GANGABHAVANIversusRAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY & ORS.

                    [2013] 14 S.C.R. 155

                     GANGABHAVANI                                   A
                            v.
            RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY & ORS.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2011)
                   SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
                                                                    B
      [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149, 148 - Explosive
Substances Act, 1998 - ss. 3, 5 and 6 - Prosecution under -
Of 13 accused - Trial court convicted A-1 to A-6 while              c
acquitting rest of the accused - High Court acquitted A-1 to
A-6 - On appeal, held: High Court acquitted the accused on
erroneous findings - Prosecution proved its case qua
accused A-1 to A-6 - Order of trial court is restored.
                                                                    D
     Appeal - Against acquittal - Interference with - Scope
of - Held: There are limitations while interfering with an order
against acquittal - Interference in a routine manner, where the
other view is possible, should be avoided, unless there are
good reasons for interference.
                                                                    E
    Evidence:

     Medical evidence or evidence of ballistic expert vis-a-vis
ocular evidence - If ocular evidence is totally inconsistent with
medical evidence or evidence of ballistic expert, may discredit
                                                                    F
the entire case, if not explained - Where eye-witness account
credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to
alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclsuive.

      Medical evidence - Evidentiary value - Medical
evidence, if not consistent or probable, the Court has no           G
liability to go by that opinion.

    Criminal Trial - Contradiction in evidence - Affect of -
Held: Minor contradictions are bound to be ignored - But if
                            155                                     H
        156      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 14 S.C.R.


    A the contradiction go to the root of the case, materially affect
        the trial or core of the prosecution case, Court has to form its
        opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as
        to whether their depositions inspire confidence.

              Witnesses:
    B
             Related/interested witness - Evidentiary value of - If
        evidence of such witness is cogent, credible and trustworthy,
        it can be relied upon - However, their evidence is required to
        be carefully scrutinised.
    c
             Natural witness vis-a-vis interested witness - Held:
        Natural witness should not be labelled as interested witness
        - Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some
        benefit out of the litigation.

    D      FIR - Evidentiary value - Failure to mention all the
        names and details in the FIR - Affect of.

           The 6 respondents-accused alongwith 7 other
      accused were prosecuted ulss. 148, 3021149 IPC, and ss.
    E 3, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The
      prosecution case was that the 13 accused persons came
      to the field where PWs 1, 2 and 3 and the deceased were
      working. They came armed with deadly weapons like
      sticks, knives, bombs and sickles and assaulted the
    F deceased and PWs 1, 2 and 3. Trial court convicted the
      respondent-accused (A1to A6) and acquitted rest of the
      accused (A7 to A-13). Respondents-accused filed appeal,
      which was allowed by High Court, aquitting them. Hence
      the present appeals by the complainant and the State.

    G         Allowing the appeals, the Court

          HELD: 1. There are limitations while interfering with
      an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where
      there are compelling circumstances and the judgment
·   H under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court
   GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                157


can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate       A
court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence
of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower
Court bolsters the presumption of his ·innocence.
Interference in a routine manner where the other view is
possible should be avoided, unless there are good              B
reasons for interference. [Para 6] [169-E-G]

     2.1. It is a settled legal proposition that where the
evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally
inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence         C
of the ballistics expert, it amounts to a fundamental defect
in the prosecution case and unless it is reasonably
explained, may discredit the entire case· of the
prosecution. However, the opinion given by a medical
witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such
an opinion is required to be tested by the court. If the       D
opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not
obliged to go by that opinion. If one doctor forms one
opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on
the same facts, it is open to the Judge to adopt the view
which is more objective or probable. Similarly, if the         E
opinion given by one doctor is not consistent or
probable, the court has no liability to go by that opinion
merely because it is given by the doctor. "It would be
erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical
answers of medical witnesses to exclude the                    F
eyewitnesses' account which had to be ~ested
independently and not treated as the 'variable' keeping
the medical evidence as the 'constant' ". [Para 7] [169-H;
170-A-E]
                                                               G
    2.2. Where the eyewitnesses' account is found
credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to
alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as
conclusive. The eyewitnesses' account requires a careful
independent assessment and evaluation for its
                                                               H
    158     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2013] 14 S.C.R.


A credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged on
  the basis of any other evidence, including medical
  evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such
  credibility. [Para 7] [170-E-F]

        Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 1727:
8
    1976 (1) SCR 27; State of Haryana v. Bhagirath AIR 1999 SC
    2005: 1999 (3) SCR 529; Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.
    (2010) 10 SCC 259: 2010 (13) SCR 311; Rakesh v. State
    of M.P. (2011) 9 sec 698: 2011 (15 ) SCR 34 - relied on.

C      2.3. In cases where there is a contradiction between
  medical evidence and ocular evidence stands
  crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony
  of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis
  medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the
D ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant
  factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence.
  However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it
  completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence
  being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. [Para
E 8] [170-H; 171-A-B]

       3. In case there are minor contradictions in the
  depositions of the witnesses the same are bound to be
  ignored as the same cannot be dubbed as improvements
  and it is likely to be so as the statement in the court is
F recorded after an inordinate delay. In case the
  contradictions are so material that the same go to the root
  of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the
  prosecution case, the court has to form its opinion about
  the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether
G their depositions inspire confidence. [Para 1O] [172-D-E]

       State of UP. v. Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324: 2011 (4)
  SCR 1176; Tehsildar Singh & Anr. v. State of U. P. AIR 1959
  SC 1012: 1959 Suppl. SCR 875; Pudhu Raja & Anr. v.
H State Rep. by Inspector of Police JT 2012 (9) SC 252; Lal
  GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                159


Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 4 SCC 557:    2013     A
(5) SCR 744 - relied on.

