediate the dispute among the brothers. The deceased promised to
come on the next day. On the next day what transpired is narrated by
him as above. There is no substance in the contention that this witness
supported the prosecution side in some earlier litigation, therefore, his
testimony is liable to be discarded. P.W. 7 (Manneti Chenchaiah) was
also present when the deceased was requested to mediate the dispute on
the earlier date and accompany him to the field on the next day. His
narration of the incident is similar to the deposition of other witnesses
and have been believed by the High Court. The prosecution case is fully
supported by rest of the witnesses and the evidence.
18. The prosecution in this case has sufficiently established the
motive, which is the political rivalry and the land dispute between the
parties; their preparation, which consists the accused party going to the
JUDGMENT
field of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2) with
arms; the recovery of these arms at the instance of A-2, Konduru Nagure
Reddy; the discovery of blood stains on the knife and battle-axe and ante
mortem injuries inflicted on the deceased, as per the inquest and post
mortem report. The injuries were caused to the deceased by the accused,
which are as under:
“ P.W. 3 - Pelluru Murali Reddy stated about the injuries on the
deceased as under:
A-1 - hacked the deceased on the head with battle axe.
A-3 - with axe – beat the deceased on the head.
Page 13
A-4 - with bitchuva (knife) stabbed the deceased on the left side chest
and underneath of left arm pit.
A-5 – With Bitchuva (Knife) – stabbed the deceased Paradhami Reddy on
the left side of the chest and underneath, left arm pit resulting bleeding
injuries.
A-6 – Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side back portion,
resulting bleeding injuries.
A-7 – Spear – on left side back portion of the deceased resulting bleeding
injuries.
A-8 – Chilakathi – stabbed the deceased on the left ear and on his
abdomen.
A-9 – Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side chest portion and
also on umbilicus.
A-10 – Stick – beat the deceased on the left temporal region.
A-11 – Chilakathi – stabbed on the left side temple region near the left
ear and also on the abdomen causing bleeding injury.
A-12 – with battle axe – backed the deceased on the head caused
bleeding injury.
Other accused beat the deceased indiscriminately with sticks and iron
rods.
P.W. 4 - Bandila Mutyhyalaiah – spoke about the injuries on the
deceased as under:
A-1 - hacked the deceased - with battle axe on the head.
A-3 - with axe – beat deceased Parandhami Reddy on the head.
A-4 – stabbed – deceased with Bitchuva on the left side of the chest and
also underneath left arm pit.
A-5 – stabbed the deceased with Bitchuva on the left side of the chest
and also underneath the left arm pit.
A-6 –With Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side back portion.
JUDGMENT
A-7 – With Spear stabbed the deceased on the left side back portion.
A-8 – With Chilakathi – hacked the deceased on the left ear and abdomen
of the deceased.
A-9 – With Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side of the chest and
also on the umbilicus.
A-10 – With Stick – beat the deceased on the left side temporal region.
A-11 – hacked the deceased with Chilakathi on the left side temple and
also on the left side of chest.
A-12 – hacked the deceased with battle axe on the head.
Other accused beat the deceased indiscriminately with iron rods and
sticks.
P.W. 5 (Rayapati Kotaiah) – spoke about the injuries on the deceased
as under:
A-1 – With axe beat Parandhami Reddy on the head.
A-3 – hacked the deceased with axe on the head.
Page 14
A-4 – stabbed – deceased with Bitchuva on the left side of the chest and
also underneath left arm pit.
A-5 – stabbed the deceased with Bitchuva on the left side of the chest
and also underneath the left arm pit.
A-6 –With Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side back portion.
A-7 – Armed with Spear - stabbed on the left side back portion.
A-8 – stabbed the deceased - with Chilakathi –on the left ear and
abdomen.
A-9 – With Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side of the chest.
A-10 – beat the deceased with spear – with stick temporal region.
A-11 – stabbed the deceased with Chilakathi on the left side of the chest
and on the left side of the temple region.
A-12 – hacked the deceased with battle axe on the head.
Other accused beat the deceased indiscriminately.
P.W. 6 - Veluru Gopal Reddy stated about the injuries on the deceased
as under:
A-1 - hacked the deceased with battle axe on the head.
