Holding

All six accused were held guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Summary

The case involved six accused who attacked and killed Buchi Reddi with knives, spears and an axe. The trial court convicted all of them under Sections 148 and 302 IPC, and also under Sections 307, 326 and 324 IPC. The High Court set aside the convictions of four accused, reasoning that the FIR did not specify the manner of assault by those four and that the time of the incident was uncertain. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, holding that the omission in the FIR does not defeat the eye‑witness testimony and that the witnesses’ accounts, corroborated by medical evidence, establish a common intention to murder. It also found that the incident occurred at about 5.00‑5.30 p.m., contrary to the High Court’s conclusion of a later time. Consequently, the Court reinstated the murder convictions of all six accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and affirmed the sentences of life imprisonment.

Issues considered

The omission in the FIR of the specific manner of assault by accused A3‑A6, whether it defeats the prosecution’s case of common intention under Section 34 IPC.
Whether the time of the incident can be fixed at 5.00‑5.30 p.m. despite the High Court’s finding of 6.30‑7.00 p.m.
The reliability and admissibility of the eye‑witness testimony of PW1 and PW2 to convict all accused.
Whether the convictions under Sections 302/34 IPC for all six accused are sustainable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 161
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 324, s. 326, s. 34

Subjects

murdercommon intentionSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPCFIReye‑witness testimonytime of incidentappeallife imprisonmentIndian Penal CodeCriminal Procedure Code

Judgment

_A

A KOVVURI SURYA BHASKARA REDDY ETC.
v.
ST ATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC.

MARCH 3, I 998

B [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.)

Penal Code, 1860 :

Sections 302 read with 34-Common intention-PW I, an injured eye
C witness stating that Al to A6 with deadly weapons in their arms and assaulted
the deceased, his father, resulting in his death on the spot-Al then assaulted
PW I with his knife aimed at his head landed on his left palm-A2 assaulted
PW I with a spear aimed at his neck landed on his thumb in his effort to word
it off-A3, then hacked PW I with an axe on his thigh-Testimony of doctor
at
who had examined PW! the hospital stating that all the injuries were fresh
D and one of them was grievous as a result of assault by knife and axe-
Medical evidence and the prompt lodging of FIR corroborating the evidence
of the eye-witness-Evidence of other witnesses also supporting the testimony
of PWJ-Held, the murder was committed by all the accused persons in
furtherance of their common intentio~Hence, all the accused persons liable
E to conviction under Section 302134 IPC.
Section 302-lncident of murder-Time of the incident-Eyewitness,
son of the deceased, seriously injured in thq incident deposing the time of
murder. of his father, the deceased, was 5.00 or .5.30 p.m.-On the basis of his
evidence, High Court affirmed the conviction of some of the accused for
F assaulting the said eyewitness-Held, High Court could not have held that
incident of murder took place between 6.30 and 7.00 p.m.-More so the case
of the prosecution was corroborated by the evidence of other witliesses-
Even if there was an unexplained gap of one-and-hours, the High Court
could not refix the time of incident which was not even the case of defence
G at the trial-Criminal trial-Time of incident.

Criminal Trial--Eye witness-Testimony of-Non-disclosure of manner
of assault in the FIR-Effect of-Eye witness himself injured-High Court
found that he might not have been in a mood to narrate the incident in great
detail because of his injury-However, FIR containing all relevant facts
H relating to the incident of murder-Held, in such circumstances, High Court
44
KOVVURISURYABHASKARAREDDYv. STATE OF A.P. 45
should not have brushed aside the evidence of the eye witness exclusively on A
the ground that manner of assault had not been mentioned in the FIR-Penal
Code, 1860, Section 302134--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 154-
FIR-Lack of details-Effect of Appreciation of evidence.