     4.1. The evidence of closely related witnesses is
required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated
before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding
                                                              B
the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence
cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the
witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased.
In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be
relied upon. [Para 11] [172-F-G]                              C

     Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of UP. AIR 2011 SC
2292: 2011 (6) SCR 1037; Dhari & Ors. v. State of U P. AIR
2013 SC 308: 2012 (8) SCR 1219; State of Rajasthan v.
Smt. Kalki & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1390; Chakali Maddilety & D
Ors. v. State of A. P. AIR 2010 SC 3473: 2010 (10) SCR 77
- relied on.

     4.2. Natural witnesses may not be labelled as
interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are those who
                                                              E
want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In
case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present
on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the
crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the
ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased.
[Para 14] [174-B-0]                                           F

   Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of UP. AIR 2004 SC 5039:
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 107 - relied on.

     5.1. The case of the prosecution cannot be rejected      G
solely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. The court
has to examine the explanation furnished by the
prosecution for explaining the delay. If the prosecution
explains the delay, the court should not reject the ease
of the prosecution solely on this ground. Therefore, the
                                                              H
    160     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A entire incident as narrated by the witnesses has to be
  construed and examined to decide whether there was an
  unreasonable and unexplained delay which goes to the
  root of the case of the prosecution and even if there is
  some unexplained delay, the court has to take into
8 consideration whether it can be termed as abnormal.
  [Para 15] [17 4-D-E, F-G]

        P. Venkataswarlu v. State of A.P. AIR 2003 SC 574: 2002
    (10) SCC 46; State of UP. v. Munesh AIR 2013 SC 147:
    2012 (9) SCR 545 - relied on.
c
         5.2. Merely not mentioning all the names of all the
    accused or their overt acts elaborately or details of
    injuries said to have been suffered, could not render the
    FIR vague or unreliable. The FIR is not an encyclopaedia
o   of all the facts. More so, it is quite natural that all the
    names and details may not be given in the FIR, where a
    large number of accused are involved. [Para 16] [174-H;
    175-A-B]

       6. The defence cannot rely on nor can the court base
E its finding on a particular fact or issue on which the
  witness has not made any statement in his examination-
  in-chief and the defence has not cross examined him on
  the said aspect of the matter. [Para 18] [176-C-D]

F        Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr. v. Bhagwanthuva
    (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 2013 SC 1204: 2013 (1)
     SCR 632; Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, JT 2013 (8)
    SC 181; Gian Chand & Ors. v. State of Haryana JT 2013
    (10) SC 515 - relied on.
G
        7.1. In the present case, in view of the fact that there
    is sufficient evidence on record that the deceased was
    hacked with a hunting sickle and in such a case, AS was
    convicted under Section 148 IPC, want of such an
    explanation is irrelevant. The cause of death as opined
H
  GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY               161


by the medical evidence was shock due to fracture of         A
skull bone and lacerations to the brain matter and that in
normal circumstances injury Nos. 1 to 3 could cause
death. The doctor specifically deposed that the deceased
died of a fracture of skull bones i.e. injury No. 1. PW.6
(doctor) further explained that she did not mention the      B
type of weapon used for the reason that she was not
asked about the same. However, she had clearly deposed
that injury No. 2 could have been caused by a hunting
sickle. This evidence of PW.6 stood fully corroborated by
the version given by PWs. 1 to 3 who have clearly            c
deposed that AS hacked the deceased with hunting
sickle on his head. [Para 29) [181-C-F]

     7.2. The High Court has also taken note of the fact
that the overt act assigned to AS has not been mentioned
in the FIR. The evidence on record clearly revealed that     D
A1 to AS came armed with deadly weapons whistling war
cries and chased the deceased. The trial court convicted
AS with the aid of Section 149 IPC and not independently
for the reason that the trial court was not satisfied that
AS had hacked the deceased. PW.8 who was the witness         E
to the recoveries, deposed that seizure of hunting sickle
etc. was made at the disclosure statement of the accused
and he had signed the recovery memos for the same.
Thus, the observations made by the High Court in this
regard cannot be approved. [Para 30) [181-F-H; 182-A-B]      F

     7.3. The High Court erroneously observed that the
eye-witnesses did not speak of the explosion of bombs
by certain accused and, therefore, their presence at the
place of occurrence was doubted and they could also not      G
have seen the incident because of smoke from the
explosion. Such a finding was totally unwarranted,
uncalled for and is perverse being based on no evidence.
Not a single question had been put to the eye-witnesses
in this respect and, therefore, there is nothing on record
                                                             H
    162    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A to show that their visibility was impaired due to the
  emanating of smoke and the said finding recorded by the
  High Court could be simply termed as illogical. The
  witnesses deposed that A3 to A5 also hurled the bombs
  which had fallen in close vicinity of the body of the
B deceased though they did not hit him. It was specifically
  mentioned that bombs hurled by A1 and A2 had hit him,
  therefore, it is clear that there is no discrepancy in the
  testimony of the eye-witnesses with respect to the overt
  acts of the accused. More so, the High Court doubted the
c version given by PW.1 that out of fear he hid himself
  behind the bushes and returned after some time and
  when he came back there, he did not find any person,
  though, in his cross-examination, he explained that about
  two hundred persons gathered at the place of occurrence
  after the accused had left the place. [Para 31] [182-B-G]
0
       7.4. The evidence is to be examined considering the
  tension prevailing at the place of occurrence. It is natural
  that in such a fact-situation every person would feel the
  apprehension of danger to his life and may run away.
E There may be some discrepancy in his evidence in cross-
  examination but it has to be examined while taking into
  consideration the evidence on record as a whole. As he
  explained the gathering of a crowd consisting of
  approximately 200 persons, may have been at a later point
F of time. Therefore, merely on the basis of such a statement,
  his presence could not be doubted and his version could
  not be discarded. [Para 31] [182-G-H; 183-A]