A-4 – stabbed – Parandhami Reddy on the left shoulder.
A-5 – stabbed the deceased on the chest.
A-6 – stabbed the deceased with Spear on the left side back portion.
A-7 – stabbed Parandhami Reddy on the left side.
A-8 – stabbed Parandhami Reddy on the left ear and also on the
abdomen.
A-9 – stabbed Parandhami Reddy on the left side chest portion.
A-10 – beat the deceased with stick on the left temporal region of
deceased Parandhami Reddy.
A-11 – stabbed the deceased with Chilakathi on the left side of the chest
and left side of the temple region.
JUDGMENT
A-12 – beat Parandhami Reddy with axe on his head.
P.W. 7 (Manneti Chenchaiah) stated about the injuries on the deceased
as under:
A-1 –axed the deceased on the head with battle axe.
A-3 – hacked Parandhami Reddy with axe on the head.
A-4 – stabbed – Parandhami Reddy with bitchuva on the left side of the
chest and underneath the left arm pit.
A-5 – stabbed Parandhami Reddy with bitchuva on the left side of the
chest and underneath the left arm pit.
A-6 – stabbed the deceased with Spear on the left side back portion.
A-7 – stabbed the deceased with spear on the left side back portion.
A-8 – stabbed the deceased with Chillakathi on the left ear and also on
the abdomen.
A-9 – stabbed the deceased with spear on the left side of the chest and
also on umbilicus.
Page 15
A-10 – beat Parandhami Reddy with sticks on the left temporal region.
A-11 – stabbed Parandhami Reddy with Chilakathi on the left side of the
chest and left side of the temple region.
A-12 – beat the deceased on the chest with battle axe.”
19. We have found that the injuries on the deceased are completely
relatable to the injuries to the attack as deposed to by the prosecution
witnesses.
20. We have carefully examined the alleged discrepancies and we do
not find that the discrepancies and doubts are such as makes their
testimonies liable to be rejected, in view of the deposition of PWs 3, 6
and 7, which is clear and consistent.
21. In State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh, A.I.R. 1988 SC 1998, this
Court observed as follows:
“In an appeal against acquittal, in the great majority of
cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want
of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some
falsehood, stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In
some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not
examining all witnesses to the occurrence. The indifferent
attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes could
also be pointed. The public are generally reluctant to come
forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not
correct to reject the prosecution version only on ground
that all witnesses to occurrence have not been examined.
It is also not proper to reject the case for want of
corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made
out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to
falsehood stated or embellishments added by the
prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is
a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a
good case by false or exaggerated version. It is also
experienced that invariably the witnesses add embroidery
to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being
disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case
overboard, if true in the main. If there is a ring of truth in
the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of
the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the
evidence unless there is reason to believe that the
inconsistencies of falsehood are so glaring as utterly to
destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to
remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal
trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A
Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not
escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public
JUDGMENT
Page 16
duties which the Judge has to perform.”
22. In State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh , (2003) 11 SCC 271,
this Court held as follows:
“There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the
evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based.
Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered
with because the presumption of innocence of the accused
is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread
which runs through the web of administration of justice in
criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of
the accused and the other to his innocence, the view
which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The
paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that
miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of
justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no
less than from -the conviction of an innocent. In a case
where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon
the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence even
where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of
ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed
any offence or not.”
23. Having regard to the above law laid down by this Court, the High
Court was fully justified in reversing the order of acquittal in respect of
accused Nos. 1 to 12.
JUDGMENT
24. At this stage, we might note that we are not impressed by the
submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution
case fails because Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2), who is said to be injured in
the attack, was not examined. LW 2, the brother of PW 3, is said to have
received one simple injury on the head in the attack. The witnesses
stated that he received several injuries on his head, however, the
evidence of the Medical Officer shows that the X-ray of the skull was
taken on 25.11.1996 and there was one simple injury on his head on the
date of the offence. This witness obviously should have been examined
but for reasons best known to the prosecution was not examined. Though
Page 17
his dying declaration was recorded by the IInd Additional Munsif, Tirupati
on 26.11.1996, this witness survived.
