Supreme Court of India
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDYversusSTATE OF A.P. AND ETC.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 706
- Decided
- 18 October 2013
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- B S CHAUHAN
Holding
An appellate court may re‑appreciate evidence and set aside an acquittal where the material on record proves guilt, and accused No. 2 is guilty only of the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC.
Summary
The case involved twenty accused charged with offences including murder, rioting and attempt to murder arising from a politically‑motivated land dispute that culminated in the killing of Mudi Parandhami Reddy. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the High Court convicted accused Nos. 1‑12 under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while acquitting the remaining accused. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the oral testimonies, medical evidence, recovered weapons and motive, and held that the High Court was justified in overturning the acquittal of accused Nos. 1‑12. However, for accused No. 2 (A‑2) the Court found that the only proven act was a simple assault causing a minor injury, and therefore altered his conviction to Section 324 read with 34, imposing a two‑year rigorous imprisonment. The Court also clarified that appellate courts may review acquittal orders where evidence warrants it, emphasizing the need to prevent miscarriage of justice. All other appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an appellate court can interfere with a trial court's order of acquittal.
- Whether the evidence on record establishes the guilt of accused Nos. 1‑12 under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC.
- Whether the conviction of accused No. 2 should be reduced to the offence of simple assault under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC.
- Whether the non‑examination of a surviving injured witness affects the conviction.
- The admissibility and evidentiary value of a dying declaration recorded by a magistrate when the declarant survives.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 155, s. 157, s. 162, s. 164, s. 235
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 155, s. 157, s. 162, s. 32
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 324, s. 326
Subjects
appeal against acquittalappellate jurisdictionmiscarriage of justiceIndian Penal CodeSection 149dying declarationevidence appraisalconviction modification
Judgment
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 877
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY A
v.
STATE OF A.P. AND ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1521-22 of 2011 etc.)
OCTOBER18, 2013
B
[DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 30~, 307 and 326 r/w.
s. 149 - Prosecution of 20 accused - Acquittal of all the
accused by trial court - 12 of the accused convicted by High C
Court, while maintaining the acquittal order in respect of the
remaining accused - On appeal by the convicted accused
held: The prosecution case is proved by the evidence of the
oral testimony of the witnesses which are clear and consistent,
medical evidence and by recovery of weapons of offence - D
Prosecution has also proved motive - Hence, conviction by
High Court is justified - However, in view of the fact that A-2
inflicted only one injury to PW3, simple in nature, can be held
guilty for the offence punishable uls. 324 34 - Hence his
conviction u/s. 3021149 altered to one u/s. 324134 IPC and E
sentence altered to 2 years RI.
Appeal against acquittal - Acquittal order - Interference
with - Held: There is no embargo on appellate court to
interfere with acquittal order - Paramount consideration of the
Court is to ensure prevention of miscarriage of justice. F
20 accused, including the appellants-accused were
prosecuted u/ss. 147, 148, 302 IPC. Some of the accused
were also prosecuted ulss. 307/149 and 3261 149 IPC.
Trial Court acquitted all the accused. In appeal, High G
Court convicted Accused Nos. 13 to 20. Hence the
present appeals filed by the convicted accused.
Partly allowing the appeal filed by accused No. 2 and
dismissing the other appeals, the Court
877 H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 14 S.C.R.
A HELD: 1. The High Court was fully justified in
reversing the order of acquittal in respect of accused
Nos. 1 to 12. There is no embargo on the appellate court
reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal
is based. The paramount consideration of the court is to
B ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A
miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of
the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an
innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored,
a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate
c the evidence even where the accused has been
acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether
any of the accused committed any offence or not. [Paras
22 and 23] [899-F-G, 900-A-C]
State of UP. vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998: 1988
D Suppl. SCR 611; State of Punjab vs. Kamai/ Singh (2003)
11 sec 271: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 593 - relied on.
Rohtash vs. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 589: 2012
(6) SCR 62; Murugesan vs. State (2012) 10 SCC 383: 2012
E (13) SCR 1 - referred to.