      7.5. So far as the delay in lodging of FIR is
G concerned, it has to be considered in light of the
  prevailing circumstances on that fateful day when two
  persons were murdered and third died of electrocution.
  The incident occurred in a faction ridden village having
  only 80 houses. The accused persons used bombs etc.
H
  GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                163


for killing two persons. The police arrived at 10 O'clock     A
in the morning in the village. PW.1 was taken into custody
suspecting his involvement in the murder of the person
who died due to electrocution. Therefore, in such a fact-
situation, such adverse inference could not have been
drawn and testimony of PW.1 who had submitted the FIR,        B
since he was illiterate and, a rustic villager and did not
know the niceties of law, could not be doubted. When he
lodged an oral complaint, he was asked to get it written
by somebody and then present it for lodging the FIR. The
police officials made it clear in their cross-examination     c
that they had asked persons present at the place of
occurrence to give a complaint in regard to the incident
twice, but nobody came forward to give it. In view thereof,
a person who had lost two of his family members and
had been suspected of being involved in the murder of         D
a person who died due to electrocution alongwith the fact
that no other person was willing to submit a complaint,
the delay of 6 hours, could not be fatal, particularly in
view of depositions of the eye-witnesses. Thus, the delay
 has been fully explained by the prosecution and there
                                                              E
was no occasion for the High Court to take it to be fatal
to the case of the prosecution. [Para 32] [183-B-G]

      7.6. There could be no reason for the eye-witnesses
i.e. PWs 1 to 3, who had lost two of their family members,
to falsely implicate the respondents and spare the real       F
assailants. The findings recorded by the High Court are
liable to be set aside being perverse and the order of the
trial court is restored. [Paras 33 and 34] [183-G-H; 184-A-
B]
                                                              G
                    Case Law Reference:
    1976 (1)SCR27                relied on       Para 7
    1999 (3) SCR 529             relied on       Para 7
    2010 (13) SCR311             relied on       Para 7       H
    164      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A         2011 (15) SCR 34             relied on          Para 7
          2011 (4) SCR 1176            relied on          Para 9
          1959 Suppl. SCR 875          relied on          Para 9
          JT 2012 (9) SC 252           relied on          Para 9
B
          2013 (5) SCR 744             relied on          Para 9
          2011 (6) SCR 1037            relied on          Para 11
          2012 (8) SCR 1219            relied on          Para 11
c
          AIR 1981 SC 1390             relied on          Para 12
          2010 (10) SCR 77             relied on          Para 12
          2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 107 relied on               Para 13
D         2002 (1 O)   sec 46          relied on          Para 15
          2012 (9) SCR 545             relied on          Para 15
          2013 (1) SCR 632             relied on          Para 17

E         JT 2013 (8) SC 181           relied on          Para 17
          JT 2013 (10) SC 515          relied on          Para 17

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 84 of 2011.
F
        From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2007.of the
    High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal
    No 41 of 2005.

                                WITH
G
    Crl. A. NO. 86 OF 2011.

     Huzefa Ahmadi, Sidharth Luthra, A. T M.
  Rangaramanujam, Altaf Ahmad. Altaf Fathima Rashmi
H Nandakumar, Rohan Sharma. P Vinay Kumar, A. Handa,
   GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                     165


Supriya Juneja, Dr. D . Mahesh Babu., Amit K. Nain, Suchitra         A
H, Amjid Maqbool, C.S. N. Mohan Rao, Allanki Ramesh,
Lokesh Kumar, Shilpa Gupta. D. Bhrathi Reddy, for the
appearing Parties.

    The Judgment of the court was delivered by                       B
       Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. Both these appeals have been
preferred against the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 13.2.2007
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2005, reversing the
judgment and order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Additional         C
Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in Sessions Case No.
374 of 2000, by which and whereunder the respondents were
found guilty and convicted under Section 148 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'the IPC') and awarded a
sentence of 2 years each. A 1 and A2 had been convicted for          D ,
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and they were
awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default,
to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. They
were also convicted under the provisions of Section 3 of the
 Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the      E
 'Act 1908') and had been awarded the sentence of 3 years with
a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- respectively and, in default, to
further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and 15
days respectively. They had further been convicted under
 Section 5 of the Act 1908, and were awarded the punishment          F
 of three years with a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer
 simple imprisonment for one month. A3 to A6 had been
 convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to
 pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 302 read with Section
 149 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo a further    G
 period of simple imprisonment of one month each. However,
 A3 was acquitted for the offence under Section 6 of the Act
  1908. A4 and A5 were further convicted under Sections 3 and
  5 of the Act 1908 and awarded the punishment of 3 years on
 each count with a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default, to undergo a    H
    166     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A. further period of imprisonment for one month. However, all the
   sentences were directed to run concurrently.

