BODDELLA BABUL REDDYversusPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.

                     [2010] 1 S.C.R. 149


                BODDELLA BABUL REDDY                             A
                              v.
      PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP.
           (Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2007)

                     JANUARY 06, 2010
                                                                 B
      [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                   SHARMA, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and
3021149 - Rivalry between two political factions - Accused C
armed with dangerous weapons- and bombs, attacked
deceased and prosecution witnesses - A/legation that
appellant hurled bomb on deceased, resulting in his death
on the spot and four accused hurled bombs resulting in
splinter injuries to prosecution witnesses - Trial of accused D
persons for various. offences - Acquittal by trial court - High
 Court upholding acquittal of all the accused except appellant
- Conviction of appellant uls. 302 - On appeal, held: High
 Court not justified in interfering with the judgment of trial court
- It did not exercise the caution while dealing with the E
judgment of acquittal by trial court - Evidence of witnesses
full of contradictions and omissions - Discrepancies
regarding filing of FIR - Thus, judgment of High Court set
 aside and that of trial court restored - Explosive Substances
Act, 1908 - ss. 3 and 5 -Arms Act, 1959- ss. 25(1)(b) and F
 27 - Appeal against acquittal.

    According to the prosecution case, there was a fierce
enmity between the accused party and the complainant
party. On the fateful day, accused persons armed with
dangerous weapons and bombs attacked the deceased                 G
and the prosecution witnesses. Appellant hurled bomb
on deceased and he died on the spot and others also
hurled bombs and prosecution witnesses suffered
splinter injuries. Accused persons were tried for various
                              149                                 H
    150     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 1 S.C.R.

A offences u/ss. 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302/149 IPC, ss.
  3, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and ss.
  25(1)(b), 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Trial court acquitted all
  the accused persons. The High Court upheld the
  acquittal of all the accused except the appellant and
B convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC.

        Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. The High Court has not exercised the
   caution that was expected to while dealing with the
C judgment of acquittal by the trial court. High Court was
   not justified in interfering with the well considered
  judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the High
   Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored.
   [Paras 13 and 17] [170-C-D; 170-E-F]
D
       2.1. The well considered judgment of the trial court
   has been upset by the High Court and in its judgment,
  the High Court relied on the complaint given by PW-1.
  Barring the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-
E 5, there is hardly any consideration in the High Court's
  judgment, more particularly of the mix up of timings as
  regards the complaint. In the complaint it is specifically
  alleged that the Telugu Desam Party was led by the
  appellant. Both the parties, on 13.12.1998, had fought in
F connection with using the road and the witness PW-1
  himself and his party people were accused in that case
  and were absconding. It is then suggested on 16.12.1998,
  in the morning at 7.30, PW-1 and the other persons went
  to cart the paddy hay of RR and while they were
  bundling the hay, the 16 accused persons came there
G and the appellant, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 were holding
  bombs in their hands, A-6 was holding a gun and other
  persons were holding hunting sickles and spears and
  the appellant raised loud cries shouting not to leave
  anybody there and kill all of them. It was the appellant
H who hurled a bomb on deceased. The said bomb
 BODDELLA BABUL REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 151
             HIGH COURT OF A.P.

exploded and deceased fell down and died on the spot;            A
then the others also started hurling the bombs. PW-1 then
refers to his being hacked by other accused persons with
a hunting sickle and on the right knee with the spear. He
then refers to an injury caused on his little finger because
of the spear. He then refers to the police firing a gun. After   B
that he refers that all the injured came to the Government
Hospital and were being treated. There is an
endorsement that this statement has been given at 10.35
A.M., while it was dispatched to the Court at 1.04 P.M.
Also report is given by A-14 on the same day at 7.45 A.M.,       c
wherein the hurling of the bomb is attributed to
complainant party. [Para 13] [165-G-H; 166-A-G]