2.1. The depositions of PWs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are clear
and consistent about the incident. Deposition of P.W. 6,
who accompanied the deceased fully corroborates the
version of P.W. 3. There is no substance in the
F contention that this witness supported the prosecution
side in some earlier litigation, therefore, his testimony is
liable to be discarded. P.W. 7 was also present when the
deceased was requested to mediate the dispute on the
earlier date and accompany him to the field on the next
G day. His narration of the incident is similar to the
deposition of other witnesses and have been believed by
the High Court. The prosecution case is fully supported
by rest of the witnesses and the evidence. [Paras 16 and
17] [892-E, 893-E, F-H]
H
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 879
2.2. The prosecution in the present case has A
sufficiently established the motive, which is the political
rivalry and the land dispute between the parties; their
preparation, which consists the accused party going to
the field of P.W. 3 and L.W. 2 with arms; the recovery of
these arms at the instance of A-2; the discovery of blood B
stains on the knife and battle-axe and ante-mortem
injuries inflicted on the deceased, as per the inquest and
post mortem report. The injuries on the deceased are
completely relatable to the injuries to the attack as
deposed to by the prosecution witnesses. [Paras 18 and c
19] [894-A-C, 898-E] ·
2.3. The Court has also carefully examined the
alleged discrepancies and it does not find that the
discrepancies and doubts are such as makes their
testimonies liable to be rejected, in view of the deposition D
of PWs 3, 6 and 7, which is clear and consistent. [Para
20] [898-E-F]
2.4. It is not correct to say that the prosecution case
fails because L.W. 2, who is said to be injured in the
attack, was not examined. LW 2, the brother of PW 3, is E
said to have received one simple injury on the head in
the attack. The witnesses stated that he received several
injuries on his head, however, the evidence of the Medical
Officer shows that the X-ray of the skull was and there
was one simple injury on his head on the date of the F
offence. This witness obviously should have been
examined but for reasons best known to the prosecution
was not examined. Though his dying declaration was
recorded, this witness survived. [Para 24] [900-D-F]
3. A-2 has been charged for the offences under G
Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the
IPC etc. The only overt act attributed to him by some of
the prosecution witnesses is that because P.W. 3
intervened during the attack, he beat the said PW 3 with
the blunt axe of Chillakathi on his back side. This only H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A resulted in a simple lacerated injury skin deep of about
1% inches over the back head of P.W. 3. The Medical
Officer has opined that this injury is simple. In the
circumstances, the conviction and sentence of A-2,
awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court
B is liable to be modified .. A-2 is held guilty only for the
offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section
34 of the IPC. Therefore, his conviction is altered from
Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the
IPC etc. to Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
c Custody and sentence of 2 (two) years would be
appropriate and sufficient. The accused-appellant shall
undergo imprisonment for a term of 2 years, if not already
undergone, in terms of this order. [Para 30) [902-F-H,
903-A-C]
D Sunil Kumar and Ors. vs. State of M.P. AIR 1997 SC 940
1997 (1) SCR 589; Maqsoodan and Ors. vs. State of U.P. AIR
1983 SC 126: 1983 (2) SCR 45; Ramprasad vs. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1999 SC 1969: 1999 (3) SCR 519; Gentela
Vijayavardhan Rao and Anr. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR
E 1996 SC 2791: 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 273; State of U.P. vs.
Veer Singh and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4614: 2004 (1) Suppl.
SCR 790; Ranjit Singh and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 2011 SC 255: 2010 (14) SCR 133 - referred to.
F Case Law Reference:
2012 (6) SCR 62 referred to Para 9
2012 (13) SCR 1 referred to Para 9
1988 Suppl. SCR 611 relied on Para 21
G
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 593 relied on Para 22
1997 (1) SCR 589 referred to Para 25
1983 (2) SCR 45 referred to Para 26
H
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 881
1999 (3) SCR 519 referred to Para 27 A
1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 273 referred to Para 28
2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 790 referred to Para 28
2010 (14) SCR 133 referred to Para 28 B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1521-1522 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 23.03.2011 of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in c
Criminal Appeal No. 954 of 2007 and Criminal Revision Case
No. 256 of 2007.
WITH
Crl. A. No. 1093-1094, 1100-1101 & 1102-1103 of 2011. D
A.K. Sanghi, Mahabir Singh, Altaf Ahmed, V. Sridhar
Reddy, P. Ganga Rami Reddy, V.N. Raghupathy, Abhijit
Sengupta, V. Sridhar Reddy, Ch. Leela Sarveswar for the
Appellant. E
A.T.M. Rangaramanujan, Basava Prabhu Patil, D. Mahesh
Babu, Mayur R. Shah, Suchita Hrangkhwal, Chandra Mohan
Anisetty, T. Anamika for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
S. A. BOBDE, J. 1. This batch of appeals is preferred by
the accused against the common judgment and order dated
23rd March 2004 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 954 and 956 of
2008. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1521-1522 of 2011 are filed by G
the Accused No. 1; Criminal Appeal Nos. 1102-1103 of 2011
are filed by the accused Nos. 2-7; Criminal Appeal Nos. 1100-
1101 of 2011 by the accused Nos. 8-12; Criminal Appeal Nos.
1093-1094 of 2011 are filed by the Accused No. 2, Konduru
Nagure Reddy. Since they arise out of the same incident/
H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A judgment they have been taken up together for disposal.
2. The crime in question is the murder of Mudi Parandhami
Reddy in an agricultural field on 25.11.96 in Mettu village in
Andhra Pradesh. According to the prosecution, the deceased
8 was a leader of the Congress party in the area. He was
suspected by the Accused No. 1 Puchalapalli Parandhami
Reddy, a leader of the Telugu Desam Party, as being
responsible for the murder of his father on 25.3.92. Land
disputes also existed between Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2), his
C brother Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) on one side and A-19,
Pelluru Venu Reddy about the division of survey No. 116.
Litigation was pending between them in a Court. Therefore,
Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2)
sought the mediation of the deceased Mudi Parandhami Reddy
and it was decided that the deceased would mediate on
D 25.11.96.