         2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals
    are that:
B        A On 4.12.1999, Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1 ), Y. Gangadhar
    Reddy (PW.2) and Y. Gangabhavani (PW.3) were working in
    their agricultural fields alongwith Y. Ramachandra Reddy
    (deceased) and his brother Balagangi Reddy and others.

c       B. Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) and his brother
  Balagangi Reddy supported the Congress-I party in the
  elections held for the State Assembly, while the accused
  persons supported the Telugu Desham Party (TOP). There were
  ill feelings between two groups as there existed chronic
o factionalism between the families of the deceased and
  accused. In State Assembly elections, the political parties
  created pressure on their supporters to get maximum votes, by
  any means. The accused persons were waiting for the
  opportunity to kill Balagangi Reddy and Y. Ramachandra Reddy
E (deceased).

       C. On 4.12.1999, when PW.1 to PW.3 and some others
  were doing agricultural work in their fields alongwith Y.
  Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) in the morning, they heard
  weeping cries from the agricultural field nearby. All of them
F rushed to that place and found that Rayapati Narayana Reddy
  had died due to electrocution. After sometime, they returned
  to their fields and attended to their work. At 7.30 A.M., the
  accused Rayapati Venkata Reddy (A 1), Rayapati Raman ju I
  Reddy (A2), Rayapati Bheema Reddy (A3), Korrapati Rami
G Reddy (A4), Korrapati Thimma Reddy (A5), Kadiyam Rami
  Reddy (A6), Rayapati Thirupathi Reddy (A7), Rayapati Pedda
  Venkata Reddy (AB), Kadiyam Rama Subba Reddy (A9),
  Rayapati Pedda Venkata Reddy (A 10), Rayapati Chinna Bali
  Reddy (A11), Rayapati Venkata Reddy (A12) and
H Chinnapureddy Bala Chenna Reddy (A 13) came to the fields
   GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                      167
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
where PW.1 to PW.3, namely, Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1), Y.                A
Gangadhar Reddy (PW.2) and Y. Gangabhavani Reddy (PW.3)
were working armed with deadly weapons like sticks, knives,
bombs and sickles whistling war cries and hurling bombs with
the intent to kill Ramachandra Reddy and Balagangi Reddy.
Balagangi Reddy fled his fields due to fear and was chased            B
by A7 to A13. PW.1 hid himself under cheeky bushes near his
field. Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) fled on his cycle. A2
hurled a bomb which fell on the cycle of the deceased and
exploded causing the deceased to fall from his cycle. A 1 also
hurled a bomb which hit the head of Y. Ramachandra Reddy.             c
His head was fractured and he died due to injuries. A4 and A5
also hurled bombs towards the deceased.

     D. PW.1 to PW.3 witnessed the same, however, failed to
give a report immediately to the police due to fear of their lives.
Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1) preferred a complaint to the police,           D
thus, Case Crime No. 137 of 1999 of Muddanur PS was
registered. S.V. Ramana, C.I. (PW.9) began investigation, and
conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in
presence of R. Pedda Naidu (PW.4) and M. Pratap Naidu
(PW.7). He also seized blood stained tar, control tar, bomb           E
blast thread pieces and the cycle of the deceased. Further, the
Dhoti, Banian and waist thread of the deceased were also
seized. Chappals of A5 which had- been lying there were
recovered in the presence of M. Pedda Aswartha Reddy
(PW.5). The dead body of Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased)              F
was sent for post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. Y.
Karunasree (PW.6) wherein it was opined that he died of shock
due to a fracture of the skull bones and lacerations to brain
matter. The materials collected were sent for forensic analysis
and it was found that the bombs contained Potassium, Chlorate         G
Chloride, Arsenic, Sulphide and Sulphate etc.

     E. After concluding the investigation, a chargesheet was
filed against A1 to A13. During the trial, the prosecution
examined 14 witnesses. The accused in their statement under
                                                                      H
    168     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter
  referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') denied their involvement and
  submitted that they had been falsely implicated because of
  political enmity. The defence also examined one Penugonda
  Sreenivasulu (DW.1 ), who claimed to have prepared the site
B plan (Ex.X-1) but not on the basis of scale measurement.

         F. On the basis of the evidence etc., the trial court found
    A 1 to A6 guilty of the aforesaid offences and awarded them
    sentences as referred to hereinabove, however, A7 to A13
    were acquitted.
c
        G. Aggrieved, A1 to A6 filed Criminal Appeal No. 41 of
    2005 which has been allowed by the High Court.

         Hence, these appeals by the complainant as well as by the
0   State of Andhra Pradesh.

         3. Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG appearing on behalf
    of the State of Andhra Pradesh and Shri Huzefa Ahmadi,
    learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/
    complainant, have submitted that the High Court acquitted the
E   said respondents without any justification. The High Court
    mainly found material contradictions in the evidence of PW.1
    to PW.3 and doubted their presence at the place of
    occurrence; considered the delay in lodging the FIR fatal; found
    contradictions in medical evidence and ocular evidence;
F   doubted the witnessing of the occurrence as there could be no
    visibility because of the smoke created by the bombs at the
    time of explosion; PW.1 did not mention that A6 used a sickle
    in the FIR; and that only interested witnesses had been
    examined. It was contended that the High Court erroneously did
G   the same even though, the contradictions in the medical and
    ocular evidence were insignificant and the contradictions in the
    statements of PWs 1 to 3 were minor in nature. The findings
    of fact recorded by the High Court are perverse being based
    on no evidence. Thus, the appeals deserve to be allowed and
H   the judgment of the trial court deserves to be restored.
   GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                    169
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
      4. Per contra, Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel       A
appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed the appeal
contending that this Court should not interfere with the judgment
of the High Court keeping in mind the well settled parameters
for interference with the order of acquittal. The High Court has
given cogent reasons for acquittal of the respondents. The          B
incident occurred in a faction-ridden village and, admittedly,
there had been a political rivalry between the parties. The delay
in lodging the FIR which is at about 3.00 P.M., though the
incident occurred at 7.00 A.M.- 7.30 A.M., was inordinate in
view of the fact that the police had arrived at the scene of        c
occurrence at about 9.00 A.M. The FIR was lodged after due
deliberation with political leaders. Thus, no interference is
called for and appeals are liable to be dismissed.