     2.2. On seeing the evidence of PW-1 in the light of
evidence of PW-14, Head Constable and PW-15, Circle
Inspector, the falsity of his· evidence becomes clear. D
Though in his Examination-in-Chief, he claimed that all of
them along with the woman folk were taken in the tractor
of PW-7 t9 the Government Hospital, that claim appears
to be incorrect. The two police witnesses are
contradicting each other in the matter of the timings and E
also the timing of the Complaint. On this backdrop, when
the evidence of PW-11, the Medical Officer is seen, it is
seen that at 9.30 A.M. itself, the doctor examined PW-2 on
the requisition of SHO (Rural), who was accompanied by
Police Constable who was PW-14. This requisition is said F
to have been sent by PW-14 and PW-15. PW-15 has given
a graphic description and timings as to when he
examined all the injured witnesses. If PW-2 was available
at 9.30 A.M. itself and a requisition was already prepared
even before 9.30 A.M., there is no question of PW-1 G
registering the FIR at 10.35 A.M. PW-14 also admitted that
even by the time they reached the Hospital, M.L.A. was
stated to have come to the Hospital and the legal advisors
were also found in the Hospital. All this creates a big
suspicion about the complaint as also evidence of PW- H
    152    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A 1. Once it is proved that the FIR itself was given with the
  consultation of the legal advisors and in the guidance of
  the local Member of Legislative Assembly who was
  inimical towards the appellant on account of the party
  factions, the whole story and the part played by PW-1
B becomes suspicious. [Para 14] [167-A-H; 168-A-C; 168-C-
    D]
       2.3. Considering evidence of PW-7 that they had
  started from the Village at about 8.10 or 8.20 A.M. and that
  they were traveling in a tractor, it cannot be said that they
C would reach only at 10.35 A.M. The evidence of PW-2, PW-
  3, PW-4 and PW-5 is full of contradictions and omissions.
  Most of these witnesses figured of the accused in the
  counter case. Therefore, their evidence was bound to be
  appreciated little carefully. The judgment of the High
D Court is not satisfactory and more particularly, the
  appreciation of the evidence, mainly of PW-1, PW-2, PW-
  3, PW-4 and PW-5. High Court does not seem to have
  exercised the caution that it was expected to, in view of
  the fierce enmity between the accused party and the
E complainant party. The appreciation of the evidence by
  the trial court appears to be more satisfactory. Therefore,
  the evidence of these eye-witnesses, particularly against
  the appellant cannot be accepted. [Para 15] [168-E-F; 168-
  F-H; 169-A-B]
F
      2.4. High Court did not consider that there was no
  explosive substance found at the place where allegedly
  the bombs were exploded. On the other hand, they were
  found somewhere else. That is clear from the evidence
  of PW-15, Circle Inspector. Even the High Court has
G noted this. This shows that the role of PW-1, PW-2, PW-
  3, PW-4 and PW-5 and more particularly, their evidence
  regarding the overt act attributed to the appellant was not
  above suspicion. It is also surprising that insofar as A-2,
  A-3, A-5, A-7 and A-14 are concerned, the High Court
H
 BODDELLA BABUL REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 153
             HIGH COURT OF A.P.

chose to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, ·A
PW-4 and PW-5 on the ground that there was no
corroboration to the evidence of each witness about the
injuries received by the respective accused person. High
Court expressed the view that the prosecution witness
might have received splinter injuries while running away B
from the scene and it was not possible for them to
observe as to which accused hurled bombs against each
of them. Once the benefit of such kiosk has been given
to the other accused, the same advantage should have
been given even to the appellant, because he was c
admittedly a leader and the version against him was
absolutely parrot-like. The judgment of the High Court is
not correct. It did not consider the important findings
regarding the FIR and the other important circumstance
that before the FIR was given, the lawyers/legal advisors D
had already reached the place alongwith their leader, who
was a Member of Legislative Assembly. High Court also
did not consider the contradictions between the evidence
of PW-1, PW-11, PW-14 Medical Officer, Head Constable
and PW-15, Circle Inspector inter se. [Para 16] [169-B-C; E
170-C-E]
     Ram Sunder Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Bihar 1998 (7)
SCC 365; The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Sahai and Ors. 1981
Crl. L.J. 1034; \I. Satyamaiah and Ors. vs. State of A.P. 1978
(1) A.P.L.J. 83; Raghunath and Ram Kishan and Ors. vs.           F
State of Haryana and Ors. 2003 Crl. L.~. 401; Moo/ Chand
vs. Jagdish Singh Bedi and Ors. 1992 Crl. L.J. 1539, referred
to.
                     Case Law Reference:
                                                                 G
    1998 (7) sec 365          Referred to.         Para 11
    1981 Crl. L.J. 1034       Referred to.         Para 12
    1978 (1) A.P.L.J. 83      Referred to.         Para 12
    2003 Crl. L.J. 401        Referred to.         Para 12       H
    154       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010) 1 S.C.R.


A         1992 Crl. L.J. 1539      Referred to.          Para 12
        CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 451 of 2007.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 8.12.2006 of the High
B Court Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
  Appeal No. 1769 of 2004.

          V. J<anakraj, M. Vijaya Bhaskar for the Appellant.

C       I. Venkat Narayan, Anuradha Rustogi, Fatima (for D.
    Bharathi Reddy) for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against
o the judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court upset
  the judgment of the Trial Court, acquitting all the accused
  persons. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has
  maintained the verdict of acquittal in case of others while the
  verdict in case of Boddella Babu! Reddy (appellant herein), who
E was the original accused No. 1 (A-1) was upset and he was
  convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
  Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short).

       2. As many as 16 accused persons came to be tried for
  the various offences by the Trial Court including offences
F punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302,
  IPC read with Section 149, IPC; Sections 3 and 5 of the
  Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 (1) (b) and 27 of the
  Indian Arms Act.

