Supreme Court of India
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS.versusSTATE OF A. P.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 347
- Decided
- 13 April 2017
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A K SIKRI
Holding
The appellate court may overturn an acquittal where the evidence, including that of an injured and other eye‑witnesses, is reliable and the trial court’s rejection of such evidence is perverse, rendering the acquittal manifestly unjust.
Summary
The case involved a violent incident in which two persons were killed and an injured witness (PW.5) was assaulted; the trial court acquitted 19 accused, finding inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and doubting medical evidence. The State appealed, and the High Court convicted the surviving accused, relying on the injured witness’s account and corroborating medical reports. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court’s view was a permissible alternative and that procedural lapses (e.g., lack of a doctor’s certificate of unconsciousness) rendered the prosecution case unreliable. The Supreme Court held that the injured witness’s testimony and other eye‑witness statements were reliable, that minor inconsistencies were inconsequential, and that the trial court’s rejection of this evidence was perverse. Consequently, the High Court’s reversal of the acquittal was affirmed and the appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The trial court’s dismissal of the injured eyewitness PW.5’s testimony was justified.
- Whether the absence of a doctor’s certificate confirming PW.5’s unconscious state invalidates the prosecution evidence.
- Do minor inconsistencies in eye‑witness statements warrant granting the benefit of doubt and acquittal?
- Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal when it is perverse or manifestly unjust?
- Whether the High Court may re‑appreciate evidence despite the trial court’s possible view of acquittal.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 386
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 32
Subjects
murdergroup rivalryeyewitness testimonyinjured witnessacquittalappellate reviewperverse judgmentbenefit of doubtIPC s.302IPC s.149CrPC s.386
Judgment
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 454
A SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS.
v.
•
. STATE OF A. P. ~·
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 119-120 of 2014)
B APRIL 13, 2017
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 32 r/w s. 149-Murder of two-Charges against 19 accused
C -·Eye-witnesses to the incident including injured eye-witness - Trial
court disbelieving the prosecution case, acquitled all the accused
giving them benefit of doubt - In appeal of State and Revision of
the complainant, High Court convicted all the surviving accused
except A-12 and A-9 - Appeal to Supreme Court by the convicted
accused - Held: The evidence of the injured eye-witness which is
0
corroborated by medical evidence, is reliable - Evidence of other
eye-witnesses are also reliable in the facts of the case - Minor
inconsistencies in the statements of eye-witnesses were
inconsequential - High Court righlly convicted the accused persons
reverting the order· of acquittal.
E
Criminal Law:
Interference with order of acquittal - When two views are
reasonably possible, one indicating conviction and other acquittal
- Normally in such case, Supreme Court not to interfere with the
order of acquittal - But court should interfere, if the acquittal is
F perverse in the sense that no reasonable person would have come
to that conclusion, or if the acquittal is· manifestly illegal or grossly
unjust.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
G HELD: 1. The observation of the Trial Court that there
being no evidence that PW.5 was unconscious and in the absence
of evidence that PW.5 was brought to the Hospital in unconscious
state, the whole theory is to be disbelieved, is wholly incorrect
and perverse appreciation of evidence. There being evidence of
PW.5 and PW.23 that he was unconscious when he was admitted
H
454
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. 455
in Government Hospital, Guntur and there is no contrary evidence A
on the record. [Para 22][467-A-B]
2. The mere fact that certificate was not obtained by IO
from the Doctor, to the effect that PW.5 was in unconscious state
of mind on 10.10.2003, is inconsequential. Furthermore, it is well
settled that even if IO has committed any error and has been B
negligent in carrying out any investigation or in the investigi>tion
there is some omission and defect, it is the legal obligation on
the part of the Court to examine the prosecution evidence de
hors such lapses. [Para 23)(467-C~DJ
C. Muniappan and Ors. v. Stale of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 C
SCC 567: [2010) 10 SCR 262 - relied on.
3. The High Court has specifically considered the evidence
of PW.5 and has rightly observed that the fact of sustaining injuries
by this .witness has not been denied or disputed nor it was
suggested to him that he sustained those injuries at a different D
place in a different manner in the hands of some other assail:mts.
The High Court observed that some lapses on behalf of the
investigation in examining the Doctor cannot be taken as sole
basis so as to doubt the case of the prosecution. When PW.5 was
'unconscious, the delay in examination cannot be said to be fatal
to the case of the prosecution. [Para 24)(467-F-H; 468-A] E
4. The injured witness PW.5 having given specific role of
the persons who caused injuries to deceased Nos.1 and 2 which
stands corroborated with the medical evidence, ignoring the
evidence of PW.5 an injured witness by the Trial Court is clearly
unsustainable and the High Court, after considering all aspects F
of the matter, has rightly relied on the evidence of PW.5 for holding
the accused guilty. [Para 25)(468-B-C]
5. There is no reason to discard the evidence of PW.I who
was an eye-witness. The information of offence having been
received. by Police within one hour and statements of witnesses G
were recorded by 6 p.m. in the presence of PW.l at the Hospital
corroborates the prosecution case of occurrence at 4 p.m. and
shifting of injured to the Hospital immediately. One of the injured
had died at Hospital between 5.30 to 6 p.m., inquest report of
which was also prepared immediately, Thus, the Trial Court H
'/
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A without any valid reason has discarded the evidence of PW.1 and
the High Court did not commit an error on placing reliance on
PW.I who made statement and gave detail of entire incident in
his statement and details of the accused and manner of carrying
out the assault on both the deceased and injured witness. [Para
26][468-E, F-H; 469-A]
B
6. The statement of PW.2 being recorded at Government
Hospital, Ponnur his presence at Ponnour Hospital cannot be
discarded. Only due to the reason that he was not found at the
place of occurrence when PW.21 (Sub-Inspector) visited the spot,
does not lead to the conclusion that his eye-witness account be
C discarded. [Para 27)[469-B-C]
7. The Trial Court has observed that prosecution did not
try to establish the fact that on 10.10.2003, i.e., on the date of
incident these witnesses and the deceased were required to be
Present before the Ponnur Court. The Trial Court further stated
D that presence of some witnesses at Ponnur Court was not
necessary particularly PW.6, daughter of the first deceased. It
has come in the evidence that all the persons who were returning
from Ponnur Court, presence of few of them was not necessary
at Ponnur Court. It has come in the evidence that second deceased
E and some other who were returning on 10.10.2003 were under
the conditional bail and were to appear before the Court once in
a week. The mere fact that some other persons were not required
to be present in the Court also went along with those who were
to go to the Court is neither unnatural nor uncommon. In the
accused accompanying by the other members of the family while
F going to the Ponnur Court nothing is abnormal on the basis of
which any adverse inference can be drawn by the Trial Court.