     5. We have considered 1he rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Before     D
deciding the factual controversies, we will first deal with LEGAL
ISSUES:

APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL:
                                                                  E
     6. This Court has persistently emphasised that there are
limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In
exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances
and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the·
appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The
                                                                  F
appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of
innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the
lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence.
Interference in a routine manner where the other view is
possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for
interference.                                                     G

CONTRADICTIONS IN MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND
OCULAR EVIDENCE:          .

     7. It is a settled legal proposition that where the evidence . H
    170     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with
  the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistics expert, it
  amounts to a fundamental defect in the prosecution case and
  unless it is reasonably explained may discredit the entire case
  of the prosecution. However, the opinion given by a medical
B witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an
  opinion is required to be tested by the court. If the opinion is
  bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by
  that opinion. After all an opinion is what is formed in the mind
  of a person regarding a particular fact situation. If one doctor
c forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion
  on the same facts, it is open to the Judge to adopt the view
  which is more objective or probable. Similarly, if the opinion
  given by one doctor is not consistent or probable, the court has
  no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is given by
  the doctor. "It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to
0
  the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the
  eyewitnesses' account which had to be tested independently
  and not treated as the 'variable' keeping the medical evidence
  as the 'constant' ".

E        Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and
    trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative
    possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. The
    eyewitnesses' account requires a careful independent
    assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which should not
F   be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other evidence,
    including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test
    of such credibility.

      (Vide: Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975
G SC 1727; State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, AIR 1999 SC 2005;
  Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; and
  Rakesh v. State of M.P., (2011) 9 SCC 698).

       8. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a
  contradiction between medical evidence and ocular eviden·ce
H stands crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony
   GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                     171
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical         A
evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony
improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of
the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical
evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility
of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be        B
disbelieved.

CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE:

     9. In State of UP. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, this Court
after considering a large number of its earlier judgments held:      C

          "In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are
    bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to
    normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory
    due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such           D
    as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the
    omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious
    doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other
    witnesses also make material improvement while
    deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to
                                                                     E
    rely    upon.     However,      minor contradictions,
    inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on
    trivial matters which do not affect the core of the
    prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which
    the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has
    to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and     F
    record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires
    confidence.

             Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence
     brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility   G
     of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is
     put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of
     credibility.
           Therefore, mere marginal variations in the
                                                                     H
    172       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 14 S.C.R.


A         statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as
          improvements as the same may be elaborations of the
          statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions
          which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e.
          go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core
B         of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the
          witness liable to be discredited."
      A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in
  Tehsildar Singh & Anr. v. State of UP., AIR 1959 SC 1012;
  Pudhu Raja & Anr. v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, JT
C 2012 (9) SC 252; and Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi),
  (2013) 4 sec 557).
       10. Thus! it is evident that in case there are minor
  contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses the same are
  bound to be ignored as the same cannot be dubbed as
0
  improvements and it is likely to be so as the statement in the
  court is recorded after an inordinate delay. In case the
  contradictions are so material that the same go to the root of
  the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution
  case, the court has to form its opinion about the credibility of
E the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions
  inspire confidence.
    EVIDENCE OF A RELATED/INTERESTED WITNESSES:
        11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of
F closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised
  and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon
  it, regarding the convicUaccused in a given case. Thus, the
  evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the
  witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case
G the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and
  trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon.
       (Vide: Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of UP., AIR 2011
  SC 2292; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U P., AIR 2013 SC
H 308).
   GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                   173
           [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
    12. In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki & Anr. AIR 1981        A
SC 1390, this Court held:

    "5A. As mentioned above the High Court has declined
    to rely on the evidence of P. W 1 on two grounds: (1) she
    was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife     8
    of the deceased" ...... For, in the circumstances of the
    case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was
    the only person present in the hut with the deceased at
    the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw
    the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased;    C
    but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is
    related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to
    'interested. A witness may be called 'interested' only
    when he or she derives some benefit from the result
    of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing
    an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural         D
    one and is the only possible eye witness in the
    circumstances of a case cannot f)e said to be 'interested'.
    Jn the instant case P. W 1 had no interest in protecting the
    real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents."
                                                                   E
                                            (Emphasis added)

    (See also: Chakali Maddilety & Ors. v. State of A. P., AIR
2010 SC 3473).

    13. In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of UP., AIR 2004 SC        F
5039, while dealing with the case this Court held:,

    "7. .. ... Murders are not committed with previous notice to
    witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is
    committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house        G
    are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street,
    only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot
    be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground
    that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression
    'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every        H
    174       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A         man's home is considered his castle and everyone must
          have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in
          another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression
          in a country where people are less formal and more
          casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their
B         presence."

       14. In view of the above, it can safely be held that natural
  witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses.
  Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit
C out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that
  a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had
  witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded
  merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/
  deceased.