G      3. As per the prosecution case, all the accused persons
  and the witnesses were the residents of village Sankarpuram
  of Proddatur Manda! in Kadappa District. As usual, there were
  two factions in the village, one belonging to the Congress Party
  and the other belonging to the Telugu Desam Party. All the
H original accused persons, including the appellant herein,
 BODDELLA BABUL REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 155
     HIGH COURT OF A.P. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
belonged to the Telugu Desam Party. These factions in the A
village resulted in bitter enmity in between the two groups. While
Boddella Babul Reddy (appellant/A-1) was the leader of the
party faction belonging to Telugu Desam Party, one Chandra
Sekhar Reddy (PW-7) was the leader of the faction belonging
to the Congress Party. In 1997, elections took place in the B
Association called Water Users Association. As a usual sequel
of the elections, there were faction clashes and one of such
clashes took place on 13.12.1998 between these two groups
on account of passage which was used by both the groups. The
cases were filed which later on ended in acquittal. On C
15.12.1998, the party belonging to the Congress workers went
to the field of one Ramireddy Ramasubba Reddy for shifting
the heap belonging to that group. However, Boddella Babul
Reddy (appellant/A-1) is said to have caused obstruction for
transportation of the paddy crop. This fact was informed to one D
T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy (PW-9), a Bandobast Constable
posted in the village and he promised that he would admonish
the accused.

      4. On the day of incident i.e. 16.12.1998, at about 6.30
a.m., K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW- E
3), R. Venkata Subba Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-
5) along with one Pilli Pedda Yesanna (the deceased) and one
Gopireddy Venkatarami Reddy (List Witness No. 6) went to the
said field of Ramireddy Ramasubba Reddy to transport the hay
along with a tractor which was brought for the purpose of F
transportation. At that time, Boddella Babul Reddy (appellant/
A-1), Sadella Malikarjuna Reddy, original accused No.2 (A-2),
Yedula Nagamuni Reddy, original accused No.3 (A-3), Mopuru
Ramanjaneyula Reddy, original accused No.4 (A-4) and
Yeddula Maruthi Prasad Reddy, original accused No. 5 (A-5) G
armed with bomb and Yeddula Ramachandra Reddy, original
accused No. 6 (A-6) armed with gun and Yeddula Manohar
Reddy, original accused No. 7 (A-7), Yeddula Sankar Reddy,
original accused No. 8 (A-8), Mopuru Naga Subba Reddy,
original accused No. 9 (A-9), Mopuru Subba Reddy, original H
    156     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A accused No. 10 (A-10), Mopuru Jayarami Reddy, original
  accused No. 11 (A-11 ), Yeddula Rajeswara Reddy, original
  accused No. 12 (A-12), Boddella Madhusudhana Reddy @
  Madhukesava Unga Reddy, original accused No. 13 (A-13),
  Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy, original accused No. 14 (A-14),
8 Yeddula Konda Reddy, original accused No. 15 (A-15),
  Boddela Naga Ramesh Reddy, original accused No. 16 (A-16),
  all armed with dangerous weapons like Eetakodavallu and
  spears came and attacked these persons. There, A-1, the
  present appellant is said to have hurled bomb on the chest of
C Pilli Pedda Yesanna (deceased), resulting in his instantaneous
  death.

          5. According to the prosecution, Bodella Malikarjuna
    Reddy (A-2), Yedula Nagamuni Reddy (A-3), MopurC1
    Ramanjaneyula Reddy (A-4) and Yeddula Maruthi Prasad
D   Reddy (A-5) also hurled bombs, which exploded and caused
    splinter injuries to Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), K.
    Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R.
    Venkata Subba Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5) as
    also to others including Gopireddy Venkatarami Reddy (List
E   Witness No. 6). Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy (A-14) is said to
    have assaulted Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1) with
    Eetakodavallu on his head while Yeddula Sankar Reddy (A-8)
    is said to have beaten him with spear stick on his right knee.
    All other accused caused injuries to the others. On hearing the
F   explosion, T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy (PW-9) who was a
    constable on Bandobast duty came to the scene of offence. It
    is also alleged that Yeddula Ramachandra Reddy (A-6) had
    opened fire at the prosecution witness referred to above.
    Seeing that, even T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy (PW-9) opened
G   fire into air so as to disperse the mob on which the accused
    ran away from the scene of the offence. The injured persons
    were taken by K. Chandra Sekhar Reddy (PW-7) to the
    General Hospital, Proddatur, where Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy
    (PW-1) is said to have given complaint and on that basis Crime
H   No. 105/98 was registered and investigation began on that
 BODDELLA BABUL REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 157
     HIGH COURT OF A.P. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

basis. The investigating team came to the spot, i.e., the field A
of Ramireddy Ramasubba Reddy and usual investigation
began. The body of the deceased Pilli Pedda Yesanna was
sent for post mortem examination and after the investigation,
a charge-sheet was filed against the 1"6 accused persons,
including the present appellant. Since the case was triable B
exclusively by the Sessions Court, the matter was committed
to the Sessions Court, District Kadappa and was registered
as Sessions Case No. 268/99. At the trial, various charges
were framed against the accused persons. The accused
abjured the guilt. As many as 15 witnesses being PW-1 to PW~    c
 15 came to be examined before the Trial Court. During their
examination, the accused persons denied the accusations. The
present appellant-accused pleaded that he had no enmity with
the Pilli Pedda Yesanna (deceased) who was a mere coolie
and also did not belong to the Congress Party and that he was .. 0 .
framed in this case as the person who hurled the bomb at the
deceased with the active support of Varadarajulu Reddy,· a
Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) belonging to the
Congress Party and a false case was foisted against him. The
Trial Court disbelieved the evidence bf the prosecution. In the
opinion of the Trial Court, there was deliberate delay in giving E
the First Information Report (FIR) and the said was given after
due deliberations with the political leaders, so as to implicate
falsely, the persons belonging to the Telugu Desam Party. The
Trial Court also held that the offence was not established as
also the medical evidence was not consistent with the oral F
evidence on record. The Trial Court also pointed out that the
prosecution had failed to explain the injuries on the persons of
the accused and as such the oral evidence, more particularly
of PW-1 to PW-5, who were the Congress Party workers and
who were inimical against the accused, could not be believed. G
A Criminal Appeal was filed before the Andhra Pradesh High
Court against this judgment vide Criminal Appeal No. 1769/
2004. However, the High Court while confirmed the judgment
in the case of other accused persons, appellant herein (A-1)
was, however, held guilty of hurling the bomb on Pilli Pedda H
    158     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010) 1 S.C.R.