[Para 28][469-C-F]
8. There was no inconsistency with medical evidence and
the ocular evidence. The death of both deceased Nos.I and 2
G was homicidal in nature. A perusal of the statements of the PW.17
and 18, Doctors who conducted the postmortem as well as PW.16
who gave evidence on injuries of PW.5, indicates that they were
not shown the weapons by which injuries were caused ... Looking
to the injuries as noticed by PW.17, it is clear that the cut injuries
H could be by axe and knife as well as by battle axe as opined by
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. 457
the Doctor. The fact that weapon was not shown to the Doctor A
nor in the cross-examination attention of the Doctor was invited
towards the weapon, is not of much consequence in the fac(s of
the present case where there was clear medical evidence that
injuries could be caused by knife, axe and battle axe. [Paras 30,
31)(470-D; 471-E-F]
B
Kartarey and Ors. v. State of U.P 1976 AIR SC 76 :
(1976) 1 SCC 172 : [1976] 2 SCR 199 - referred to.
9. The eye-witnesses, PW.1, 2, 3 and 5 have clearly
mentioned about the weapons used by the accused which eye-
witnesses accounts are in accordance with medical evidence. C
Thus, mere non-showing of the weapons to the Doctors at the
time of their depositions in the Court is inconsequential and in
no manner weakens the prosecution case. Some discrepancies
referred by the Trial Court in the statements of eye-witnt:sses
were inconsequential. The eye-witnesses after lapse of time
cannot give picture perfect report of the injuries caused by each D
accused and the minor inconsistencies were inconsequential. ·
[Para 31)(472-A-C]
Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2008) 11
sec 328 - referred to.
E
10. It is correct that in the case of group rivalries and
enmities, there is a general tendency to rope in as many persons
as possible as having participated in the assault. However, when
there are eye-witnesses including injured witness who fully
support the prosecution case and prove the roles of different
accused, prosecution case cannot be negated only on the ground F
that it was a case of group rivalry. Group rivalry is double edged
sword. [Paras 32, 33](473-C, E-F]
Eknath Ganpat Aher and Ors. v. State of Maharasthra
and Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 519 : [2010] 6 SCR 577 -
referred to. G
11. Although when two views are reasonably possible, one
indicating conviction and other acquittal, this Court will not
interfere with the order of acquittal but Court shall never hesitate
to interfere if the acquittal is perverse in the sense that no
H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A reasonable person would have come to that conclusion, or if the
acquittal is manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. In exercise of
Appellate power under Section 386 Cr.P.C., the High Court has
full power to reverse an order of acquittal and if the accused are
· found guilty, they can be sentenced according to law. In the present
B case, reasoning of the trial court in discarding the evidence of
injured witness and other eye-witnesses have been found
perverse. The High Court, thus, did not commit any error in
reversing the order of acquittal and convicted the accused. From
the eye-witnesses account, High Court is correct in setting aside
the order of acquittal and convicting the accused. [Paras 35, 36
C and 37][475-D-E, H; 476-A-C]
State of UP v. Anil Singh (1988) Suppl. SCC 686 :
[1988] Suppl. SCR 611 - relied on.
Dhanpal v. State by Public Prosecu/01; Madras (2009)
10 sec 401 - referred to.
D
Case Law Reference
[2010] 10 SCR 262 relied on Para 23
[1976] 2 SCR 199 referred to Para 29
(2008) 11 sec 328 referred to Para 31
E
[2010] 6 SCR 577 referred to Para 32
(2009) 10 sec 401 referred to Para 34
[1988] Suppl. SCR 611 relied on Para 35
F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos.119-120 of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.
340 of2008 and Criminal R. C. No. 643 of2008.
G A. T. M. Ranga Ramanujam, Sidharath Luthra, Sr. Advs., Pawan
Kumar Sharma, Ms. Anu Gupta, Prityush Raj, Ad vs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Prabhakar, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. 459
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. l. These appeals have been filed A
against judgment dated 09.07.2013 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
allowing the Criminal Appeal No. 340 of2009 and Criminal Revision
Case No. 643 of 2008.Criminal Appeal was filed by the State of A.P.
and Criminal Revision was filed by Somarowthu Laxmi Samrajyam, wife
of Siva Sankara Rao deceased. The High Court vide its judgment has
B
set aside the order of the Trial Court acquitting the accused anC: has
convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 !PC.
The accused aggrieved by the judgment of High Court, convicting them
have come up in these appeals.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated is:
c
All the accused and the de facto complainants arc permanent
residents of Vellaluru village. Two factions, one of the accused party
and another of complainant party had been attacking each other and
several criminal cases had been registered against both the fact!ons.
One Satyanarana, belonging to the complainant party was killed on
07.02.2003, for which a case in Crime No. 08 of2003 of Ponnnr Rural D
Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections
147, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC. While so, another case in Cr. No.