A-1 to A-6 were related to each other as also to PW 1 and PW 6, the
two sons of the deceased. There were land disputes between the two families B
and a civil suit had been filed by A-4 against deceased over the right of
passage of water through their land. A-1 to A-6 also entertained a grudge
against PW 1 as, according to them, father of deceased gave him more
properties then was due to his share. On the day of incident, PW 1 accompanied
by PW 3 and PW 4 went to his garden for weeding and at about 4.30 p.m. C
deceased .came there to tend the cattle. A little later, A-1.to A-6 came there
armed with weapons like knife, spear and axe. After reaching there, A-1
hacked he deceased followed by an assault on him by A2 to A6 with their
respective weapons resulting in his instantaneous death. Seeing the assault,
PW 2 who was standing at a little distance started shouting. In the meantime,
when PW 1 had attempted to runway from the place out of fear, Al aimed D
a below on his head with a knife and when he tried to ward off the blow it
.---:: landed on his left palm. A2 made a similar attempt with a spear on the neck
of PW 1 which also he warded off thus resulting injuries on his thumb and
index finger. A3 also hacked him with a battle-axe on. his left thigh and on
being so assaulted he fell down on the adjacent sugar filed. Then PWs 3 and E
4 (labourers) ran away from the filed as also Al to A6. On these facts the
trial court held the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 trustworthy as the medical
evidence fully corroborated their ocular version and convicted all tire accused
persons under Section 148 and 302 IPC Al to A4 were convicted under
Section 307 IPC and A 5 and A 6 under Section 307/149 IPC. On appeal,
the High Court set aside their conviction of A4 to A6 and acquitted them. F
As regards others, High Court. set aside their conviction under Section 148
IPC and altered the conviction of Al and A2 under Section 302 IPC
(simpliciter) to 302/34 IPC; conviction of Al under Section 307 IPC to 326
IPC and conviction of A2 and A3 under Section 307 IPC to 324 IPC. In doing
so High Court although accepted the claim of PWs 1 and 2 that they G
witnessed the incident found it unsafe to rely on their evidence so far as it
sought to implicate A3 to A6 in the murder of deceased mainly on the ground
in the FIR in so far as PW 1 had not stated the manner in which they
assaulted the deceased though he had stated about the specific overt acts of
Al and A2 in the murder. According to the High Court, non-disclosure .of
such details led to the irresistible conclusion that either PW 1 had not seen H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) 2 S.C.R.

A the participation of A3 to A6 in the attack or that he had improved his
version while tending evidence in the court by attributing specific overt acts
· to A3 to A6 as well. Hence this appeal by Al and A2 and State filed other
two appeals against the acquittal of A3 to A6 of the offences for which they
were convicted by the trial court.

B Allowing the State appeal and dismissing the appeal of acceused this
court.

HELD: I.I. Some of the observations made by the High Court in that
PW 1 had not indicated in the FIR about the manner in which A-3 to A-6
C assaulted the deceased though he had stated about.the manner of specific
overt acts of A-1 and A-2 in the murder, s.tand contradicted by its other
observations. For exam pie, having observed that it was quite aware of the fact
that PW 1 was severely injured and he might not have been in a mood to
narrate the incident in great detail the High Court could not have expected
PWl-nor was it necessary-to give the graphic details in the FIR of the
D roles played by.each of the accused in the murder. [50-G-H)

1.2. Moreover, in the FIR after giving the background of the enmity
between their family and that of the accused, PW I stated that on the date
of the incident at or about 5.00 pm. when he, his father, and coolies were in
their field the six accused persons came there armed with knives and spears
E and suddenly attacked his father. A-1 hacked hi.m with a knife on the head
and A-2 with a spear on the neck and then the other accused assaulted the
deceased with knives and spears indiscriminately.' This was followed by a
stl!tement as to the mariner of assault on hir.i by some of the accused. Lastly
he stated that PW 2 witnessed the incident 11nd PW 4 had brought him to
the hospital. rt would tlius be seen that all the material facts relating to the
F incitlent find place in the' FIR, and therefore, the High Court was not at all
justified in brushing aside the prosecution case regarding participation· of
A-3 to A-6 in the murder on the sole ground that the manQ.er in which they
actually assaulted the deceased was not mentioned therein. Absence of the
names of A-3 and A-'' in the FIR ·should .not, also have been made one of the
G grounds to discard their evidence when it was specifically mentioned therein
that coolies were working with them in their field at'the time of the assa·un ·
(which necessarily m~ant that they were witnesses to the 'incident) .and when
admittedly PWs 3 and 4 work as coolies. Incidentally the name of PW 4 does·
find place in the FIR as the person who took PWI to the hospital. [52-E-H]