3. On 24.11.96, Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and his
brother Rajagopal engaged farm labour i.e. P.W. 1 (Vakati
Ramanaiah), P.W. 2 (Rayapati Venkata Ramanaiah), P.W. 4
E (Bandila Mutyhyalaiah) and P.W. 5 (Rayapati Kotaiah) for
ploughing the land. On the next day, i.e. 25.11.1996 the
deceased had come to the land and sat on a ridge in the field
while the ploughing was going on by the labourers. Around 8.00
a.m., A-19, Pelluru Venu Reddy and A-20, Pelluru Sreedhar
F Reddy came there and asked that the ploughing be stopped
because there was a dispute over the land. Mudi Parandhami
intervened and said that the dispute will be resolved later and
asked the ploughing to go on. At this the accused went away.
Around 10 a.m. the accused party came back. The accused
no.1 hacked Mudi Parandhami with a battle-axe on the head.
G After that A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy came and when Pelluru
Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) intervened, A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy,
hit him with the blunt edge of the chilla kathi. Then A-3, Konduru
Dayakar Reddy, hacked Mudi Parandhami with an axe on his
head. When Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) intervened, A-3,
H Konduru Dayakar Reddy, hit him on the left hand. After this A-
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 883
[S.A. BOBDE, J.)
4, Konduru Ramachandra Reddy, came and stabbed Mudi A
Parandhami on his left shoulder. A-5, Putchalapalli
Ramamohan Reddy, then stabbed mudi Parandhami on his
chest. A-6, Putchalapalli Srinivasulu Reddy, then stabbed Mudi
Parandhami with a spear on the left side of his back. Thereafter
A-7, Putchalapalli Niranjan Reddy, stabbed Mudi Parandhami B
on his back. Then A-8, Avula Sudhakar, stabbed Mudi
Parandhami on his left ear and his abdomen. Thereafter A-9,
Putchalapalli Subrahmanyam Reddy, stabbed Mudi parandhami
on the left side of the chest. A-10, Yellasiri Masthan, then hit
Mudi Parandhami with a stick on the left temple. A-12, Chennur C
Venkataramana Reddy, gave a blow on the head to Mudi
Parandhami. When Rajagopal Reddy Rajagopal Reddy (L.W.
2), intervened A-12, Chennur Venkataramana Reddy hacked
him on the head with the same battle axe and felled him. In the
incident Mudi Parandhami Reddy died. P.W. 3 (Murali Reddy) o
L.W. 2 (P. Raja Gopal Reddy) and L.W. 3 (Pelluru Karunakar
Reddy) were injured.
4. Since no doctor was available at Vakadu, one
Subrahmanyamm Reddy brought a car and Veluru Gopal
Reddy, P.W. 6, Pelluru Murali Reddy P.W.3 took him in the car E
to the Government Hospital, Gudur. However, since his
condition was critical the hospital authorities advised them to
take him for special treatment to Tirupati. On 26.11.1996 the
Additional District Munsif, Tirupati recorded the Dying
Declaration of P.W. 2 - P Rajagopal Reddy (the injured) at the F
Government Hospital, Tirupati. P .W. 17, K. Bala Reddy,
Inspector of Police, Vakadu conducted inquest over the body
of the deceased Mudi Parandhami Reddy and sent his body
for post mortem to the Government Hospital, where PW 13, Dr.
M.C. Narashimhulu, conducted post mortem over the body of G
the deceased.
5. First Information Report was lodged after about seven
hours. The Investigating Officer, Mr. K. Prasad Rao, P.W. 14,
recorded the statement of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) at the H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A Government Hospital, Gudur and registered Crime No. 175 of
1996 and recorded the confession of accused No. 2 (Konduru
Nagure Reddy) and recovered M.Os 1 to 10. Rest of the
investigation was conducted by K. Bala Reddy (Inspector of
Police), P.W. 17. The post mortem was conducted by Doctor
B M.C. Narasimhulµ (P.W.13). The wound certificate showed the
following ante-mortem injuries:
"(1) A bone deep lacerated injury of about 3" >l 1/2"
extending from middle of skull to the left parietal bone.
Blood stains present with congestion. Deeper to it sub
c scalp congested and dark. L shaped fracttJre of skull in mid
line for about 3 %" and to the right side of parietal bone.
Brain coverings congested and dark. Subdural
haematoma present over the middle of brain. Brain matter
congested and dark. There is basal fracture of skull
D transversely from one petrous part of the bone to the other
and fracture of right parietal bone, blood clots and
congestion present over the base of skull and at the
fractured areas. Injury is ante mortem.
E (2) Swelling over right fronto parietal area of skull. Deeper
to it sub-scalp congested with dark blood clots. Injury ante
mortem.
(3) Cut injury cartilage deep of about 1" over the upper part
of helix of left ear present. Blood stains present with
F
congestion. Injury is ante mortem.
(4) Skin discoloured dark with swelling over left parotid
region and a part of left face. Deeper to it dark blood clots
with congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.
G
(5) An incised injury of about 2 W' x W' x unknown depth
in between 3rd and 4th intercostals space just medial to
the mammary plane. Blood stains and congestion present.
Deeper to it fracture of 3rd rib, severing the 3rd intercostals
H space entering the thoracic cavity injured irregularly left
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 885
[S.A. BOBDE, J.]
lung by cutting irregularly and injured the anterior part of A
heart muscle opening the heart chambers (auricle and
ventricle) for about 2 Yi" . Blood clots and congestion
present at the intercostals region, over the lung injury and
over the heart. Injury ante mortem in nature.