35 of20(!3 of PonnurTown Police Station, was registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC against
Somarowthu Tirupathirao(hereinafter referred as deceased No. 1), E
Somarowthu Siva Sankara Rao (hereinafter referred as deceased No.
2) and others who were alleged to have killed one Sooda China Vee;·aiah
and in connection with the said case, the above named two deceased
and others were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The Court
gave conditional bail to them to the effect that they should remain at
Bapatla only and shall report daily before the Bapatla Police Station, and F
shall also appear before the Ponnur Court once in a week. In connection
with the above case, on l 0.10.2013 the deceased No. l and No. 2, along
with PWs. 1 to 6 and PW.9, went to Ponnur on three two-wheelers to
attend the Court and after attending the Court, they were returning back
in the evening and on receipt of the said information, all the acc,tsed G
except A.2, A.4 to A.6, A. l l, A.13 and A.18 conspired together and as
A.18 was having a lorry bearing No. ADM 8373, all of them collected
deadly weapons like axes, knives, rods and sticks, went in the lorry of
A.18 and dashed the two wheeler in which both the deceased and PW.5
were travelling. Both the deceased fell down from two wheeler.
.H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A Thereafter, the accused attacked them indiscriminately and kilfed them
and also inflicted injuries on PW.5 and they all ran away from the scene
of offence in the same Jorry along with the weapons. Deceased No. I
died on the spot and other injured were shifted to the Hospital. The
others, who were following the two wheeler of the deceased witnessed
B the incident and reported the matter to police and shifted the second
deceased to Ponnur Hospital, where the Doctor declared him dead and
other injured.(P.W.S) was referred to Government Hospital, Gui1tur. On
intimation, the police went and recorded the statement of PW. I. PW.20
the Head Constable, Bapatla Town P.S., handed over the file to PW.2 l
who registered a case in Crime No.57 of20l3 for the offences punishable
C under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 read with 149 IPC. After completion
of investigation, PW.23 laid the charge sheet.
3. The incident took place at 04:00 PM. Deceased-!, Tirupati.
Rao died on spot, whereas Siva Sankara Rao, Deceased-2 and ·s.
Venkaiahnaidu (PW.5) were immediately taken to Govt. Hospital, Ponnur
D at which Hospital Siva Sankara died between 05:30 PM to OG:°OO PM.
Venkaiahnaidu(PW.5), who was unconscious, on advice of Doctors was
shifted to Govt. ,Hospital, Guntur. The Police came at Govt. Hospital,
Ponnur and recorded the statement of Sivarama Krishnaiah (PW. I) at
06:00PM, on the basis of which statement, the FIR was registered, as
E Criminal Case No. 57 of2003 under Section 147, 148 and 302 read with
149 ofIPC.
4. PW.23, Investigating Officer(hereinafter referred to as '10')
took up the investigation on 10.10.2003 itself. After visiting Govt. Hospital,
Guntur, IO found Venkaiahnaidu unconscious. He could not record the
statement ofPW.5. PW.5 on 14.10.2003 was shifted to Hi-tech Hospital,
F Guntl!r where he regained consciousness after 20 days. IO recorded
the statement of PW.5 on 04.11.20 I0 at Hi-tech Hospital. The IO also
visited the place of incident, seized various articles, prepared the sketch
map and also got the spot photographs. After conducting the investigation,
IO submitted the charge sheet against 19 accused, out of which A. l 8
G had already died on 14.12.2003. All the accused were put on trial.
Prosecution before the Trial Court examined PW. I to PW.23, marked
exhibit P. I to P.25 and also marked M.0.Wo 16. PW. I to PW.6 and
PW.9 are the eye-witnesses of the incident. PW. 7 and PW.8 are the
wives of first and second deceased, who after knowing about the incident
rushed to the scene of offence. PW. I0 was examined to show that on
H
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. 461
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
the date 0f incident, she had seen the accused making preparation in a A
lorry in front of his house. PW.16 is a doctor who treated the injured at
Govt. Hospital, Guntur. Doctors who conducted the postmortem of two
dead bodies were also examined, as PW.17 and PW.18. P.W.23 is
Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation. The accused did
not lead any evidence. During pendency of the trial A. I, A.9, A. I I and B
A.18 having died, trial abated against such accused.
5. The Trial Court vide its judgment dated 24.12.2007 acquitted
the accused. Trial Court after referring to evidence of eye-witnesses
came to the conclusion that there were contradictions and omissions.
The Trial Court observed that medical evidence does not support any C
injury by battle axe. After referring to the injuries of P. W.5 and medical
evidence, Trial Court observed that it is not possible to hold that injuries
were caused with sharp edge weapon like hunting sickle. Trial Court
held that-accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal. Aggrieved
by the judgment ofTrial Court, State filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal
No.340 of2009. Somarowthu Laxmi Samarajaya wife of Siva Sani-kara D
Rao deceased, filed Criminal Revision No. 643 of2008. Both Criminal
Appeal and Criminal Revision were heard together and have been allowed
by the High Court. A. I to A.3, A.5 to A.7 and A. l l were found guilty
under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and they have been convicted and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-
each. Acquittal of A.12 to A.9 have been affirmed. These appeals have E
been filed by A.2, A.3, A.5, A.6, A.7 and A. l l (A-1, being dead).
6. We have heard Shri A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam and Shri
Sidharath Luthra, learned senior counsel for the appellants. Ms. Prerna
Singh, learned counsel has appeared op. behalf of the State.