H 2. Having accepted the evidence of PWs I and 2, who categoricaJiy
KOVVURI SURYA BHASKARA REDDY r. STA TE OF A.P. [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 47
sated that the incident took place at 5.00 or 5.30 p.m., and relying thereupon, A
having convicted A-1, A-2 and A-3 (for assaulting PW I) the High Court
could not have concluded that it took place between 6.30 and 7.00 p.m. That
apart, when read in the context of the evidence of Pw 2 and PW 5 regarding
the sequence of events and the sense of time of unsophisticated villagers the
reasoning of the High Court to draw the above conclusion is wholly B
unsustainable. According to the above witnesses, after the incident took .
place PW 2 first went to the village to inform PW 5, father-in-law of PW
... I. PW 5 came to the stop, saw the condition of PW I. went back to the village,
fetched a cart and took PW I to his house in the village. Thereafter he and
PW 2 went out and brought a taxi and then took PW l to hospital which was
at a distance of 35 kms and it took them 45 minutes to reach in a jeep. When C.
these facts are taken into consideration the conclusion is inevitable that the
prosecution story that the incident took place either at 5.00 or 5.30 p.m.
cannot be doubted nor can it said with precision that there was an unexplained
gap of at least one to one-and-half-hours. Even ifthere was such an unexplainCd
gap, the High Court could not have by back calculation, refixed the. time of
the incident the time of the incidl!nt at 6.30 p.m. or 7.00 p.m. (after sunset)
which was not even the case of case i>f the defence during trial. (53-A-Fl

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No,
343 of 1997 Etc.

Froni. the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.94 of the Andhra Pradesh E
High Court in Cr!. A.No.1091of1993.

U.R. Lalit, A.K. Panda, G. Prabhakar and B. Parthasarthy for the
appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F

M.K. MUKHERJEE, J~ Six persons, namely, Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara
Reddy, Tadi Venkata Reddy, Goluguri Adireddy, Kovvuri Surreddy @
Suryanarayana Reddy, Kovvuri Subbareddy and Sathi Satyanarayana Reddy
0

(hereinafter referred to as Al to A6 respectively) were indicted before the G
Sessions Judge, East Godavary Div.ision at Rajahmundry for rioting, murder
and other cognate offences. The trial ended in conviction of all of them u·nder
Sections 148 and 302 1.P.C. (simpliciter). Besides, Al to A4 were ·convicted
under Section 307 l.P.C. and AS and A6 uri11er. Section 307/149 I.P.C. In
appeals preferred by them the. High Court set aside ihe convictions of A4 to
A6 and acquitted th~m. As regards others, the High Court set aside their H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 2 S.C.R.

A conviction under Section 14~ l.P.C. and altered the conviction of Al and A2
under Section 302 I.P.C. (simpliciter) to 302/34 I.P.C., conviction of A 1 under
Section 307 I.P.C. to 326 l.P.C. and conviction of A2 and A3 under Section
307 l.P.C. to 324 l.P.C. Assailing the judgment of the High Court A 1 and A2
jointly filed one of these .appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 1997) and the
"'.
State of Andhra Pradesh in its tum, filed the other two appeals (Criminal
B Appeal Nos. 336-337 of 1997) against the acquittal of A3 to A6 of the offences
for which they were convicted by the trial Court. During pendency of these
appeals A2 died and his appeal, therefore, stands abated. All the appeals
have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of them.