A Yesanna (deceased) and was held guilty of offence punishable
  under Section 302, IPC. It is this judgment which has fallen for
  our consideration in the present appeal.

        6. Assailing the judgment, Shri V. Kanakraj, Learned
8 Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant pointed
  out that there was no effort on part of the High Court while
  considering the judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court to meet
  the findings of facts given by the Trial Court. The Learned
  Senior Counsel further pointed out that the whole effort on the
C part of the prosecution witness was on implicating the appellant
  (A-1), as he was the leader of Telugu Desam Party and it is
  out of fierce political rivalry that an FIR was given as late as
  after about 3 hours of the incident, though the same had
  occurred at 7 A.M. and there was hardly any distance between
  the place of the incident and the Police Station. The Learned
D Senior Counsel further urged that the parrot-like evidence of Y.
  Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2),
  G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba Reddy (PW-
  4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5), which was discarded by the
  Trial Court, giving various reasons, was wrongly accepted by
E the High Court, though all the witnesses were fierce political
  opponents of the appellant herein. It was also pointed out that
  T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy (PW-9), who was the Constable for
  Bandobast duties, remained a mute spectator and did not even
  bother to inform the Police, which was his bounden duty. It was
F pointed out that though the claim of the prosecution was that
  Chandra Sekhar Reddy (PW-7) took the injured of the
  Congress Party in his tractor to the Government Hospital at
  Proddatur immediately, as per version of Y. Chinna Narayana
  Reddy (PW-1), they reached only at 10 A.M. and it is after their
G reaching the Hospital that S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15),
  Taluk Circle Inspector and E.V. Rami Reddy (PW-14), Head
  Constable came there and sent them to the Doctor for treatment
  and thereafter, his statement was recorded by E.V. Rami Reddy
  (PW-14), Head Constable, in presence of Circle Inspector of
H Police (PW-15). The Learned Senior Counsel further invited our
BODDELLA BABUL REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 159
    HIGH COURT OF A.P. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
 attention to the fact that there was no justification in delay in A
 lodging the FIR, particularly when the injured witnesses had
 reached Proddatur from Sankarpuram by a tractor and the
 distance being hardly 9 or 10 K.Ms. between the two places.
 The Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, pointed out that the
 registration of the FIR at 11.30 A.M. was itself a very suspicious B
 circumstance. The Learned Senior Counsel further stated that
 at the time of filing of the FIR, or as the case may be, recording
 the statement of the witnesses, admittedly, the leaders of the
 Congress Party, more particularly, the local member of the
 Legislative Assembly Varadarajulu Reddy was present and, C
 therefore, it was obvious that the appellant herein was framed
deliberately, .he being the local leader and that was the reason
why Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), K. Sudhakar Reddy
 (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba
 Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5) were giving a
 parrot-like version that it was he who threw the bomb at Pilli D
 Pedda Yesanna (deceased). Our attention was also invited to
the other intrinsic material on record that very strangely, where
the bomb was alleged to have exploded, there was absolutely
no evidence of any explosive material or the ingredients of the
bomb, whereas, such ingredients were found in an entirely E
different field, which would go to show th.at the prosecution had
also changed the spot deliberately. The Learned Senior
Counsel also pointed out the various discrepancies as regards
the filing of the FIR by comparing the evidence of the eye-
witnesses with the evidence of the Police witnesses. It was F
pointed out that the High Court had not considered any of these
materials while upsetting the verdict of acquittal and, therefore,
the judgment of the High court was liable to be set aside.

     7. As against this, Shri I. Venkat Narayan, Learned Senior G
Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, supported the
impugned judgment of the High Court and pointed out that the
eye-witnesses, particularly those who were the injured
witnesses, were, in one tone, speaking about the active role
played by the appellant herein, who was undoubtedly a leader H
    160     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010) 1 S.C.R.


A and, therefore, the High Court was right in relying on the eye-
  witnesses' account and upsetting the finding of the Trial Court.
  Shri Venkat Narayan also urged that the eye-witnesses, more
  particularly, Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), K. Sudhakar
  Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata
8 Suoba    Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5) were
  disbelieved by the Trial Court for the fanciful reasons, which was
  the perverse appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court.
  The Learned Senior Counsel further urged that even the time
  was mixed up because in the Post Mortem report, the
C undigested food was found and there was a very vital omission
  on the part of P. Jayamma, the wife of Pilli Pedoa Yesanna
  (deceased), who was examined as PW-6 about the deceased
  having taken food in the morning before he left for the coolie
  work to the land of Ramireddy Ramasubba Reddy. We will have
  to, therefore, examine the judgment of the Trial Court in light of
D the evidence led by the prosecution.