D DELAY IN LODGING FIR AND ITS CONTENTS:

       15. The case of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely
  on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. The court has to
  examine the explanation f~rnished by the prosecution for
E explaining the delay. There may be various circumstances
  particularly the number of victims, atmosphere prevailing at the
  scene of incidence, the complainant may be scared and fearing
  the action against him in pursuance of the incident that has
  taken place. If the prosecution explains the. delay, the court
F should not reject the case of the prosecution solely on this
  ground. Therefore, the entire incident as narrated by the
  witnesses has to be construed and examined to decide whether
  there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay which goes
  to the root of the case of the prosecution and even if there is
  some unexplained delay, the court has to take into
G consideration whether it can be termed as abnormal.

         (Vide: P. Venkataswarlu v. State of A.P., AIR 2003 SC
    574; and State of UP. v. Munesh, AIR 2013 SC 147).

          16. It is also a settled legal proposition that merely not
H
   GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                     175
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
mentioning all the names of all the accused or their overt acts     A
elaborately or details of injuries said to have been suffered,
could not render the FIR vague or unreliable. The FIR is not an
encyclopaedia of all the facts. More so, it is quite natural that
all the names and details may not be given in the FIR, where a
large number of accused are involved.                               B

NON-CROSS EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS ON A
PARTICULAR ISSUE:

     17. This Court in Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr. v.
Bhagwanthuva (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 1204             C
examined the effect of non-cross examination of witness on a
particular facUcircumstance and held as under:

     "31. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with
     respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party      D
     wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of
     the statement of a witness, the said witness must be
     given an opportunity to explain his statement by
     drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been
     objected to by the other party, as being untrue.               E
     Without this, it is not possible to impeach his
     credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the
     statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the
     Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to
     cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered
     in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief,
                                                                    F
     and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by
     Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness
     to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity.
     Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to
     be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the   G
     witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as
     regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him
     with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the
      version of events provided by him, is not fit to be
      believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit.     H
    176      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A         Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must
          provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness
          box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is
          essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with
          witnesses."
B
                                               (Emphasis supplied)

         (See also: Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, JT 2013
    (8) SC 181 ; and Gian Chand & Ors. v. State of Haryana, JT
    2013 (10) SC 515).
c
         18. Thus, it becomes crystal clear that the defence cannot
    rely on nor can the court base its finding on a particular fact or
    issue on which the witness has not made any statement in his
    examination-in-chief and the defence has not cross examined
0   him on the said aspect of the matter.

         19. The case is thus, required to be examined with
    reference to the aforesaid legal propositions.

       Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1) submitted the complaint stating
E that they were working in their respective fields in the morning,
  and had gone to the neighbouring field after hearing the hue
  and cry and found that one Rayarati Narayana Reddy had died
  due to electrocution. When they returned and began to work in
  their field, the accused persons came there armed with sticks,
F knives, bombs and sickles and some of them were whistling
  war cries. Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) and his brother
  Balagangi Reddy also came there. The accused trespassed
  in their field and chased the deceased who escaped on his
  cycle. A2 hurled a bomb at Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased)
G which hit him on the legs and he fell down from the cycle. A 1
  hurled a bomb which fell on the head of Y. Ramachandra Reddy
  (deceased) and A3, A4 and A5 also hurled bombs which fell
  in close proximity of Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased). A6
  hacked Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) with a hunting
H sickle on his head. The witness apprehended danger to his life
   GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                      177
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
and ran away and hid in the bushes. When he returned he did           A
not find any person at the scene of occurrence. He came
to the village at 10.30 A.M. The police took him into custody
and took him to the agricultural field where Rayapati Narayana
Reddy had died as the police suspected him to be involved in
his murder. He wanted to lodge a complaint regarding the              B
death of his brother, however, as the police was involved in
settling down the tension in the village, he was told that it would
be registered after some time. He deposed that he was
totally illiterate and was asked by the police to get the complaint
written by somebody. He submitted it later at about 1.00 P.M.,        c
though, it was shown at 3.00 P.M. He had also disclosed that
the two groups belonged to different political parties and there
was rivalry between them.

     20. The deposition of Y. Gangadhar Reddy (PW.2), the
nephew of Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased), corroborated D
the evidence of Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1) regarding the death
of Rayapati Narayana Reddy who had died due to
electrocution. They came back to their field and started working.
The accused persons came fully armed with sticks, knives,
bombs and sickles and some of them were whistling war cries. E
Y. Balagangi Reddy ran towards Railway Gate. Narayanamma
and Y. Gangabhavani (PW.3) followed him. Accused A7 to A13
chased Balagangi Reddy. Apprehending danger to his life, Y.
Ramachandra Reddy escaped on his cycle. A1 to A6 chased
him. A2 threw a bomb which hit Y. Ramachandra Reddy · F
(deceased) on his legs. He fell down from the cycle. A1 hurled
another bomb which hit him on his head and he suffered a
fracture. A3 to A5 also hurled bombs but the same fell in his
close proximity. A6 was holding a sickle with which he hacked
the head of deceased.                                             ·G

     21. Y. Gangabhavani (PW.3) widow of Y. Ramachandra
Reddy (deceased), duly corroborated the evidence of Y.
Eswara Reddy (PW.1) and Y. Gangadhar Reddy (PW.2) by
narrating the incident in the same manner. She also deposed
                                                                      H
    178       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A about how her husband fell down from the cycle after being hit
  by the bomb which was hurled by A2. Bomb hurled by A 1 hit
  him on his head, which caused fracture on the head of
  deceased. A3 to A5 hurled bombs which exploded by the side
  of her husband. A6 hacked on the left side of the head of her
B husband with a hunting sickle. She herself could not muster
  courage to come forward to save her husband rather, she hid
  behind the bushes and came out only after the police arrived.
  She identified the clothes of her husband and other articles that
  belonged to him.
c       22. Dr. Y. Karunasree (PW.6) conducted the post-mortem
    examination, who deposed that she found on the body of Y.
    Ramachandra Reddy, the following injuries:

    External Injuries:
D
          "(1) Crushed lacerated extensive injury involving bones
          muscles, vessels, like soft tissues (including brain matter)
          parts of skull and right side of the face. Hairy part of the
          scalp including upper part of the cranium, both eye baits,
          nose, upper jaw, brain matter blown off. Blackening of the
E
          injured parts and surrounding tissues present. Clotting
          present over wound edges.