B
. (6) Another incised injury of about 2" x Yi" x unknown depth
over the 4th intercostals area just medial to mammary
plane on left chest. Blood stains and congestion present.
Deeper to it the 3rd intercostals space opened and left 4th
rib fractured and entered the thoracic cavity. Congestion C
and blood clots present at the fractured site and
intercostals area. Injury is ante mortem in nature.
(7) A cut injury bone deep of about 2" x Yi" over the 5th
intercostals space in the left anterior axillary line. Blood
stains and congestion present. Injury is ante mortem. D
(8) Another cut injury bone deep of about 1 %" x Yi" over
the 7th left intercostals space in the anterior axillary plane.
Congestion and blood stains present. Injury is ante
mortem.
E
(9) Another cut injury bone deep of about 2 Yi" x Yi" in the
mid axillary line on 5th left intercostals space. Blood stains
and congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.
(10) Cut injury skin deep of about Yi" x Yi" in 7th left F
intercostals area in the mamillary plane. Blood stains and
congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.
(11) Another cut injury of about Yi" x %'' skin deep just
below the above injury.
G
(12) Another cut injury of about 2" x Yi" x unknown depth
over the lower aspect of back of left chest present.
Internally the last rib fractured on the back in the posterior
.mid line on left side entering the abdominal cavity and
injured the left kidney for about %. Congestion and blood H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 14 S.C.R.
A clots present over the injured areas internally. Thoracic
cage contained clotted blood for about 1 Y:i liters. Blood
clots also present in abdominal cavity. Injury is ante
mortem.
B (13) Another cut injury bone deep of about 1 %" x %"over
the line on lumbar area. Blood stains and congestion hyoid
bone, normal. Neck tissues normal. Stomach contains of
about 1 oz of coffee coloured fluid. Genitals normal.
Intestines normal."
c The doctor opined that the deceased cited due to shock
from head injury and injury to the brain and heart and other
multiple injuries and hemorrhage.
6. Since Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2) was injured and critical,
D his dying declaration was recorded on 26.11.1996 by the llnd
Additional District Munsif, Tirupati.
7. At the trial the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The
defence examined D.Ws 3 to 6 to prove their plea of alibi. P.W.
E 1 (Vakati Ramanaiah), P.W. 2 (Rayapati Venkata Ramanaiah)
and P.W. 11 (SK Ahmed Basha) turned hostile. The prosecution
did not examine Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2), Mohan (L.W. 11)
and Karunakara Redddy (L.W. 3). Charge-sheet was filed
against 20 accused under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) against all the accused, under
F Sections 307 and 326 against A2, A3 and A12, under Section
307 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 326 read
with Section 149 IPC against A-1, A-4 to A-11 and A-13 to A-
20. Upon considering the evidence and after hearing, the lllrd
-Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nellore
G found none of the accused guilty for the offences they were
charged with and acquitted them.
8. The plea of alibi has been rejected by the Trial Court
as well as the High Court. Rejection of this plea is based on
H complete improbability of the plea and is not necessary to
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 887
[S.A. BOBDE, J.]
consider it any further, particularly, since it was not pressed A·
seriously before us. In Appeal and ReYision, the High Court
considered the entire evidence on record and found that:
(a) Accused Nos. 1 to 12 are found guilty under Section
235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for
8
the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with
Section 149 of IPC for causing the death of the deceased
Mudi Parandhami Reddy and further under Section 324
read with Section 34 of IPC for causing simple injuries to
P.W. 3. They were awarded rigorous imprisonment for a C
period of one year each for the offences under Sections
147 and 148 of IPC;
(b) Accused 1 to 12 were further sentenced to
'imprisonment for life' for the offence under Section 302
read with Section 149 of IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- D
(Rupees one thousand only) each, in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for one month each;
(c) Accused 2 and 3 were further sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each for the offence E
under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC;
(d) All the sentences were directed to run concurrently;
(e) Accused 13 to 20 were found not guilty for the offences
with which they were charged and the High Court F
confirmed the judgment of the trial Court acquitting those
accused. Both the criminal appeal and the criminal revision
were allowed in part and the judgment of the trial court was
set aside.
9. hri Altaf Ahmed and Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior G
counsel, appearing for the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3
respectively, relied on the decisions of this Court in Rohtash
vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 and Murugesan vs.
State, (2012) 10 SCC 383, for the principles reiterated by this
H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A Court for interfering with an order of acquittal. In Rohtash
(supra) to which one of us (Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.) was a party,
this court held that an order of acquittal is liable to be interfered
with only in exceptional cases where there are compelling
circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be
B perverse. Interference in a routine manner where the other view
is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons
for interference. In Rohtas (supra) this Court observed:
"27. The High Court interfered with the order of acquittal
recorded by the trial court. The law of interfering with the
c judgment of acquittal is well settled. It is to the effect that
only in exceptional cases where there are compelling
circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be
perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order
of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind
D the presumption of innocence of the accused and further
that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of
innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other
view if possible should be avoided, unless there are good
reasons for interference. [Vide State of Rajasthan v.