C 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is an ·follows :-(a) A I to A6 are
related to each other as also to P.W.1 (Kovvuri Srinivasa Reddi) and P.W.6
(Kovvuri Suryanarayana Reddi), the two sons of Buchi Reddi (the deceased).
While Al is the nephew of P.Ws.I an.ct 6, A2 is related to Al through h.is wife.
A4 is the brother of the deceased and AS and A6 are the son and brother-
in-law of A4 respectively. They are all residents of Machavaram. Since before
D the year 1984 there wer•: disputes and differences between the two families
over properties and a civil suit had been filed by A4 against Buchi Reddi over
the right of passage of water through their land. A I to A6 also entertained
a grudge against P.W.1 as, according to them, father ofBuchi Reddi had given
him more properties than was due in his share.
E (b) In the morning of July 31, 1992 P.W.l accompanied by two day
. labourers, namely, P.W.3 (Sabbella Surreddi) and P.W.4 (Tadi Satyanarayana
Reddi) went to their plantain garden, which was in front of their cattle sh\!d,
for weeding. While they were in the field Bu chi Reddi came .there at or about
4.30 P.M. to tend the cattle. A little later A I to A6 came there armed with
F. various weapons like knife, spear and. axe. Reaching there A I hacked Buchi
Reddi with a knife. This was followed by an assault on him by A2 to A6 with
their respective weapons resulting in his instantaneous death. Seeing the
assault P.W.2 (Subbella Venkata Reddi) who was standing at a little distance
started shouting. In the meantime, when P.W.1 had attempted to run away
from the place out of fear, Al aimed a blow on his head with a knife. When
G he tried to ward off the blow it landed on his left palm. A2 made a similar
attempt with a spear on his neck which also he warded off causing injuries
on his thumb and index finger. A3 also hacked him with a battle axe on his
left thigh. On being so assaulted he feil down on the adjacent sugar field.
Then P.Ws. 3 and 4 ran away from the field as also Al to A6.
H (c) P.W.2 gave first aid to P.W.1 by tying his Lungi on his left palm and
KOVVURI SURYA BHASKARA REDDYv. STATEOF A.P. [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 49
then left for the village to inform P.W.5 (Tadi Satyanarayana Retidi), father- A
in-Jaw of P.W.l. P.W.5 came there and, having found P.W.l groaning and
·'- unconscious, went back to the village to fetch a bullock-cart. In that car P .W. l.
was taken to and admitted in the Government Hospital, Kakinada, where
P.W.10 (Dr. K. Sudhakara Reddy) examined him and attended to his· injuries. ·

(d) After regaining consciousness in the following morning'P.W.1 B
narrated the incident to P .W. 11 (Md. Khasim), Head Constable of Kakinada
Town Police Station, who was present in the hospital. P.W. 11 reduced the
statement in writing (Ext. P-11) and forwarded it to the Officer-in-Charge of
Rayavaram police station, within whose jurisdiction the incident had taken
place. C
(e) On receip! of Ext. P-11, P.W.14 (K. Nookaraju), Head Constable of
Rayavaram Police Station registered a case and P.W.15 (K. Veera Bhadrarao),
the Circle inspector of Police took up investigation. He went to the scene of
_offence at or about 2 P.M. and held inquest over the dead body of Buchi
Reddi which was still lying there. He then forwarded the dead body to D
Government Hospital, Ramchandrapuram for Post-mortem examination.

(f) P.W.9 (Dr. D.D. Prasada Rao), Civil Asst. Surgeon of the hospital held
the autopsy and found 18 external injuries as als() some internal injuries.

(g) On completion of investigation PW. 15 submitted charge sheet in the E
case and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Session.

(3) To prove its case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom
P.Ws I to 4 figured as eye witnesses.

4. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against F
them and contended that they were falsely implicated due to family disputes.
In their defence they examined seven witnesses to prove the following facts:
D.W.l (K, Satyam), Manda! Revenue Office, Rayavaram had addressed a letter
(Ext. D.12) to the Station House Officer, Rayavaram Police Station on August
1, 1992 intimating that the incident had taken place on the pathway leading
to Machavaram village (not near the cattle shed of the deceased as alleged
G
by the prosecution); D.W.2 (Velagala Satyanarayana Reddy), owner of a rice
inill at Machavaram and D.W.3 (Boda Suryarao), a clerk of that mill to prove
that P. W.4' s daim that he had seen the incident was false for he was working
in the rice mill at that time. The attendance-cum-wage register (Ext. D-14) of
the mill was exhibited by D.W.3 in corroboration of that fact; D.W.6 (V. H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A. Suryanarayana), an Assistant Labour Officer and D.W.7 (Ch. Kishan), a Factory
Insp.ector had .seen the above register and signed the same in token of its
genuine11ess; and D.W.4 (Dr. V. Satyadev), Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics
and D. W.5 (R. Pratap), an Anaesthetist, both of Government Hospital, Kakinada
to prove that P'. W. I was conscious throughout the night between July 31 and
August I and that he was in the operation table between the hours 7 A.M.
B to 10 A.M. on the following morning, (which necessarily.meant that statement
of P.W. I could have been recorded .in the previous night but.not on the
following morning at 9.30 A.M., as was the prosecution case) .