          (2) Incised injury 3x2 ems into bone deep size present over
          left cheek extended and ended into injury No.1.
F
          (3) Crushed lacerated injury involving left eye ball, nose,
          major part of the upper lip and sparing the lower lip.

          (4) Multiple various sized splinter injuries present over right
          side of the chest and upper abdominal region with
G         blackening surrounding tissues. Clotting present over the
          wound.

          (5) Multiple various sized small contusions present over
          right side back, left axillary's region, left waist region, left
H         fore arm and upper arm and front of the left knee joint.
   GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                       179
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
    (6) Multiple various sized spinster injuries with blackening       A
    of surrounding tissues present over front of the right upper
    limb, front and back of the right thigh and back of left thigh."

    She opined that deceased appeared to have died of shock
due to fracture of skull bones and lacerations of brain matter.        B
In her opinion, death occurred 12 to 14 hours prior to her
examination., In her cross-examination she deposed that:

    • ... .Injury No.2 in EX.P-4. is possible by sharp edged
    weapon (Addi. P.P. shown too hunting sickles to the
    witness). The injury No.2 is possible with hunting sickles         C
    shown to me Blackening mentioned in the Injury No.4 due
    to explosion bomb. Injury N0.5 may be possible by falling
    on the ground. Injury N0.6 is also possible with explosion
    of bomb .... ."
                                                                       D
      23. M. Pratap Naidu (PW.7) was a panch witness in the
inquest of. the dead body of Y. Ramachandra Reddy
(deceased). D. Khader Basha, V.A.O., (PW.8) was taken by
the police to the place of the occurrence. There he found some
bombs in a bucket and he signed some documents regarding               E
the recovery of the same. A1, A2 and A7 were taken in the
police custody in his presence. Some hunting sickles and other
articles were also recovered from the accused.

      24. S.V. Ramana, C.I. (PW.9) is the police officer who
received the complaint. He deposed that he was posted at the F
concerned police.station as an S.I. He received vague
information regarding the deaths at Kodigandlapalli village. In·
view thereof, he left the police station immediately at 9.40 A.M.
and reached the place of occurrence. Prior to his arrival,
 Inspector of Police, Mondapuram had already reached to the G
 scene of the offence. On the same day, he received a written
 complaint at 3.00 P.M., on the basis of which, an FIR was
 registered. In his cross-examination, he explained that when he
  reached the place of occurrence, he asked the persons
  present there to submit a complaint in writing but out of H
    .180    SUPREME COURT REPORTS·                (2013) 14 S.C.R.


A  fear, nobody did the same. He further deposed that the
   distance between the village and police station was 16 Kms.
    He reiterated on being asked again in the cross-examination
   that he tried his level best to get a complaint from a
    person not concerned with the faction, but no one came
B ·forward.

       25. S.M. Basha, H.C. (PW.10) is the investigating officer,
  incharge' of the police station and he deposed that the case
  was registered against the accused persons and he further
C pointed out that three murders had taken place and most of the
  police personnel had gone there and only one or two persons
  were left in the police station: He also deposed that after getting
  the complaint, it was forwarded to the Magistrate's Court which
  was received therein on 5.12.1999 at-1.20 A.M.

D        26. So far as P. Sreenivasulu (DW.1) was concerned,
    though he was examined by the defence, he did not depose
    with respect to anything worth mentioning either in support of
    prosecufion or of the defence.

E      27. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the trial court came
  to the conclusion that there was some delay in lodging the FIR
  and came to the conclusion that it was duly established from
  the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 that A 1 to AS committed the offence
  against Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) and their narration
  about the manner in which the offence was committed, could
F not be doubted as the witnesses have identified the accused
  persons and material objects particularly M.0.1 to M.0.6. The
  FSL report (Ex.P-8) also dealt with pieces of thread, blood
  stained tar road sample and control tar road sample contained
  in M.Os.1, 2, 4 and 7. The aforesaid articles were the result of
G the explosion of a mixture containing Potassium, Chlorate
  Chloride, Arsenic, Sulphide and Sulphate etc. The court also
  dealtwith other material objects contained in M.Os.9 and 11
  and held that the accused had bombs that exploded and killed
  Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) and, therefore, they were.
H convicted.                                 ·           .
    GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                     181
            [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
      28. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and found         A
fault with the judgment of the trial Court and held that there were
contradictions in medical evidence and ocular evidence. As per
the evidence of Dr. Y. Karunasree (PW.6) who conducted the
post-mortem examination, there were incised injuries 3x2 Cms.,
bone deep over the left cheek which was possible only by a            B
sharp edged weapon. However, she did not mention in her
cross-examination which weapon could have caused such an
injury.