       8. Considering the evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy
  (PW-1), who was injured, it must be noted that this is not a
  bomb injury. His version is that he was assaulted by Yeddula
E Prabhakar Reddy (A-14) with Eetakodavallu on his head and
  by Yeddula Sankar Reddy (A-8) with spear stick on his right
  leg below the knee on his right little toe. There are two injuries
  on this witness as per the evidence of Dr. K. Venkata Narayana
  (PW-11 ), the Medical Officer, as also on the basis of Exhibit
F P-5, which was a Wound Certificate of Y. Chinna Narayana
  Reddy (PW-1 ). However, it is obvious from Exhibit P-1, as also
  the evidence that Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1) had
  received the injury on account of an axe. There was no mention
  of the spear stick in the medical certificate. The witness had
G stated before the Police that he was beaten by Eetakodavallu,
  therefore, there is a contradiction in his evidence about the
  weapon, with which he was beaten. Eetakodavallu is a hunting
  sickle, which is entirely different from the axe. Dr. K. Venkata
  Narayana (PW-11 ), in his evidence, admitted that the injury on
H his knee could be caused by a fall and that there was no injury
   BODDELLA BABUL REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 161
       HIGH COURT OF A.P. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

 on the right toe of the injured. Therefore, there was no              A
 consistency in between the evidence of this witness and that
 of Dr. K. Venkata Narayana (PW-11 ), the medical witness.

      9. So far as evidence of K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2) is
 concerned, he deposed that the appellant hurled a bomb on
                                                                       8
 the dorsum of his right hand and that Yeddula Manohar Reddy
 (A-7) beat him with a spear stick and Mopuru Ramanjaneyula
 Reddy (A-4) hurled a bomb at him and he received a splinter
 injury on his left ankle. These injuries were found by Dr. K.
 Venkata Narayana (PW-11), who certified them vide Exhibit P-          C
 4. However, this witness never stated as to who had caused
 him injury on his head.

       10. As regards G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), he claimed
 that he suffered a splinter injury on account of the bomb hurled
 by Yeddula Maruthi Prasad Reddy (A-5). R. Venkata Subba               D
 Reddy (PW-4) also suggested that he received a splinter injury
 on his back with a bomb hurled by Yedula Nagamuni Reddy
 (A-3). Dr. K. Venkata Narayana (PW-11) also found a lacerated
 injury on the right side of his chest. K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5) also
 had suffered a splinter injury from a bomb hurled by Sadella          E
 Malikarjuna Reddy (A-2). The Trial Court, therefore, rightly came
 to the conclusion that excepting the splinter injury received by
 injured wifl'tesses on account of the bomb being hurled, other
 injuries were n~ver corroborated by the medical evidence on
 record.                                                               F

        11. It has also come on record that Yeddula Sankar Reddy
  (A-8). Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy (A-14) and one Yeddula
  Venkateswara Reddy also received injuries in the same
  incident, whose wound certificates are mar~ed as D-6 to D-8
  respectively. This was corroborated by the evidence of T.N.          G
  Satyanarayana Reddy (PW-9), the Bandobast Constable also
  who claimed that he was informed by the Congress Party
  workers that three Telugu Desam Party workers had received
  injuries in the incident. The medical certificates, as well as the
· evi_dence of Dr. K. Venkata Narayana (PW-11) shows that these        H
    162      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A were the grievous injuries and were not superficial or minor
   injuries. As compared to the injuries of G. Raghurami Reddy
   (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav
   (PW-5), the injuries suffered by K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2)
   were more serious. It was an admitted position that these
B injuries were never explained by the prosecution. As held in
   Ram Sunder Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar [1998 (7) SCC
   365], this Court has held that though in all the cases, the
   prosecution was not obliged to explain the injuries, the
   prosecution has to, however, explain the injuries on the
c accused, where the evidence consists of interested and inimical
   witnesses and where defence alleges a version which
   competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Therefore,
   the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the injuries on
   Yeddula Sankar Reddy (A-8) and Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy
   (A-14) were not explained by the prosecution. It is on this basis
0
   that the Trial Court entertained a doubt about the version of the
   prosecution. This suspicion about the credibility of the
  prosecution witnesses became all the more serious on the
  basis of the evidence ofY. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1) that
  they came to the Hospital by 9.30 or 10 AM. and after some
E time, S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15), Circle Inspector and
  E.V. Rami Reddy (PW-14), Head Constable came there and
  took them to the Doctor for treatment and then the statement
  of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1) was recorded by the
  Head Constable, while Exhibit P-1 (Complaint given by PW-1)
F suggests that it was recorded at 10.35 AM. This was also
  fortified by the endorsements of Dr. K. Venkata Narayana (PW-
  11). The evidence of E.V. Rami Reddy (PW-14), Head
  Constable is that he along with S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-
  15), Circle Inspector came to the Government Hospital at 10
G AM. and found six injured persons in the Hospital and then the
  injured were interrogated and the requisition was given to the
  Medical Officer for treatment. It is admitted by E.V. Rami Reddy
  (PW-14) that when he and S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15),
  Circle Inspector reached the Government Hospital, M.L.A.
H Varadarajula Reddy had already come to the Hospital and the
BODDELLA BABUL REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,                163
    HIGH COURT OF A.P. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
legal advisors on behalf of the Congress Party were also found A
there. It was then that S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15), Circle
Inspector inquired the names of the accused, place of the
incident, the injures and the nature of the weapons from them
and issued a requisition to the Medical Officer. In his evidence,
S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15), Circle Inspector admitted that 8
he had come to know that M.L.A. Varadarajula Reddy had
visited the Hospital, but could not say the purpose for which he
had come there. The Trial Court then noted the admission on
the part of this witness that he noted the names of the
assailants, the weapons used by them and the place of the c
injuries in the requisition (Exhibit P-10). However, when we see
Copy of requisition (Exhibit P-10), the same was received by
the duty Doctor at 9.30 A.M. on 15.12.1998. Even Dr. K.
Venkata Narayana (PW-11) admitted in the evidence that he
received that requisition at 9.30 A.M. on that day and the names D
of the injured were noted on the right side. The Trial Court has,
therefore, rightly held that the information had already reached
the Police Inspector even before 9.30 A.M., as it is only after
the information was received by him about the injured etc. that
he (the Inspector) sent the requisition (Exhibit P-10) to the E
Police and, therefore, the Complaint (Exhibit P-1), which was
supposed to be an FIR was hit by Section 162 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). as the information was already
collected by S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15), Circle Inspector
much prior to 9.30 A.M. and, therefore, it is the requisition
(Exhibit P-10), which should become an FIR and not the F
Complaint (Exhibit P-1). The Trial Court, therefore, expressed
its suspicion about the Complaint (Exhibit P-1), on which heavy·
reliance is being placed by the prosecution.