. 5. From the judgment of the trial Court, which runs through 120 pages,
C we find that after a detailed discussion of the entire evidence atlduced by the
parties in the light of tbe diverse arguments canvassed on. their behalf to
establish their respective cases, it held that the evidence of P. Ws. I to 4 was
trustworthy and that the medical evidence fully corroborated their ocular
version. The other reasons which weighed with it to accept the evidence of
P.W.I - and for that matter the prosecution case - were that the injuries found
D on his person by P.W.10 proved his presence at the time of the incident and
that he lodged the F.l.R detailing the substratum of the prosecution case at
the earliest available opportunity. In arriving at the above conclusions the trial
c;ourt observed that the entries in the hospital record on the basis of which
D. Ws. 4 & 5 testified were wholly unreliable; that the evidence adduced by
defence to prove that P.W.4 was working in the rice mill at the material time
E was unacceptable; and that the report (Ext. D-12) sent by D.W.l did not
in any way discredit the prosecution version as regards the place of incident.

6. In disposing of the appeal in the manner indicated earlier the High
Court concurred with the reasons canvassed by the trial Court·for not placing
F · any· reliance on the ·evidence of the defence witnesses. Besides, it accepted
the claim of P.Ws. I and 2 that they witnessed the incident. In spite thereof,
the High Court found it unsafe to rely on their evidence so far as it sought
to implicate A3 to A6 in the murder of Bu chi Reddi principally' on the ground
that in the' F.l.R, P.W.I had not stl)ted about the manner in which they
G assaulted the deceased though he had stated about the specific overt acts
of Al and A2 in the murder. According to the High Court, non-disclosure of
such details led to the irresistible conclusion that either P.W.I had· not seen
the participation of A3 to A6 in the attack or that he had improved his version J:l •
\Vhile tendering evidence in the Court by attributing specific overt acts to A3
to A6 as well. So far as P.W.2 is concerned the High Court observed that
H · though they were not persuaded to think that he was a planted witness and
KOVVURI SURYA BHASKARA REDDYv. STATE OF A.·P. [M.I\. MUKHERJEE, J.l 5\
he would not have witnessed the occurrence at all, .still then, it was not A
expected of him to see from a distance of about 60 feet as to the actual parts
played by each of the accused.

7. The evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 was disbelieved by the High Court
firstly on the ground that in the F.l.R. P:W. l stated only in general terms that
coolies were working but he did not give the names of P.Ws. 3 and 4 as the B
.... coolies nor did he state that they witnessed the incident. The next ground
was that the incident took rlace between 6.30 and 7.00 P.)'vl.. when darkness
had set iri and not at 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution and it
was, therefore, doubtful whether agricultural labours would still be working
at that time to remove the weeds. The steps of reasoning of the High Court . C
in fixing the time of the incident are as under:

"He (P.W.1) was admitted in the hospital at 10.30 P.M. according to
P.Ws. 2, 5, and 10. The distance between Machavaram and Kakinada
is about 35 KMs. According to P.W. 15, he took 45 minutes to travel
in a jeep. According to P.W.2, the taxi was brought at about 6-30 P.M. D
P. W.5 stated that it took about 1Y, hours to reach Kakinada. According
to P. W. l, they started to Kakinada by about 7-30 P.M. Even then there
is an unexplained gap of 2 to 2 1/z hours, according to the learned
counsel for the appellant. It is true that there is an unexplained. gap
of at least I Y, hours if not 2 Y, hours even after giving allowance to
the fact that the villagers may not have good time sense. The journey E
from Machavaram to Kakinada could not have taken more than an
hour. Considering all the relevant circumstances, we are of the view
that the incident did not take place either at 5 or 5-30 P.M. as stated
by the prosecution but it should have taken place between 6-30 and
· 7-00 P.M. most probably after sun-set."· F
Lastiy, the High ·court observed that there was contradiction between their
evidence and that of P. W. 15 as to the time when their statements under
Section 161 Cr. P.C. were recorded and that there were some contradictions
between their depositions in Court and the statements recorded .during
investigation. G
~ ""- 9. After having discussed the evidence of the above four eye witnesses
the High Court drew the following conclusion :-

"The net result of the above discussion is that amongst the alleged
eye-witnesses, we are inclined to think that P.Ws. I and 2 did witness. H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 2 S.C.R.