F
7.. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal
contended that the order of acquittal by the Trial Court was based on
appreciation of evidence on record which order of acquittal required no
interference by the High Court. It is contended that even if two views
are possible, the order of Trial Court acquitting the accused need no
interference by Appellate Court. The medical evidence which was led G
by the prosecution did not support the ocular evidence led by so c:illed
eye-witnesses. Hence, the Trial Court rightly disbelieved the prosecution
case. The High Court wrongly put the burden on the accused to prove
that deceased and eye-witnesses were not required to attend the Court
whereas burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the deceased and H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A all the eye-witnesses were required to attend the Ponnur Court from
where they claimed to be returning. There being long standing enmity
between the accused and complainant party, the accused have been
roped in. When Doctors came before the Court for recording their
evidence, the weapons which were seized were not shown to them, so
as to form an opinion whether injuries on the deceased and injured witness .
B
could .have been caused by such weapons, which prejudicially affect the
prosecution case.
8. Learned counsel for the State refuting the submissions oflearned
counsel for the appellants contends that the High Court has rightly
reversed the order of acquittal. It is contended that eye-witnesses account
C given by the eye-witnesses was worthy of reliance and Trial Court on
account of insufficient reasons discarded such evidence. The injured
PW.5, Yenkaiahanaidu, ey~-witness had fully proved the incident and
specifically proved the roles of accused which evidence ought not to
have been discarded by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the High
D Court has correctly re-appreciated the evidence and has given cogent
reasons for finding the evidence trustworthy and believable. The account
of injuries as proved by eye-witnesses was fully corroborated with the
medical evidence. The evidence of eye-witnesses who were
accompanying the deceased Nos. I and 2 could not have been discarded
as interested witnesses whereas they were family members wi10 were
E accompanying the deceased on the motor-cycle and others on two-
wheeler which eye-witnesses could prove the incident. The judgment of
conviction by the High Court is based on correct appreciation of evidence
and the accused having been found guilty, the appeals deserve to be
dismissed.
F 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on
several judgments of this Court which shall be referred to while
considering the submissions of the parties.
IO. As noted above, PW. I to PW.6 and PW.9 are all eye-witnesses
of the incident. PW.5, Venkaiahanaidu is an injured witness who was
G travelling on the Hero Honda motor-cycle driven by Tirupati Rao, his
father (deceased No. I). The Trial Court after commenting on the
evidence of the eye-witnesses had proceeded to discard the evidence
by giving some reasons. We have carefully looked into the order of the
Trial Court as well as depositions of eye-witnesses and adverted to the
H reasons given by the Trial Court for not believing the evidence. We shall
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. 463
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
refer to the reasons given by the Trial Court for discarding eye-witnesses A
one by one. We first take up the deposition of the injured witness-PW.S
and the reasons given by the Trial Court to discard his evidence.
11. As noted above, PW.5, aged about 12 & 1h years on the day
of incident was sitting on Hero Honda motor bike driven by his father,
Tirupati Rao, deceased No.I, Siva Sankara Rao deceased No. 2, was B
also sitting on the same motor bike. PW.5, Venkaiahanaidu in his eye-
witness account has deposed that he, his father and Siva Sankara Rao
were on Hero Honda motor bike returning to Baptala, PW. I- Sivarama
Krishnaiah, PW.3, Murali Krishna, were coming on scooter whereas
Veerahaviah, PW.4, Venkatalakshmi Narasimha, PW.2 and PW.9,
Venkateswara Rao were coming on TVS moped. They left for about 3 c
or 3.40 p.m. and at about 4 p.m. when they reached the scene of offence,
Tirupati Rao, his father observed that a lorry driven by accused A-3 was
coming from opposite direction, his father turned the vehicle to go back.
At that time the lorry hit their motorcycle, they all fell down. All the
accused were in the lorry with knives and axes. His father and Siva D
Sankara Rao were attacked by the accused with axes and knives. A-19
beat PW.Son his right temporal bone with knife whereas Botchu Vasu -
A-11 beat with stick on his right side. He stated that he lost consciousness
which he regained at Hitech Hospital, Guntur. It has come on evidence
that immediately after occurrence both Shiva Shankar Rao and Venkaiah
Naidu were taken to Government Hospital, Ponnur. Shiva Shankar Rao E
died between 5.30 to 6 p.m. at Government Hospital, Ponnur and
Venkaiahanaidu, PW.S was shifted to Government Hospital, Guntur where
he was examined at 6.1 S p.m. by Dr. Vinayvarqhan, PW.16, who.i!l his
evidence has clearly proved that on 10.10.2003 at 6.1 S p.m. he examined
injured Venkaiahanaidu accompanied by Murali Krishna, PW.3 and F
injuries were found in his body. PW.23, IO had taken the investigation in
the evening on I 0.10.2003 itself and recorded statement of PWs.1, 2, 3,
4, 6 and 9 on the same day. He also on the same day came to know that
injured, PW.S was shifted to Government Hospital, Guntur where he
went and found PW.S unconscious, hence, statement of PW.5 coul<l not
be recorded on that day. G
12. Now, let us come tothejudgmentoftheTrial CoUJi and advert
to the reasons given by the Trial Court for discarding the evidence of
injured eye-witness. In paragraph 1S of the judgment, Trial Court has
observed that PW.23 in his statement has stated that when he went to
H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A Government Hospital, Ponnur, PW.5 was absent and he was shifted to
Government Hospital, Guntur as his condition was critical. T!le Trial
Court has observed that unfortunately "the Doctor at Government
Hospital, Ponnur was not examined and there is no record to show that
PW.5 was also taken to the Government Hospital, Ponnur along with
the second deceased". The above observation that no Doctor from
B
Government Hospital, Ponnour was examined nor the&e is any record to
show that PW.5 was taken to Government Hospital, Ponnur has no
significance since Venkaiahanaidu, PW.5 was shifted to Government
Hospital, Guntur where he was examined at 6.15 p.m. on the same day
which was proved by the Doctor. PW.16. PW.I and PW.3, bth had
c stated that after the incident both the injured Siva Sankara Rao and
Venkaiahanaidu were taken to the Government Hospital, Poqnur and
after 5.30 p.m. Siva Sankara Rao died and Venkaiahanaidu was asked
to betaken to Government Hospital, Guntur. Non-examination of Doctor
to prove that injured PW.5 was first taken to Government Hospital. Ponnur
D was inconsequential and immaterial, when there is ho dispute that injured
was admitted in the Government Hospital, Guntur and was examined by
the Doctor at 6.15 p.m. on the same day. In paragraph 16 Trial Court
has referred to evidence of PW.16, Doctor who examined F'W.5 on
10.10.2003 at 6.15 p.m. The evidence of Doctor, PW.16 extracted by
the Trial Court in paragraph 16 of the judgment that PW.16 who was
E working as CMO in the Government Hospital, Guntur has stated that on
l 0.10 .2003 at 6.15 p.m. he examined Venkaiahanaidu, PW.5 accompanied
by Murali Krishna, PW.3, the Doctor was also noted that PW.5 was
injured and said to be beaten with Veta Kodaval i (hunting sickle). The
following injuries were noticed by the Doctor:
F "l. Diffused swelling 10 x 10 cm on right occipital partial
region with one centimeter laceration-bleeding.