       29. In view of the fact that there is sufficient evidence on C
 record that Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) was hacked
 with a hunting sickle and in such a case, A6 was convicted under
  Section 148 IPC, the want of such an explanation is irrelevant.
  The cause of death as opined by the medical evidence was
  shock due to fracture of skull bone and lacerations to the brain
  matter and that in normal circumstances injury Nos. 1 to 3 could · D
  cause death. The doctor specifically deposed that Y.
  Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) died of a fracture of skull
  bones i.e. injury no. 1. Dr. Y. Karunasree (PW.6) further
  explained that she did not mention the type of weapon used
  for the reason that she was not asked about the same. E
· However, she had clearly deposed that injury no. 2 could have
  been caused by a hunting sickle. This evidence of Dr.. Y.
  Karunasree (PW.6) stood fully corroborated by the version
  given by PWs. 1 to 3 who have clearly deposed that A6 hacked
  the deceased with hunting sickle on his head.                      F

     30. In view thereof, we cannot concur with the finding
recorded by the High Court on this aspect. The High Court has
also taken note of the fact that the overt act assigned to A6 has
not been mentioned in the FIR. The evidence on record clearly         G
revealed that A 1 to A6 came armed with deadly weapons
whistling war cries and chased Y .. Ramachandra Reddy
(deceased). The trial court convicted A6 with the aid of Section
149 IPC and not independently for the reason that the trial court
was not satisfied that A6 had hacked the deceased. D. Khader          H.
    182      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A   Basha, V.A.O., (PW.8), who was the witness to the recoveries,
    deposed that seizure of hunting sickle etc. was made at the
    disclosure statement of the accused and he had signed the
    recovery memos for the same. Thus, the observations made
    by the High Court in this regard cannot be approved.
B
           31. The High Court erroneously observed that the eye-
    witnesses did not speak of the explosion of bombs by certain
    accused and, therefore, their presence at the place of
    occurrence was doubted and they could also not have seen the
C   incident because of smoke from the explosion. Such a finding
    was totally unwarranted, uncalled for and is perverse being
    based on no evidence. Not a single question had been put to
    the eye-witnesses in this respect and, therefore, there is nothing
    on record to show that their visibility was impaired due to the
    emanating of smoke and the said finding recorded by the High
D   Court could be simply termed as illogical. The witnesses
    deposed that A3 to A5 also hurled the bombs which had fallen
    in close vicinity of the body of Y. Ramachandra Reddy
    (deceased) though they did not hit him. It was specifically
    mentioned that bombs hurled by A 1 and A2 had hit him,
E   therefore, it is clear that there is no discrepancy in the testimony
    of the eye-witnesses with respect to the overt acts of the
    accused. More so, the High Court doubted the version given
    by Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1) that out of fear he hid himself
    behind the bushes and returned after some time and when he
F   came back there, he did not find any person, though, in his
    cross-examination, he explained that about two hundred
    persons gathered at the place of occurrence after the
    accused had.left the place. The evidence is to be examined
    considering the tension prevailing at the place of occurrence.
G   It is natural that in such a fact-situation every person would feel
    the apprehension of danger to his life and may run away. There
    may be some discrepancy in his evidence in cross-examination
    but it has to be examined while taking into consideration the
    evidence on record as a whole. As he explained the gathering
H   of a crowd consisting of approximately 200 persons, may have - -
   GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY                     183
           [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
been at a later point of time. Therefore, merely on the basis of     A
such a statement his presence could not be doubted and his
version could not be discarded.

      32. So far as the delay in lodging of FIR is concerned, it
has to be considered in light of the prevailing circumstances
                                                                     8
on that fateful day when two persons were murdered and third
died of electrocution. The incident occurred in a faction ridden
village having only 80 houses. The accused persons used
bombs etc. for killing two persons. The police arrived at 10
O'clock in the morning in the village. Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1)
was taken into custody suspecting his involvement in the murder      C
of Rayapati Narayana Reddy who died due to electrocution.
Therefore, in such a fact-situation, such adverse inference could
not have been drawn and testimony ofY. Eswara Reddy (PW.1),
who had submitted the FIR, since he was illiterate and, a rustic
villager and did not know the niceties of law, could not be          D
doubted. When he lodged an oral complaint, he was asked to
get it written by somebody and then present it for lodging the
FIR. The police officials made it clear in their cross-examination
that they had asked persons present at the place of
occurrence to give a complaint in regard to the incident             E
twice, but nobody came forward to give it. In view thereof,
we do not think that a person who had lost two of his family
members· and had been suspected of being involved in the
murder of Rayapati Narayana Reddy who died due to
electrocution alongwith the fact that no other person was willing    F
to submit a complaint, the delay of 6 hours, could be fatal,
particularly in view of depositions of the eye-witnesses. Thus,
the delay has been fully explained by the prosecution and there
was no occasion for the High Court to take it to be fatal to the
case of the pros~cution.                                             G.
     33. There could be no reason for the eye-witnesses i.e.
:w~ 1 to 3, who had lost two of their family members, to falsely
1mphcate the respondents and spare the real assailants.

     34. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the High     H
    184       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 14 S.C.R.


A Court are liable to be set aside being perverse. The appeals
  succeed and are allowed. The judgment and order of the High
  Court dated 13.2.2007 passed in Crl.Appeal No. 41 of 2005
  is set aside, and judgment and order of the trial court dated
  :22.12.2004 passed in Sessions Case No. 374/2000 is
B restored. The respondents are directed to surrender within a
  period of 4 weeks from today to serve out the remaining
  sentence, failing which the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
  Kadapa, is requested to take them into custody and send them
  to jail to serve their left over sentences. A copy of this judgment
c be sent to the said court for information and compliance.
    Kalpana K. Tripathy                              Appeals allowed.