A the occurrence and there is nothing to discredit their testimony as a
whole. However, in view of the partisan nature of the evidence of
these two witnesses and the improbability of P.W.2 observing the
details of the attack against the deceased and P. W. l, we feei it safe
to rely on their evidence to the extent it receives corroboration from
the statement of P.W.l (Ex. P-1) made at the earliest opponunity. In
B Ex. P-1, specific overt acts were attributed to A-1 and A-2 as far as
the attack on P. W. I is concerned. The said evidence is in conformity
with the medical evidence ..........."

10. On perusal of the record we are constrained to say that each of the
C reasons given by the High Court for recording the order of acquittal on favour
of A3 to A6 is patently wrong. That apart, some of the observations made
by the High Court in that regard stand contradicted by its other observations.
For example, having observed that it was quite aware of the fact tliat P.W.1
was severely injured and he might not have been in a mood to narrate the
incident in great details the High Court could not have expected of P.W.1 -
D nor was it necessary - to give the graphic details of the roles played by each
of the accused in the murder. While on this point it will be pertinent to refer
to the statements made therein. After giving the background of the enmity
between their family and that of the accused P. W.1 stated that on July 31, 1992
at or about 5.00 P.M. when he, his father and coolies were in their field the
E ,ix accused persons cat" there anned with knives and spears and suddenly
attacked his father. A 1 Ii a eked him with a knife on the head and A2 with a
spear on the neck and th ;n the other accused assaulted him (the deceased)
with kr.ives and spears indiscriminately: This was followed by a statement as
t·~'~h nanner of assault on him by some of the accused. Lastly he stated that
P.W.2 ·.~itnessed the incident and P.W.4 had brought him to the hospital. It
F would thus be seen that all material facts relating to the incident find place
in the F.l.R.; and, therefore, the High Court was not at all justified in brushing
aside the prosecution case regarding participation of A3 to A6 in the murder
on the sole ground that the manner in which they actually assaulted the
deceased was nor mentioned therein. Absence of the names of A3 and A4
G in the F.l.R. should not also hav•: been made one of the grounds to discard
that evidence when it was specifically mentioned therein that coolies were
working with them in their field at the time of the assault (which necessarily
meant that they were witnesses to the incident) and when admittedly P.Ws.
3 and 4 work as collies, Incidentally, it may be mentioned that name of P.W.4
does find place in the F.I.R.(as noticed earlier) as the person who took P.W.I
H to the hospital.
KOVVURI SURYA BHASKARA REDDYv. STATE OF A.P. [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 53
11. As regards the finding of the High Court that the incident took place A
between 6.30 and 7.00 P.M. and not at 5.00 P.M. or 5.30 P.M. the same is
contradictory to its other finding. Having accepted the evidence of P.Ws. I
and 2, who categorically stated that the incident took place at 5.00 or 5.30 P.M.
and, relying thereupon, having convicted A I, A2 and A3 (for assaulting
P.W.l) the High Court could not have concluded that it took place between B
6.30 and 7.00 P.M. That apart, when read in the context of the evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.5 regarding the sequence of events and the sense of time of
unsophisticated villagers (which the High Court itself noticed) the· reasoning
of the High Court (quoted earlier) to draw the above conclusion is wholly
unsustainable. According to the above witnesses, after the incident took C
place P.W.2 first went to the village to inform P.W.5, father-in-law of P. W. l.
On getting that information P.W.5 came to the spot and having seen the
condition of P.W. l went back to the village to fetch a cart. With the cart he
came back again to the place of occurrence and took P.W.l to his house in
the village. Thereafter he and P. W.2 went on bicycle up to a bridge and after D
. keeping their bicycle there went to Ramachandrapuram taxi stand to hire a taxi.
They brought the taxi to the house of P. W. I and then took P, W. I to Kakinada
Government Hospital which, according to P.W.15 was at a distance of35 Kms,
and took him 45 minutes to reach in a jeep. When the above facts are taken
into consideration the conclusion is inevitable that the prosecution story that
the incident took place either at 5.00 or 5.30 P.M. cannot be doubted nor can E
it be said with precision that there was an unexplained gap of at least I to
I 1/2 hours. Even ifthere was such an unexplained gap, the High Court could
not have by back calculation, refixed the time of the incident at 6.30 P.M. or
7 P.M. (after sunset) which was not even the case of the defence during trial.
t
In view of this discussion of ours the other reason of the High Court to F
disbelieved P.W.3 and P.W.4 that as agricultural labour they were not expected
to work after sunset cannot be supported also.