2. Graze abrasion on.left hand and fore arm 10 x 5 cm size
red in colour.
X-Ray skull reveals no bone injwy X-ray left hand with wrist
G reveals fracture noted in the lower end of radius. Ward
opinion with I.P No.49385 head injury patient absconded
on 14. I 0.2003.
I am of opinion basing on the X-ray and ward opir.ion the
injury No.2 is grievous in nature; No.1 is simple in nature
H
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. 465
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
might have been caused due to blunt and rough objects and A
aged about I to 6 hours prior to my examination. Ex.P 13 is
the wound certificate issued by me. "
13. Trial Court after noticing the evidence of PW.16 has made
the following observation :
"In fact, this evidence gives rise to many qoubts. First of all it is B
not possible to hold that the nature of injuries could be caused
with sharp edged weapon like hunting sickle."
14. The Trial Court held that it is not possible to hold that the
nature of injuries could be caused with sharp edged weapon like hunting
sickle. This was one of the reasons for discarding the evidence of PW.5. C
15. PW.5 himself came in the witness box and was examined.
PW.5 has deposed about the injuries caused to him. In his statement
PW.5 stated:
''Velivala Akkaiah (Al9) beat me on my right temporal bone D·
with a knife. Botchu Vasu(All) beat with a stick on my right
sticks. Valivala Akkaiah (A 19) caught hold of my hands and
legs and thrown me. I lost consciousness. I regained
consciousness in Hitch Hospital, Guntw:
After that police examined me. ''
E
16. When PW.5 has stated that he was beaten by knife and stick
on right temporal bone, the injuries found in his person have to be looked
into in the light of the evidence given by him.
17. When, PW.5 himself has stated that he was attacked by 1:.nife
and stick the injuries which were noticed by the Doctor were caused by F
knife and stick, since there is no inconsistency between the ornlar
evidence of PW.5 and medical evidence of PW.16, the reason given by
the Trial Court for discarding the evidence of PW.5 is incorrect.
18. The Trial Court further has observed that PW.23 had not takeri
any endorsement from the Doctor to the effect that PW.5 was in fact in G
unconscious state of mind, when he visited Hospital on 10.10.2003 and
found PW.5 unconscious. The Trial Court further observed that since
PW.5 was unconscious for considerable period and regained
consciousness nearly after more than 20 days, it was expected that the
investigation agency to secure the presence of the Doctor while examining
H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A this"' itness. The Trial Court made the following observation in paragraph
17:
"Even according lo prosecution, PW.5 was unconscious for
considerable period and regained consciousness nearly after
more than 20 days. Naturally. we will expect the investigation
B agency to secure the presence of the doctor while examining
this witness. Jn the above circumstances, any amount df doubt
.is created about the examination of this witness. Even at the
sake of repetition it must be pointed out that the absence of
evidence from the doctor PW.16 that PW.5 was brought to the
hospital in unconscious state, the whole theory must be
c disbelieved. Which again will eliminate the evidence cf PW.5.
Now we got the evidence of PW.I, 2, 4, 5 and 9."
19. The Trial Cou1i has drawn adverse inference against the
evidence of PW.5 on the ground that no evidence was given by the
Doctor, PW.16 about the unconscious state of PW.5, hence, the whole
D theory must be disbelieved. PW.5 has stated that after being r.ttacked
on the scene of occurrence he became unconscious and regained
consciousness only at Hitech Hospital, Guntur.
20. PW.23, 10 in his statement has clearly stated that !le went
after recording the evidence of PW. I, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9 to the Government
E Hospital, Guntur and found the injured Venkaiahanaidu, PW.5 in
unconscious state, hence, could not record his statement. Following was
stated by IO in his statement:
"I visited GGH Guntur and found the injured S. Vcnkaiah
Naidu (P. W. 5) in unconscious state: Hence, 1 could not record
F his statement. "
21. PW.5 appeared in the Court and in examination-in-chief
question was put to him that whether he was unconscious at the time
when he was admitted in Government Hospital, Guntur and when he
regair.ed his conseiousness. PW.S, both in examination-in-chief and cross-
G examination stated that he regained consciousness after 20 days and
next day of regaining consciousness his statement was recorded.
22. Doctor, PW.16, who appeared before the Court and recorded
his evidence was not even put any question as to whether when
Venkaiahanaidu was admitted in Government Hospital, Guntur he was
H
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. 467
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
conscious or unconscious. The observation of the Trial Court that there A
being no evidence that PW.5 was unconscious and in the absence of
evidence that PW.5 was brought to the Hospital in unconscious state,
the whole theory is to be disbelieved, is wholly incorrect and perverse
1
appreciation of evidence. There being evidence of PW.5 and PW.23
that he was unconscious when he was admitted in Government Hospital, B
Guntur and there is no co1lll«1ry evidence on the record, the view of the
Trial Court that whole theory must be disbelieved is perverse and has
rightly been reversed by the High Court.