     12. The Trial Court then also relied on the decisions in The G
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sahai & Ors. [1981 Crl. L.J. 1034],
V. Satyamaiah & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. (1978(1) A.P.L.J. 83],
Raghunath and Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana &
Ors. (2003 Crl. L.J. 401] and Moo/ Chand Vs. Jagdish Singh
Bedi & Ors. [1992 Crl. L.J. 1539], wherein it was held that it H
    164     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A was unusual for a factionist to take advantage of every situation
  and occurrence and there is incurable tendency in the factionists
  to rope in the innocent members of the opposite faction
  alongwith the guilty and twist and manipulate the facts with
   regard to the mode and manner of the occurrence so as to
B make their case appear true with the innocent members of the
  opposite faction also as participants in the occur:rence. The Trial
   Court, therefore, went on to scrutinize the evidence of the eye-
  witnesses Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), K. Sudhakar
   Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata
c Subba Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5) with greater
  care. It was observed that S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15),
  Circle Inspector admitted in his Cross-Examination that he
  received a telephone information about the commission of
  offence at 9 A.M. from Sankarpuram Village that a person had
  died. He stated that he had not made any entry in the General
0
  Diary and that he went to the party people of the appellant. On
  this basis of the evidence, the Trial Court found that even the
  evidence of the Investigation Officer (PW-15) was an improved
  version. On examination of the evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana
E Reddy (PW-1), K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2), G. R.aghurami
  Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal
  Yadav (PW-5), the Trial Court found that Pilli Pedda Yesanna
  (deceased) was not a leader, he was a mere coolie. The
  deceased was also found wearing a sweater, which was not
  possible unless he was a watchman to the field throughout the
F night. The Trial Court, therefore, expressed a doubt and in our
  opinion, rightly that Chandra Sekhar Reddy (PW-7) and Y.
  Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), who had contested election
  against the appellant herein being present on the scene, the
  appellant would chose to throw bomb at an insignificant coolie
G like Pilli Pedda Yesanna (deceased), leaving Chandra Sekhar
  Reddy (PW-7) and Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), who
  had not claimed that it was the appellant who threw the bomb
  at them. The Trial Court also expressed its doubts on the basis
  of sketch of scene of offence (Exhibit P-21), which shows no
H traces of explosion of any explosive substance at the scene of
 BODDELLA BABUL REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 165
     HIGH COURT OF A.P. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

offence. The Trial Court also expressed doubts about the               A
evidence ofS. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15) on account of his
not having shown in the sketch, the places, where the explosion
took place, which were four in number, according to the witness.
While appreciating the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses,
it is deduced by the Trial Court that in all probability, there were   B
10 bombs in the hands of the appellant (A-1), Bodella
Malikarjuna Reddy (A-2), Yedula Nagamuni Reddy (A-3),
Mopuru Ramanjaneyula Reddy (A-4) and Yeddula Maruthi
Prasad Reddy (A-5) and out of these, 6 exploded and 4 of them
caused splinter injury to each one of the injured. It was found        c
that this evidence of the witness was not corroborated by T.N.
Satyanarayana Reddy (PW-9), the Police Constable, who
visited the scene of offence immediately at that time. Though
he was declared hostile, the Trial Court has relied on his
evidence to the effect that immediately after receiving the            0
sounds of explosion, he came there running. The Trial Court,
therefore, deduced that the bombs were thrown by both the
groups, more particularly because the injuries on Yeddula
Sankar Reddy (A-8) and Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy (A-14),
which had remained unexplained, were far from serious and              E
were caused because of the explosion of the bombs. On this,
the Trial Court deduced the theory of free fight between both
the groups, both armed with explosive bombs. The Trial Court,
therefore, held that the evidence of T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy
(PW-9), the Constable did not corroborate the evidence of Y.
Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2),                F
G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba Reddy (PW-
4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5) .
                                .
     13. This well considered judgment of the Trial Court has
been upset by the High Court and in its judgment, the High Court       G
relied on the Exhibit P-1 [Complaint given by Y. Chinna
Narayana Reddy (PW-1 )]. Very significantly, barring the
evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), K. Sudhakar
Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata
Subba Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5), there is                 H
    166      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2010] 1 S.C.R.