E Talevar (2011) 11 SCC 666 and Govindaraju v. State
(2012) 4 sec 1221."
10. In Murugesan (supra), this Court has observed as
under:
F
"21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had
emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo
Swarup is to be found in para 42 of the report in
Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka : 2007 (4)
SCC 415. The same may, therefore, be usefully noticed
G below: (SCC 432)
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding
powers of the appellate court while dealing with an
H appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH ·REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 889
[S.A. BOBDE, J.]
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re- A
appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which
the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
8
power and an appellate court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", C
"very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in
the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise D
the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to
review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
E
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind
that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him under
the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence F
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent
unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
court. G
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence onrecord, the appellate
court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by the trial court. (Emphasis supplied)" H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 14 S.C.R.
A 11. According to the learned counsel the trial court has
rightly disbelieved the prosecution case, particularly, in view of
the evidence of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and the non-
examination of Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2). Other witnesses from
the initial list have also been examined. As found by the trial
B court, the learned counsel submitted that the depositions of
several witnesses of the prosecution is without any credibility
and even the presence of some of them on the scene of the
crime is doubtful or, they are interested witnesses. A conviction
based on such evidence is not tenable. It was also submitted
c by the learned counsel that the evidence of PW-3, who claims
to be present, is itself doubtful. Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3)
is the younger brother of Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2), whose son
is K. Reddy. A-19, Pelluru Venu Reddy, is the elder brother of
PW 3. A-20, Pelluru Sreedhar Reddy is son of A-19, Pelluru
0 Venu Reddy. Admittedly, there is a dispute pertaining to land
between Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and Rajagopal Reddy
(L.W. 2) on one hand and A-19, Pelluru Venu Reddy and A-
20, Pelluru Sreedhar Reddy, on the other. Therefore, the animus
of this witness against the accused is clear. Moreover, the
E evidence of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) is itself unreliable
because the witness deposed that the A-1 - Puchalapalli
Parandhami Reddy, hacked the deceased with a battle axe
whereas the injury on the head shows that it must have been
caused by blunt side of an axe. The injury in question i.e. injury
No. 1, is as follows:
F
"( 1) A bone deep lacerated injury of about 3" x %"
extending from middle of skull to the left parietal bone.
Blood stains present with congestion. Deep~r to it sub
scalp congested and dark. L shaped fracture of skull in mid
G line for about 3 %" and to the right side of parietal bone.
Brain coverings congested and dark. Subdural hematoma
present over the middle of brain. Brain matter congested
and dark. There is basal fracture of skull transversely from
one petrous part of the bone to the other and fracture of
H right parietal bone, blood clots and congestion present
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH.REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 891
[SA. BOBDE, J.]
over the base of skull and at the fractured areas. Injury is A
ante mortem." '
12. The doctor has opined that this injury could have been
caused by a blunt object. According to the learned counsel the
witness did not say that the accused reversed the axe while B
hitting the deceased onJhe head as the injury shows, and
therefore he is lying or was not f.oresent. In thefirst place, we
find that other witnesses have given ·the same deposition. It is
possible that the statement of the witness is slightly inaccurate
or the witness _did not see properly which side of the axe was c
used. It is equally possible that the sharp edge of the axe is
actually veri blunt or it was reversed just before hitting the head.
It is not possible to say what is the reason. That is however no
reason for discarding the statement of the witness that A-1 ·~
Puchalapalli Parandharri(Reddy hit the deceased. without a
battle axe; as is obvious from the injury. Moreover, it is not D
possible to doubt the presence of this witness, who has himself
been injured. Dr. M.C. Narasimhulu, P.W. 13, ~edical Officer,
has stated in his evidence that on 25-11-1996 at about 3.30 ·
p.m., he examined this\vitness - P:W.3 - P. MuraliReddy and
found the following injilrieii": ·', . . · E
· "(1) Diffused swelling with tenderness ove·r middle 1i3rd
and back of left forearm. · · ·
(2) A lacerated injury skin deep of about .Y," over the back F
of head. Bleeding present with tenderness and swelling
around."
\' ';, ,;-1 ,,,
13. VIJe are also not impressed by the finding of the trial
court that there is discrepancy between the statement of Pelluru
Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and his oral testimony because he said G
in the statement that he,saw the tractor in which the accused
had arrived just before the house of A-19, Pelluru Venu Reddy
and deposed that the ~ouse could not be seen from where he
was standing. Such a discrepancy does not detract from the
basic credibility of this witness, who along with his brother has H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A been injured in the attack.
14. Besides, the evidence of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W.
3), there is a similar deposition by P.W. 4 (Bandila
Mutyhyalaiah) and P.W. 5 (Rayapati Kotaiah) who were
8 engaged by Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and his brother and
P.W. 6 (Veluru Gopal Reddy) and P.W. 7 (Manneti
Chenchaiah), who had accompanied the deceased.
15. The evidence of P.W. 4 (Bandila Mutyhyalaiah) and
P.W. 5 (Rayapati Kotaiah) was attacked on the ground that they
C were engaged by Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and P.W. 5
(Rayapati Kotaiah) and therefore are interested witnesses and
not reliable. Such a contention cannot be accepted. There was
no reason for these witnesses to falsely depose. It is equally
true that there is no mention of these witnesses i.e. PWs 4 and
D 5 in the F.l.R. We do not find anything significant in their non-
mention since they were apparently from a different village and
it is possible that their names were left out.