23. It is also relevant to notice that observation has been made by
the Trial Court that IO, PW.23 ought to have taken endorsement from
the Doctor that PW.5 was in unconscious state of mind on l O. l 0.2003, C
although there is evidence that he was unconscious on l 0.10.2003 when
he was admitted in the Hospital, the mere fact that certificate was not
obtained by IO from the Doctor is inconsequential. Furthermore, it is
well settled that even if 10 has committed any error and has aeen
negligent in carrying out any investigation or in the investigation there is D
some omission and defect, it is the legal obligation on the part of the
Court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses. In C.
Mu11iapptm amt others 11S. State of Tamil Nadu, (201 ()) 9 sec 567,
following has been laid down in paragraph 55:
"Where there has been negligence on the part of the E
investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in
defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part
of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such
lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is
re!iable or not a11d to what extent ii is reliable and as to
whether such lapses affected the ol?iect of.finding oui the F
truth. "
24. The High Court has specifically considered the evidence of
PW.5 in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment. The High Cour': has
rightly o!Jserved that the fact of sustaining injuries by this witne~s has
not been denied or disputed nor it was suggested to him that he sustained G
those injuries at a different place in a different manner in the hands of
some other assailants. The High Court observed that some lapses on
behalf of the investigation in examining the Doctor of the Government
Hospital, Guntur or at 1-litech Hospital cannot be taken as sole basis so
as to doubt the case of the prosecution. When PW.5 was unconscious, H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A the delay in examination cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the
prosecution. The High Court, thus, has correctly appreciated and relied
on the evidence of PW.5 which we find fully in accordance with law.
25. The injured witness PW.5 having given specific role of the
persons who caused injuries to deceased Nos. I and 2 which stands
B corroborated with the medical evidence, ignoring the evidence of PW.5
an injured witness on the grounds as noted above by the Trial Court is
clearly unsustainable and the High Coui1 rightly after considering all
aspects of the matter has relied on the evidence of PW.5 for holding the
accused guilty.
c ,26. We now come to the reasons given by the Trial Court for
discarding evidence of other eye-witnesses. With regard to PW. I, Trial
Court says that he has admitted that in Ex.PI, the names of A 12toA19
were not mentioned although he stated that he gave the names of the
accus>!d when Police examined him. The Trial Com1 observed that so
called conspiracy and participation of Al2toA19 is clouded with doubt.
D Even if, Al2 ~o Al 9 have been acquitted, their acquittal does not lead
the Trial Court to discard the prosecution case as given in Ex.PI and
supported by PW. I in his oral evidence. We are, thus, of the view that
there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW. I who was an eye-
witness. PW.21 is Sub-Inspector of Police who stated that he received
E phone call at about 5 p.m. on l 0.10.2003 about the offence. He
immediately rushed to the scene of offence and learnt that two injured
persons were shifted to Ponnur Government Hospital and he also noticed
there a Hero Honda Passion. After posting guard at the scene of offence,
SI proceeded to Government Hospital, Ponnur where he came to know
that Head Constable 690(PW.20) had already recorded the statement
F from the complainant. The statement of PW. I was recorded at 6 p.m.
as was stated by PW.23, IO in his deposition. The information of offence
having been received by Police within one hour and statements of
witnesses were recorded by 6 p.m. in the presence of PW.I at the
Hospital corroborates the prosecution case of occurrence at 4 p.m. and
G shifting of injured to the Hospital immediately. The injured Siva Sankara
Rao had died at Ponnur Hospital between 5.30 to 6 p.m., inquest report
of which was ~!so prepared immediately. We are, thus, of the view that
the Trial Court without any valid reason has discarded the evidence of
PW. I and the High Court did not commit an error on placing reliance on
PW. I who made statement and gave detail of entire incident in his
H
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. 469
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
statement and details of the accused and manner of carrying out the A
assault on both the deceased and injured witness.
27. With regard to PW.2, the Trial Court states that when PW.21,
Sub-Inspector went on the scene of offence, he did not find PW.2 present
on the scene whereas PW. I has informed that while taking the second
deceased and PW.5 to Government Hospital, Ponnur, PW.2 was asked B
to present near the dead body of first deceased. The statement of PW.2
being recorded at Government Hospital, Ponnur his presence at Ponnour
Hospital cannot be discarded. We are of the view that only due to the
reason that he was not found at the place of occurrence when PW.21
visited the spot does not lead to the conclusion that his eye-witness
account be discarded. C
28. The Trial Court has observed that prosecution did not try to
establish the fact that on l 0.10.2003, i.e., on the date of incident these
witnesses and the deceased were required to be present before the
Ponnur Court. The Trial Court fu1ther stated that presence of some
witnesses at Ponnur Court was not necessary particularly Kalyani, PW.6 D
daughter of the first deceased. It has come in the evidence that all the
persons who were returning from Ponnur Court, presence of few of
them was not necessary at Ponnur Court. It has come in the evidence
that second deceased and some other who were returning on IO. l 0.2003
were under the conditional bail and were to appear before the Court E
once in a week. The mere fact that some other persons were not required
to be present in the Court also went along with those who were to go to
the Court is neither unnatural nor uncommon. In the accused
accompanying by the other members of the family while going to the
Ponnur Court nothing is abnormal on the basis of which any adverse
inference can be drawn by the Trial Court. F
29. One of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants is that Doctor who appeared before the Court was not shown
the weapon to give his opinion as to whether injuries could have caused
with such weapon or not. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on
the case in Kartarey and others vs. State of U.P., 1976 AIR SC G
76=(1976 (1) sec 172 para 26), wherein in paragraph 25 following
has been stated:
"25 ...... ... It is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the
Court, to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if
H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 4 S.C.R.