25. In Sunil Kumar & Ors . V. State of M.P., AIR 1997 SC 940, this
Court held as under:
“……….. that immediately after PW 1, injured witness was
taken to the hospital his statement was recorded as a
dying declaration which, consequent upon his survival, is
to be treated only as a statement recorded under
Section 164 , Cr. P.C. and can be used for corroboration
or contradiction. This statement recorded by the
Magistrate at the earliest available opportunity clearly
discloses the substratum of the prosecution case including
the names of the appellants as assailants and there is not
an iota of materials on record to show that this was the
upshot of his tutoring. On the contrary, this statement
was made at a point of time when PW 1 was in a critical
condition and it is difficult to believe that he would falsely
implicate the appellants leaving aside the real
culprits………that there was only some minor
inconsequential contradictions which did not at all impair
his evidence. Then again, as already noticed, the
evidences of the doctors fully supports his version of the
incident.”
(Emphasis added).
26. In Maqsoodan & Ors. V. State of U.P., AIR 1983 SC 126 , this
Court dealt with an issue wherein a person, who had made a statement in
JUDGMENT
expectation of death, did not die. This Court held that it cannot be
treated as a dying declaration as his statement was not admissible under
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but it was to be dealt with
under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, which provides that the former
statement of a witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as
to the same fact.
27. In Ramprasad v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1999 SC 1969, a
similar view has been re-iterated by this Court as this Court observed:
“Be that as it may, the question is whether the court could
Page 18
treat it as an item of evidence for any purpose. Section
157 of the Evidence Act permits proof of any former
statement made by a witness relating to the same fact
before "any authority legally competent to investigate the
fact" but its use is limited to corroboration of the
testimony of such witness. Though a police officer is
legally competent to investigate, any statement made to
him during such investigation cannot be used to
corroborate the testimony of a witness because of the
clear interdict contained in Section 162 of the Code. But a
statement made to a magistrate is not affected by the
prohibition contained in the said Section. A magistrate can
record the statement of a person as provided in Section
164 of the Code and such statement would either be
elevated to the status of Section 32 if the maker of the
statement subsequently dies or it would remain within the
realm of what it was originally. A statement recorded by a
magistrate under Section 164 becomes usable to
corroborate the witness as provided in Section 157 of the
Evidence Act or to contradict him as provided in Section
155 thereof.”
28. The above view has also been reiterated by this Court in
Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao & Anr. V. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR
1996 SC 2791; State of U.P. V. Veer Singh & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4614;
and Ranjit Singh and Ors. V. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2011 SC
255.
29. In this case, however, we are not inclined to go into the issue
JUDGMENT
since Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2), was not examined at all. No issue has
been raised whether a witness could have corroborated or contradicted on
the basis of the statement recorded by the IInd Additional Munsif,
Tirupati.
30. Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for A-2 -
Konduru Nagure Reddy, submitted that this accused has been charged for
the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of
the IPC etc. He pointed out that the only overt act attributed to him by
some of the prosecution witnesses is that because Pelluru Murali Reddy
Page 19
(P.W. 3) intervened during the attack, he beat the said PW 3 with the
blunt axe of Chillakathi on his back side. This according to the learned
counsel only resulted in a simple lacerated injury skin deep of about 1½”
over the back head of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3). The Medical Officer
has opined that this injury is simple. In the circumstances, the conviction
and sentence of A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy, awarded by the trial court
and affirmed by the High Court is liable to be modified. We hold A-2,
Konduru Nagure Reddy, guilty only for the offence punishable under
Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. We, therefore, alter the
conviction of A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy, from Sections 147, 148 and
302 read with Section 149 of the IPC etc. to Section 324 read with
Section 34 of the IPC. In our considered opinion, custody and sentence
of 2 (two) years would be appropriate and sufficient. The accused-
appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a term of 2 years, if not already
undergone, in terms of this order.
JUDGMENT
31. In view of the above, we allow Criminal Appeal Nos. 1093-1094
of 2011, filed by A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy, to the extent indicated
above. Rest of the appeals are dismissed.
...........................………………..J.
[ DR. B.S. CHAUHAN ]
….....................………………………J.
[ S.A. Bobde ]
Page 20
New Delhi,
October18, 2013
JUDGMENT
Page 21