16. Their depositions are clear and consistent about the
E incident and are on the following line. That at about 7.30 or 8
a.m., P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were ploughing the land with nagallu.
The deceased was sitting on the northern side of the ridge.
P.W. 6 (Veluru Gopal Reddy), Chenchaiah L.W.10 and Mohan
L.W.11 were standing on the eastern side. Meanwhile, accused
19 and 20 came there and objected for ploughing the land. The
F
deceased intervened and informed that the disputes will be
settled later and asked them to plough the land. On that, A- 19
and 20 left the fields. On the same day at about 10 a.m., A-1
came to the scene and hacked the deceased with a battle-axe
on the head. After that. A-2 came and when P.W.3 intervened,
G accused No. 2 beat P.W.3 with the butt end of a chilakathi on
the head. Then accused No. 3 came and hacked the deceased
with an axe on the head. When P.W.3 intervened, accused No.
3 beat with the same axe on the left hand of P.W.3. Thereafter,
accused No. 4 came and stabbed the deceased on the left
H
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 893
[S.A. BOBDE, J.]
shoulder. A-5 stabbed the deceased on the chest. A-6 stabbed A
the deceased with a spear on the left side back portion. A-7
stabbed the deceased on the back side. A-8 stabbed the
deceased on the left ear and also on the abdomen. A-9 stabbed
the deceased on the left side chest portion. A-10 beat the
deceased with a stick on the left temple. A-11 stabbed the B
deceased with a chilakathi on the left side of the chest and on
the left tempo. A-12 beat the deceased with an axe on the head.
When Rajagopal Reddy L.W.2 intervened, A-12 hacked him with
the same battle-axe on the head. Due to that blow, he had fallen
on the ground. After 15 minutes, Subrahmanyam Reddy, c
resident of Thimmareddyvagu, brought a tractor to the scene.
P.W 6, P.W.3 and Subrahmanyam Reddy took the injured
Rajagopal Reddy L.W.2 in the said tractor to Vakadu for
treatment as his condition was serious. As there was no doctor
available at Vakadu, Subrahmanyam Reddy brought a car and D
himself, Rajagopala Reddy L.W.2, P.W.3 and Subrahmanyam
Reddy together took him to the Government Hospital, Gudur.
There they were advised to take the injured L.W.2 to Tirupati
for expert treatment and thereafter he returned back to the
house.
E
17. Deposition of P.W. 6, who accompanied the deceased
fully corroborates the version of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3).
He stated that PW 3 and LW 2 came to the house of the
deceased and requested him to mediate the dispute among
th·e brothers. The deceased promised to come on the next day. F
On the next day what transpired is narrated by him as above.
There is no substance in the contention that this witness
supported the prosecution side in some earlier litigation,
therefore, his testimony is liable to be discarded. P .W. 7
(Manneti Chenchaiah) was also present when the deceased G
was requested to mediate the dispute on the earlier date and
accompany him to the field on the next day. His narration of the
incident is similar to the deposition of other witnesses and have
been believed by the High Court. The prosecution case is fully
supported by rest of the witnesses and the evidence. H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A 18. The prosecution in this case has sufficiently
established the motive, which is the political rivalry and the land
dispute between the parties; their preparation, which consists
the accused party going to the field of Pelluru Murali Reddy
(P.W. 3) and Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2) with arms; the recovery
B of these arms at the instance of A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy;
the discovery of blood stains on the knife and battle-axe and
ante mortem injuries inflicted on the deceased, as per the
inquest ancf post mortem report. The injuries were caused to
the deceased by the accused, which are as under:
c "P.W. 3 - Pelluru Murali Reddy stated about the injuries
on the deceased as under:
A-1 - hacked the deceased on the head with battle axe.
o A-3 - with axe - beat the deceased on the head.
A-4 - with bitchuva (knife) stabbed the deceased on the
left side chest and underneath of left arm pit.
A-5 - With Bitchuva (Knife) - stabbed the deceased
E Paradhami Reddy on the left side of the chest and
underneath, left arm pit resulting bleeding injuries.
A-6 - Spear - stabbed the deceased on the left side back
portion, resulting bleeding injuries.
F A-7 - Spear - on left side back portion of the deceased
resulting bleeding injuries.
A-8 - Chilakathi - stabbed the deceased on the left ear
and on his abdomen.
G
A-9 - Spear - stabbed the deceased on the left side chest
portion and also on umbilicus.
A-10 - Stick - beat the deceased on the left temporal
region.
H
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 895
[S.A. BOBDE, J.]
A-11 - Chilakathi - stabbed on the left side temple region A
near the left ear and also on the abdomen causing bleeding
injury.
A-12 - with battle axe - backed the deceased on the head
caused bleeding injury.
8
Other accused beat the deceased indiscriminately with
sticks and iron rods.
P.W. 4 - Bandila Mutyhyalaiah - spoke about the injuries
on the deceased as under: C
A-1 - hacked the deceased - with battle axe on the head.
A-3 - with axe - beat deceased Parandhami Reddy on the
head.