.A · available, is shown to the medical witness and his opinion
invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim
could be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so may,
sometimes, cause aberration in the course of justice ..... "
30. In the present case Dr. N. Subba Rao, PW.17 appeared before
B the Court who had conducted the postmortem ofTirupati Rao. Doctor in
his statement has stated that the injuries could be caused with battle
axes c:nd knives. PW.18 has conducted the postmortem of Siva Sankara
Rao. PW.18 has stated that "injuries noted in my postmortem can be
caused by axes, battle axes and knives". The eye-witnesses in their
eye-witness account have stated that accused used axe, knives and sticks
c while attacking on deceased Nos.I and 2. The injuries noted in the
postmortem of deceased Nos. I and 2 are injuries which can be caused
by axe, knives and sticks. Thus, there was no inconsistency with medical
evidence and the ocular evidence. The death of both deceased Nos. I
and 2 was homicidal in nature. A perusal of the statements of the PW.17
. D and 18, Doctors who conducted the postmortem as well as PW.16 who
gave evidence on injuries of PW.5, indicates that they were not shown
the weapons by which injuries were caused. It is useful to refer to the
external injuries noted by PW.17 on the dead body ofTirupati Rao. In
the statement of PW.17, he stated as follows:
E "On 11-10-2003 at about 3-1 p.m., I conducted postmortem on
the dead body of a male body' by name Somarouthu Tirupathirao,
first deceased. The external appearance regormortis passed of
External injuries:-
!. Cut injury of l lx2xl cm., in oblique direction over the left ear
F lobule extending towards temporal region and downwards towards
neck.
2. Cut injury 12x4 cm., bone deep on left parity occipital region.
Deep dissection shows linear fracture ofleft parital bone:
3. Cut injury of5x2 cm., scale deep on left front parital region.
G
4. Cut injury of l Ox5 cm., skin deep on left thigh:
5. Cut injury of20x2 cm., x2.5 cm., from dorsum of right forearm
to the dorsum of hand. Deep dissection shows both radius and
ulna fractured.
H
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. 47 l
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
6. Cut injury 8x5 cm., skin deep over upper l/3'ct of upper arm. A
7. Cut injury of8 cm., x 3x3 4 cm., encircling left shoulder deep
dissection shows displacement head of humorous posterior.
8. Cut injury of 7 cm., x 2 x 2 cm., on the back of left shoulder
region.
B
9. A crushed inury on left leg 22 x l 0 cm. bone deep. Deep
di~section shows both tibia and fibula fractured.
10. A cut i1tjury of 8 cm. x 3 cm., bone deep in the middle of right
thigh. Deep dissection shows of right femur fracture at middle.
11. Cut injury of l Ox2cm., skin deep on left inter scapular 3 re a C
on left of back of chest.
12. Cut injury of IOx2 cm., skin deep on back of chest below
injury no. I I.
13. Cut injury of I Ox2 cm., skin deep on right side of back of D
chest.
14. Stab injury of 6x2 cm., on right lumbar region and deep
dissection shows a lacerated injury of2x l cm., over right kidney
on superior lateral region.
15~ An abrasion injury 4 cm., size on back of right thigh." E
31. Looking to the injuries as noticed by PW.17, it is clear that the
cut injuries as noticed above could be by axe and knife as well as by
battle axe as opined by the Doctor. The fact that weapon was not shown
to the Doctor nor in the cross-examination attention of the Doctor was
invited towards the weapon, is not of much consequence in the facts of F
the present case where there was clear medical evidence that injuries
could be caused by knife, axe and battle axe. It is not the contention
before us that the injuries as noted by the Doctors in the postmortem of
deceased Nos.I and 2 could not have been caused by knives and iixes.
The submission has also been raised that it was put to the Doctor that
injuries by battle axe could be half moon, Doctor himself admitted in his G
report that he has not reported depth of the injury, middle of the injury
nor margins of the injuries have been noted. He has not describeci any
injury as the half moon. Doctor himself has admitted that he has not
described the shapes of the injuries, depth and middle of the injuries.
H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 I7] 4 S.C.R.
A The above medical evidence does not lead to the conclusion that injuries
as noticed by the Doctors could not have been caused by axe, knives
and battle axe. The eye-witnesses, PW.1,2,3 and 5 have clearly mentioned
about the weapons used by the accused which eye-witnesses accounts
are in accordance with medical evidence. Thus, mere non-showing of
the weapons to the Doctors at the time of their depositions in the Court
B
is inconsequential and in no manner weakens the prosecution case. Some·
discrepancies referred by the Trial Court in the statements of eye-
witnesses were inconsequential. The eye-witnesses after lapse of time
cannot give picture perfect report of the injuries caused by each accused
and the minor inconsistencies were inconsequential. It is useful to refer
c to the judgment of this Court in Cha11drappa and others vs. State of
Karnataka, (2008) 11 SCC 328. In paragraphs l 7 and. 18 following
was stated:
"17. it has been contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the discrepancies between the statements of
D the eyewitnesses inter se would go to show that they had not
seen the incident and no reliance could thus be placed 011
their testimo1iy. It has been pointed out that their statements
were discrepant as to the actual manner of assault and as to
the injuries caused by each of the accused to the cfqceased
and to PW 3, the injured eyewitness. We are of the opinion
E that in such matters it would be unreasonable to expect a
witness to give a picture pe1fect report of the injuries caused
by each accused to the deceas9d or the iniured more
particularly where it has been proved on record that the
injuries had been caused by several accused armed with
F different kinds of weapons_.