A hardly any consideration in the High Court's judgment, more
   particularly of the mix up of timings as regards the Complaint
   (Exhibit P-1), on which heavy reliance was placed by the High
   Court. We have seen the Complaint (Exhibit P-1) very carefully,
  where it is specifically alleged that the Telugu Desam Party was
                              •
B led by the appellant herein. It is reported that both the parties,
  on 13.12. 1998, had fought in connection with using the road
  and the witness (PW-1) himself and his party people were
  accused in that case and were absconding. It is then suggested
  on 16.12.1998, in the morning at 7.30, he (PW-1) and the other
c persons went to cart the paddy hay of Ramireddy Ramasubba
   Reddy and while they were bundling the hay, the 16 accused
  persons came there and the appellant (A-1 ), Bodella
  Malikarjuna Reddy (A-2), Yedula Nagamuni Reddy (A-3),
  Mopuru Ramanjaneyula Reddy (A-4) and Yeddula Maruthi
  Prasad Reddy (A-5) were holding bombs in their two hands,
0
  Yeddula Ramachandra Reddy (A-6) was holding a gun and
  other persons were holding hunting sickles and spears and the
  appellant raised loud cries shouting not to leave anybody there
  and kill all of them. It is also reported that it was the appellant
E (A-1), who hurled a bomb on Pilli Pedda Yesanna (deceased).
  The said bomb exploded and Pilli Pedda Yesanna (deceased)
  fell down and died on the spot; then the others also started
  hurling the bombs. Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1) then
  refers to his being hacked by other accused persons with a
  hunting sickle and on the right knee with the spear. He then
F refers to an injury caused on his little finger because of the
  spear. He then refers to the police firing a gun. After that he
  refers that they all (injured) came to the Government Hospital
  and were being treated. There is an endorsement that this
  statement has been given at 10.35 A.M., while it was
G dispatched to the Court at 1.04 P.M. Significantly enough, there
  is also a report given by Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy (A-14) on
  the same day at 7.45 A.M., wherein the hurling of the bomb is
  attributed to the complainant party.

H         14. Once we see the evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana
 BODDELLA BABUL REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 167
     HIGH COURT OF A.P. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

Reddy (PW-1) in the light of evidence of E.V. Rami Reddy (PW- A
14), Head Constable and of S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15),
Taluk Circle Inspector, the falsity of the evidence of this witness
becomes clear. Though in his Examination-in-Chief, he claimed
that all of them along with the woman folk were taken in the
tractor of Chandra Sekhar Reddy (PW-7) to the Government B
Hospital, that claim appears to be incorrect. In his Examination-
in-Chief, E.V. Rami Reddy (PW-14), Head Constable, who
claimed to have gone to the Hospital, admits that S.
Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15), Taluk Circle Inspector asked him
to accompany him at 9 A.M. to Sankarpuram and the Sub-             c
Inspector also accompanied him. According to him, the
requisition (Exhibit P-10) was prepared at 9 AM. and was sent
to the Doctor, who received it at 9.30 A.M. He, in fact, denied
that he went to the Hospital at 10 A.M. As compare to this, the
evidence of Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15), Circle Inspector
                                                                     0
suggests that he alongwith other staff and E.V. Rami Reddy
(PW-14) proceeded to Sankarpuram since he received an
anonymous call at 9 AM. about the incident. He then suggests
that on the way, near one Village Pedda Settypalli, at about
9.15 A.M., he received the information that the injured were
taken to the Hospital and, therefore, he sent his Sub-Inspector E
and the staff to go to the scene of offence and he alongwith V.
Rami Reddy (PW-14), Head Constable, returned to
Government Hospital at about 10 A.M. and it was then that V.
Rami Reddy (PW-14) recorded the statement of Y. Chinna
Narayana Reddy (PW-1) in the Government Hospital. It is, F
therefore, obvious that these two police witnesses are
contradicting each other in the matter of the timings and also .
the timing of the Complaint (Exhibit P-1). On this backdrop,
when we see the evidence of Dr. K. Venkata Narayana (PW-
 11 ), the Medical Officer, it is seen that at 9.30 A.M. itself, the G
Doctor examined K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2) on the requisition
of SHO (Rural), who was accompanied by Police Constable
674, who was none else, but V. Rami Reddy (PW-14). This
requisition is said to have been sent by PW-14 and PW-15.
S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15) has given a graphic H
    168     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010) 1 S.C.R.