D
A-4 - stabbed - deceased with Bitchuva on the left side
of the chest and also underneath left arm pit.
A-5 - stabbed the deceased with Bitchuva on the left side
of the chest and also underneath the left arm pit.
E
A-6 -With Spear - stabbed the deceased on the left side
back portion.
A-7 - With Spear slabbed the deceased on the left side
back portion. F
A-8 - With Chilakathi - hacked the deceased on the left
ear and abdomen of the deceased.
A-9 - With Spear - stabbed the deceased on the left side
of the chest and also on the umbilicus. G
A-10 - With Stick - beat the deceased on the left side
temporal region.
A-11 - hacked the deceased with Chilakathi on the left
H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A side temple and also on the left side of chest.
A-12 - hacked the deceased with battle axe on the head.
Other accused beat the deceased indiscriminately with iron
rods and sticks.
B
P.W. 5 (Rayapati Kotaiah) - spoke about the injuries on
the deceased as under:
A-1 - With axe beat Parandhami Reddy on the head.
C A-3 - hacked the deceased with axe on the head.
A-4 - stabbed - deceased with Bitchuva on the left side
of the chest and also underneath left arm pit.
A-5 - stabbed the deceased with Bitchuva on the left side
D
of the chest and also underneath the left arm pit.
A-6 -With Spear - stabbed the deceased on the left side
back portion.
E A-7 - Armed with Spear - stabbed on the left side back
portion.
A-8 - stabbed the deceased - with Chilakathi -on the left
ear and abdomen.
F A-9 - With Spear - stabbed the deceased on the left side
of the chest.
A-10 - beat the deceased with spear - with stick temporal
region.
G A-11 - stabbed the deceased with Chilakathi on the left
side of the chest and on the left side of the temple region.
A-12 - hacked the deceased with battle axe on the head.
H Other accused beat the deceased indiscriminately.
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 897
[S.A. BOBDE, J.]
P.W. 6 - Veluru Gopal Reddy stated about the injuries A
on the deceased as under:
A-1 - hacked the deceased with battle axe on the head.
A-4 - stabbed - Parandhami Reddy on the left shoulder.
B
A-5 - stabbed the deceased on the chest.
A-6 - stabbed the deceased with Spear on the left side
back portion.
A-7 - stabbed Parandhami Reddy on the left side. c
A-8 - stabbed Parandhami Reddy on the left ear and also
on the abdomen.
A-9 - stabbed Parandhami Reddy on the left side chest D
portion.
A-10 - beat the deceased with stick on the left temporal
region of deceased Parandhami Reddy.
A-11 - stabbed the deceased with Chilakathi on the left E
side of the chest and left side of the temple region.
A-12 - beat Parandhami Reddy with axe on his head.
P.W. 7 (Manneti Chenchaiah) stated about the injuries
on the deceased as under: F
A-1 -axed the deceased on the head with battle axe.
A-3 - hacked Parandhami Reddy with axe on the head.
A-4 - stabbed - Parandhami Reddy with bitchuva on the G
left side of the chest and underneath the left arm pit.
A-5 - stabbed Parandhami Reddy with bitchuva on the left
side of the chest and underneath the left arm pit.
H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A A-6 - stabbed the deceased with Spear on the left side
back portion.
A-7 - stabbed the deceased with spear on the left side
back portion.
B A-8 - stabbed the deceased with Chillakathi on the left ear
and also on the abdomen ..
A-9 - stabbed the deceased with spear on the left side of
the chest and also on umbilicus.
c A-10 - beat Parandhami Reddy with sticks on the left
temporal region.
A-11 - stabbed Parandhami Reddy with Chilakathi on the
left side of the chest and left side of the temple region.
D
A-12 - beat the deceased on the chest with battle axe."
19. We have found that the injuries on the deceased are
completely relatable to the injuries to the attack as deposed to
E by the prosecution witnesses.
20. We have carefully examined the alleged discrepancies
and we do not find that the discrepancies and doubts are such
as makes their testimonies liable to be rejected, in view of the
deposition of PWs 3, 6 and 7, which is clear and consistent.
F
21. In State of UP. vs. Anil Singh, A.l.R. 1988 SC 1998,
this Court observed as follows:
"In an appeal against acquittal, in the great majority of
cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want
G of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some
falsehood, stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In
some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for
not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. The
indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of
H crimes could also be pointed. The public are generally
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 899
[S.A. BOBDE, J.]
reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It A
is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version
only on ground that all witnesses to occurrence have not
been examined. It is also not proper to reject the case for
want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case
made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard B
to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the
prosecution witnesses,- it is well"to remember that there is
a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to bac~ up
a good case by false or exaggerated version. It is also
experienced that invariably the witnesses add embroidery c
to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being
disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case
overboard, if true in the main. If there is a ring of truth in
the main, the case should not be rejected. ltis the duty of
the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence D
unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies '
of falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence
in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge
does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that
no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to E
see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important
as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has
to perform."
22. In State of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh, (2003) 11 SCC
271, this Court held as follows: F
"There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the
evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based.
Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with
because the presumption of innocence of the accused is G
further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which
runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal
cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is
H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A favourable to the accused should be adopted. The
paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that
miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of
justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less
than from -the conviction of an innocent. In a case where
B admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the
appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence even where
the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of
ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed
any offence or not."
c 23. Having regard to the above law laid down by this Court,
the High Court was fully justified in reversing the order of
acquittal in respect of accused Nos. 1 to 12.
24. At this stage, we might note that we are not impressed
D · by the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that
the prosecution case fails because Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2),
who is said to be injured in the attack, was not examined. LW
2, the brother of PW 3, is said to have received one simple
injury on the head in the attack. The witnesses stated that he
E received several injuries on his head, however, the evidence
of the Medical Officer shows that the X-ray of the skull was
taken on 25.11.1996 and there was one simple injury on his
head on the date of the offence. This witness obviously should
have been examined but for reasons best known to the
F prosecution was not examined. Though his dying declaration
was recorded by the llnd Additional Munsif, Tirupati on
26 .11 .1996, th is witness survived.
25. In Sunil Kumar & Ors. V. State of M.P., AIR 1997 SC
940, this Court held as under:
G
"........... that immediately after PW 1, injured witness was
taken to the hospital his statement was recorded as a dying
declaration which, consequent upon his survival, is to be
treated only as a statement recorded under Section
H 164, Cr. P.C. and can be used for corroboration or
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 901
[S.A. BOBDE, J.]
contradiction. This statement recorded by the Magistrate A
at the earliest available opportunity clearly discloses the
substratum of the prosecution case including the names
of the appellants as assailants and there is not an iota of
materials on record to show that this was the upshot of l:lis
tutoring. On the contrary, this statement was made at a B
point of time when PW 1 was in a critical condition and it
is difficult to believe that he would falsely implicate the
appellants leaving aside the real culprits ......... that there
was only some minor inconsequential contradictions which
did not at all impair his evidence. Then again, as already c
noticed, the evidences of the doc~ors fully supports his
version of the incident." (Emphasis added).
26. In Maqsoodan & Ors. V. State of UP., AIR 1983 SC
126, this Court dealt with an issue wherein a person, who had
made a statement in expectation of death, did not die. This D
Court held that it cannot be treated as a dying declaration as
his statement was not admissible under Section 32 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, but it was to be dealt with under Section
157 of the Evidence Act, which provides that the former
statement of a witness may be proved to corroborate later E
testimony as to the same fact.
27. In Ramprasad v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1999 SC
1969, a similar view has been re-iterated by this Court as this
Court observed: F
"Be that as it may, the question is whether the court could
treat it as an item of evidence for any purpose. Section
157 of the Evidence Act permits proof of any former
statement made by a witness relating to the same fact
before "any authority legally competent to investigate the G
fact" but its use is limited to corroboration of the testimony
of such witness. Though a police officer is legally
competent to investigate, any statement made to him
during such investigation cannot be used to corroborate
the testimony of a witness because of the clear interdict H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R.
A contained in Section 162 of the Code. But a statement
made to a magistrate is not affected by the prohibition
contained in the said Section. A magistrate can record the
statement of a person as provided in Section 164 of the
Code and such statement would either be elevated to the
B status of Section 32 if the maker of the statement
subsequently dies or it would remain within the realm of
what it was originally. A statement recorded by a
magistrate under Section 164 becomes usable to
corroborate the witness as provided in Section 157 of the
c Evidence Act or to contradict him as provided in Section
155 thereof."
28. The above view has also been reiterated by this Court
in Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao & Anr. V. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2791; State of U. P. V. Veer Singh &
D Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4614; and Ranjit Singh and Ors. V. State
of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2011 SC 255.
29. In this case, however, we are not inclined to go into
the issue since Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2), was not examined
E at all. No issue has been raised whether a witness could have
corroborated or contradicted on the basis of the statement
recorded by the llnd Additional Munsif, Tirupati.
30. Shri AK. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for
F A-2 - Konduru Nagure Reddy, submitted that this accused has
been charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and
302 read with Section 149 of the IPC etc. He pointed out that
the only overt act attributed to him by some of the prosecution
witnesses is that because Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3)
intervened during the attack, he beat the said PW 3 with the
G blunt axe of Chillakathi on his back side. This according to the
learned counsel only resulted in a simple lacerated injury skin
deep of about 1Y2" over the back head of Pelluru Murali Reddy
(P.W. 3). The Medical Officer has opined that this injury is
simple. In the circumstances, the conviction and sentence of A-
H
PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 903
[S.A. BOBDE, J.]
2, Konduru Nagure Reddy, awarded by the trial court and A
affirmed by the High Court is liable to be modified. We hold A-
2, Konduru Nagure Reddy, guilty only for the offence punishable
under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. We,
therefore, alter the conviction of A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy,
from Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the B
IPC etc. to Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In our
considered opinion, custody and sentence of 2 (two) years
would be appropriate and sufficient. The accused-appellant
shall undergo imprisonment for a term of 2 years, if not already
undergone, in terms of this order. c
31. In view of the above, we allow Criminal Appeal Nos.
1093-1094 of 2011, filed by A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy, to
the extent indicated above. Rest of the appeals are dismissed.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of. D
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "appeal against acquittal"Sign in to search