18. We also find that with !he passage of time the memory of
an eyewitness tends to dim and it is perhaps difficult for a
witness to recall events with precision. We hm•e gone through
the record and find that the evidence had been recorded more
G than five years after the incident and if the memOJ:v had partly
failed the eyewitnesses and if they had not been able to give
an exact description of the injuries, it would not detract from
the substratum of their evide1ice. It is however very significant
that PW 2 is the sister of the four appellants, the deceased
and PW 3 Devendrappa and in the dispute between the
H
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. 473
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
brothers she had continue.I to reside with her father Navilapa A
who was residing with the appellants, but she has nevertheless
still supported the prosec, 1tion. We are of the opinion that in
normal circumstances she would not have given evidence
against the appellants but she has come forth as an eyewitness
and supported the prosecution in all material particulars. "
B
32. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance
on the judgment of this Court in Eknatlt Ganpat Alter and others vs.
State of Maharasthra and others, (2010) 6 SCC 519. In support of
the case it is mentioned that in the case of group rivalries and enmities,
there is a general tendency to rope in as many persons as possible as C
having participated in the assault. There cannot be any dispute to the
above proposition laid down in paragraph 26 of the judgment which is
quoted below: ·
i
"26. lt is an accepted proposition that in the case of group
rivalries and enmities, there is a general tendency to rope in
as many persons as possible as having participated in the D
assault. In such situations, the courts are called upon to be
very cautious and sift the evidence with care. Where after a
close scrutiny of the evidence, a reasonable doubt arises in
the mind of the court with regard to the participation of any
of those who have been roped in, the court would be obliged E
to .give the benefit of doubt to them. "
33. However, when there are eye-witnesses including injured
witness who fully support the prosecution case and proved the roles of
different accused, prosecution case cannot be negated only on the ground
that it was a case of group rivalry. Group rivalry is double edged sword. F
34. Learned counsel lastly contended that there are limitations in
the appellate power while exercising it as against an order of acquittal.
He has relied on the judgment of this Court in Dhanpal vs. State by
Public Prosecutor, Madras, (2009) 10 SCC 401. In paragraphs 21,
22 39 and 41 following has been stated: G
"21. On proper evaluation of the Trial Court judgment, we
hold that the view taken by the Trial Court was certainly a
possible or a plausible view. It is a well-settled legal position
that when the view which has been taken by the Trial Court is
a possible view, then the acquittal cannot be set aside by merely H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A substituting its reasons by the High Court. In our considered
view, the impugned judgment of the High Court is contrary to
the settled legal position and deserves to be set aside.
22. The earliest case which dealt with the controversy in issue
at length is of Shea Swarup v. King Emperor. In this case, the
B ambit, scope and the powers of the appellate court in dealing
with an appeal against acquittal have been comprehensively
dealt with by the Privy Council. Lord Russell wriling the
judgment has observed as under: (IA at p. 404):
" ... the High Court should and will always give proper weight
c and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial
Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption
of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption
certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted
at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any
doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing
D a finding offact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage
of seeing the witnesses. "
The law succinctly crystallised i11 this case has been
consistently followed in subsequent judgments by this Court.
E 39. The following principles emerge from the cases above:
I. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
The accused possessed this presumption when he was before
the Trial Court. The Trial Court'.\· acquittal bolsters the
presumption that he is innocent.
F 2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate
court can reappreciate the entire evidenc.e on record. It can
review the Trial Courts conclusion with respect to both facts
and law, but the appellate court must give due weight and
consideration to the decision of the Trial Court.
G 3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the
Trial Court had the distinct advantage of watching the
demeanour of the witnesses. The Trial Court is in a better
position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.
4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb
H
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. 475
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
the Trial Courts acquittal if it has "very substantial and A
compelling reasons'·' for doing so.
5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached-one
that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction~the High
Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.
41. The settled legal p·osition as explained above is that if the B
Trial Courts view is possible or plausilile, the High Court r
should not substitute the same by its own possible view. In the
facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court in the
impugned judgment was not justified in interfering with the
well-reasoned judgmenl and order of the Trial Court. c
Consequently, this appeal filed by the appellant is allowed
and disposed of and the impugned judgment of the High Court
is set aside. "
35. In State of U.P vs. A11il Si11gll, (1988)( Supp). SCC 686,
this Court has held that although when two views are reasonably possible, D
one indicating conviction and other acquittal, this Court will not interfere
with the order of acquittal but Court shall never hesitate to interfere if
the acquittal is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person would
have come to that conclusion, or ifthe acquittal is manifestly illegal or
grossly unjust. In paragraph 14 of the judgment following has been stated:
E
"14. The scope of appeals under Article 136 of the
Constitution is undisputedly very much limited. This Court
does not exercise its overriding powers under Article 136 to
reweigh the evidence. The court does not disturb the
co!1current finding of facts reached upon proper appreciation.
Even if two views are reasonably possible, one indicating F
conviction and otl-ier acquittal, this Court will not interfere
with the order of acquittal (See: State of UP. v. Jashoda
Nandan Gupta; State of A.P. v. P. Anjaneyulu.) Bui this Court
will not hesitate to interfere if the acquittal is perverse in the
sense that no reasonable person would have come to !hat G
conclusion, or if !he acquittal is manifestly illegal or grvssly
unjust. "
36. Present is a case where the High Court exercised its appellate
power under Section 386 Cr.P.C. In exercise of Appellate power under
Section 386 Cr.P.C. the High Court has full power to reverse an order of H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R.
A acquittal and if the accused are found guilty they can be sentenced
according to Jaw.
37. Present is a case where reasoning of the Trial Court in
discarding the evidence of injured witness and other eye-witnesses
have been found perverse. The High Court, thus, in our opinion did not
B commit any error in reversing the order of acquittal and convicted the
accused. From the eye-witnesses account, as noticed above anri for the
reasons given by the High Court in its judgment, we are of the view that
High Court is correct in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting
the accused.
c 38. There is no merit in these appeals. Both the appeals are
dismissed.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed.
..
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search