A description and timings as to when he examined all the injured
  witnesses. Now, if K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2) was available
   at 9.30 A.M. itself and a requisition was already prepared even
  before 9.30 A.M., there is no question of Y. Chinna Narayana
  Reddy (PW-1) registering the FIR at 10.35 A.M. V. Rami Reddy
B (PW-14) has also admitted that even by the time they reached
  the Hospital, M.L.A. Varadarajula Reddy was stated to have
  come to the Hospital and the legal advisors were also found in
  the Hospital. All this creates a big suspicion about the
  Complaint (Exhibit P-1), as also evidence of Y. Chinna
C Narayana Reddy (PW-1 ). Shri Kanakraj, Learned Senior
  Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants pointed out that
  this very vital aspect has not at all been considered by the High
  Court. Once it is proved that the FIR itself was given with the
  consultation of the legal advisors and in the guidance of the
  local Member of Legislative Assembly who was inimical
0
  towards the appellant herein on account of the party factions,
  the whole story and more particularly, the part played by Y.
  Chinna Narayan a Reddy (PW-1) becomes suspicious.

        15. Considering evidence of Chandra Sekhar Reddy (PW-
E 7) that they had started from the Village at about 8.10 or 8.20
  AM. and that they were traveling in a tractor, it cannot be said
  that they would reach only at 10.35 AM. We have seen the
  evidence of K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2) as also the other
  witnesses like G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba
F Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5). The evidence of
  all these witnesses is full of contradictions and omissions. Most
  of these witnesses figured of the accused in the counter case.
  Therefore, their evidence was bound to be appreciated little
  carefully. We are not satisfied with the judgment of the High
G Court and more particularly, the appreciation of the evidence,
  mainly of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), K. Sudhakar
  Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata
  Subba Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5). The High
  Court does not seem to have exercised the caution that it was
H expected to, more particularly, in view of the fierce enmity
 BODDELLA BABUL REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 169
     HIGH COURT OF A.P. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

between the accused party and the complainant party. On the       A
other hand, the appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court
appears to be more satisfactory to us. We are, therefore, not
in a position to accept the evidence of these eye-witnesses,
particularly against the appellant herein.
                                                                  B
     16. The High Court also has nowhere considered the other
circumstance that there was no explosive substance found at
the place where allegedly the bombs were exploded. On the
other hand, they were found somewhere else. That is clear from
the evidence of Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15), Circle Inspector.      C
Even the High Court has noted this in the following words:-

    "In the absence of any traces of bomb blast on the ground,
    there is a doubt whether they received injuries on account
    of throwing of one bomb against the deceased or due to
    explosion of any other bomb. Though the presence of PW-       D
    1 to PW-5 is helpful regarding the overtacts attributed to
    A-1 in attacking the deceased, there is a doubt regarding
    the culprit who hurled bombs against the witnesses at the
    time of incident."
                                                                  E
     This shows that the role of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy
(PW-1), K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy
(PW-3), R. Venkata Subba Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav
(PW-5) and more particularly, their evidence regarding the
overtact attributed to the appellant herein was not above
suspicion. We are also surprised that insofar as Bodella
                                                                 F
Malikarjuna Reddy (A-2), Yedula Nagamuni Reddy (A-3),
Yeddula Maruthi Prasad Reddy (A-5), Yeddula Manohar Reddy
(A-7) and Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy (A-14) are concerned, the
High Court chose to disbelieve the evidence of Y. Chinna
Narayana Reddy (PW-1), K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2), G. G
Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba Reddy (PW-4)
and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5) on th0'ground that there was no ·
corroboration to the evidence of each witness about the injuries
received by the' respective accused person. The High Court
expressed the view that the prosecution witness might have . H
    170     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A received splinter injuries while running away from the scene and
  it was not possible for them to observe as to which accused
  hurled bombs against each of them. Once the benefit of such
  kiosk has been given to the other accused against whom the
  appeal was filed by the State, in our opinion, the same
B advantage should have been given even to the appellant herein,
  more particularly because he was admittedly a leader and the
  version against him was absolutely parrot-like. We are,
  therefore, not convinced about the correctness of the judgment
  of the High Court. The High Court has not exercised the caution
c that was expected to while dealing with the judgment of acquittal
  by the Trial Court. It has also left out of consideration the
  important findings regarding the FIR and the other important
  circumstance that before the FIR was given, the lawyers/legal
  advisors had already reached the place alongwith their leader,
  who was a Member of Legislative Assembly. The High Court
0
  has also not further considered the contradictions between the
  evidence ofY. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), Dr. K. Venkata
  Narayana (PW-11 ), the Medical Officer, E.V. Rami Reddy (PW-
  14), Head Constable and S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15),
E Circle Inspector inter se.
       17. For all the above reasons, we feel that the High Court
  was not justified in interfering with the well considered judgment
  of the Trial Court. We, therefore, allowing the appeal, set aside
  the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Trial
F Court. The appellant is reported to be undergoing the
  punishment; he shall be forthwith released unless required in
  any other matter.

   N.J.                                           Appeal allowed.