12. Now that we have found that none of the grounds put forward by
the High Court to discard the evidence of P.W.3 and 4 altogether and to acquit G
A3 to A6 of the charge of murder cannot at all be sustained, we have to look
into the evidence on record to ascertain whether the convictions of A I for
the murder and assault on P.W.l, acquittal of A3 of the offence of murder and
of A4 to A6 of both the offences are justified. Coming first to the evidence
of P.W. l we find that he has narrated the entire prosecution case as detailed H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] 2 S.C.R.

A earlier. Next, the unimpeachable evidence of P.W. I 0, who examined him at the
Kakinada Hospital at I 0.50 P.M. on July :31, 1992 proves that he had six
injuries on his person. P.W.10 opined that all the injuries were fresh and one
of them (injuries No. 6) was grievous. According to him some of the injuries
could be caused by axe and knife. The injuries found on the person of P. W. r
B fully supports his claim of having been present at the seen~ of offence. Then
again, in view of the· concurrent finding of the learned Courts below that the
evidence adduced by the two doctors who were exa:rriined as defence
witnesses, namely D.W.4 and D.W.5 could not be relied upon - a finding with
which we are in c~mplete agreement - it must· be said that the F.I.R. was
C lodged at the earliest available opportunity. This is another. circumstance to
corroborate the evidence P.W.1. Jn assailing his evi.dence Mr. Lalit, appearing
for AI, urged that having disbelieved his evidenc.e so far as it sought to
implicate A3 to A6, the High Court ought not to have placed any reliance
upon his evidenc.e to convict A I. This contention of Mr. Lalit has got to be
D rejected in view of our earlier discussion. Mr. Lalit also drew our attention to
some contradictions in liis evidence. To eschew prolixity we refrain from
detailing those contradictions as they are minor c9ntradictions and do not in
any way distract from his credibility.

13. The evidence of other thrr,e witii.esses, namely P. Ws.2, 3 and 4 fully
E support that of P.W.1 and inspite of searching cross-examination the defence
could not make a dent in their evidence to discredit them. The evidence of
the four eye witnesses clearly establishes that the accused persons came
there armed with various weapons and all, of them participated in the murder
of Buchi Reddy, IS injuries of different natlire, shapes and sizes all over his
F body, which resulted in his immediate death, as testified by P.W.9, go a long
way to support the version of all the eye witnesses as to ·tlie manner in which
the assault took plact:. Taking an over ·an view of. the entire evidence on
record we find no hesitation in co_ncluding that the murder. was cominitted by
all- the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. That
.G necessari\y means that Al, A3, A4, A5 and A6 are liable for conviction under
Section 302/34 J.P.C. Accordingly, we uphold the conviction and sentence of
AI under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and, after setting aside the acqu.ittal of A3 to
A6 of the above offence convict them also under Section 302/341.P.C. For the
above conviction each of them shall suffer imprisonment· for life. The
H convictions of A I and A3 under Sections 326 and 324 I.P.C. respectively for
KOVVURI SURYA BHASKARA REDDY v. STA TE OF A.P. [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 55
the assault on A 1 and the sentences imposed upon them for the above A
convictions by the High Court will stand. The sentences of A I and A3 shall
run concurrently.

14. On the conclusions as above we dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 343
of 1997 and allow Criminal Appeal Nos. 336-337of1997 to the extent indicated B
above. Let A3 (Goluguri Adireddy). A4 (Kovvuri Surreddy@ Suryanarayana
Reddy), AS (Kovvuri Subbareddy) and A6 (Sathi Satyanarayana Reddy) be
' taken into custody to serve out the sentences now imposed upon them for
their conviction under Section 302/34 l.P.C.

R.K.S. Crl. A.No. 343/97 dismissed.
Crl. A.No. 336-37/97 allowed.