Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1521-1522 OF 2011

PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY ….

APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. & ETC. ….

RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1102-1103 OF 2011

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1100-1101 OF 2011

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1093-1094 OF 2011

JUDGMENT

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 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/judgment they have been taken up together for disposal.

2. The crime in question is the murder of Mudi Parandhami Reddy in an

Page 2 agricultural field on 25.11.96 in Mettu village in Andhra Pradesh.

According to the prosecution, the deceased 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 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 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 (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 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. 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

Page 3 Reddy, hacked Mudi Parandhami with an axe on his head. When Pelluru

Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) intervened, A-3, Konduru Dayakar Reddy, hit him

on the left hand. After this A-4, Konduru Ramachandra Reddy, came and

stabbed Mudi 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 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 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) 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 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 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

Page 4 his body for post mortem to the Government Hospital, where PW 13, Dr.

M.C. Narashimhulu, conducted post mortem over the body of 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 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 M.C.

Narasimhulu (P.W.13). The wound certificate showed the following ante-

mortem injuries:

“(1) A bone deep lacerated injury of about 3" x 1/2"

extending from middle of skull to the left parietal bone.

Blood stains present with congestion. Deeper to it sub

scalp congested and dark. L shaped fracture of skull in

mid line for about 3 ½” 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

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.

(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

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.

(5) An incised injury of about 2 ½” x ½” 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 space entering the thoracic cavity injured

irregularly left lung by cutting irregularly and injured the

Page 5 anterior part of heart muscle opening the heart chambers

(auricle and ventricle) for about 2 ½” . Blood clots and

congestion present at the intercostals region, over the

lung injury and over the heart. Injury ante mortem in

nature.

(6) Another incised injury of about 2" x ½” 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 3

rd

intercostals space opened and

left 4th rib fractured and entered the thoracic cavity.

Congestion 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 ½” over the 5th

intercostals space in the left anterior axillary line. Blood

stains and congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.

(8) Another cut injury bone deep of about 1 ½” x ½” over

the 7th left intercostals space in the anterior axillary

plane. Congestion and blood stains present. Injury is ante

mortem.

(9) Another cut injury bone deep of about 2 ½” x ½” 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 ½” x ½” in 7th left

intercostals area in the mamillary plane. Blood stains and

congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.

(11) Another cut injury of about ½” x ½” skin deep just

below the above injury.

(12) Another cut injury of about 2" x ½” 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 ¾.

Congestion and blood clots present over the injured areas

internally. Thoracic cage contained clotted blood for about

1 ½ liters. Blood clots also present in abdominal cavity.

Injury is ante mortem.

(13) Another cut injury bone deep of about 1 ½” x ½”

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.”

The doctor opined that the deceased died 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, his

Page 6 dying declaration was recorded on 26.11.1996 by the IInd 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. 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

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 IIIrd -Additional District & Sessions Judge

(Fast Track), Nellore 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 complete improbability

of the plea and is not necessary to consider it any further, particularly,

since it was not pressed seriously before us. In Appeal and Revision, 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 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 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

Page 7 read with Section 149 of IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-

(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

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

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. Shri Altaf Ahmed and Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior 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 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 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

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

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.

Page 8 Talevar (2011) 11 SCC 666 and Govindaraju v. State

(2012) 4 SCC 722].”

10. In Murugesan (supra), this Court has observed as under:

“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

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 appeal against an

order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-

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 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",

"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

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.

(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 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.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the

Page 9 basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court

should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded

by the trial court.

(Emphasis supplied)”

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 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 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 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 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:

“(1) A bone deep lacerated injury of about 3" x ½”

extending from middle of skull to the left parietal bone.

Page 10 Blood stains present with congestion. Deeper to it sub

scalp congested and dark. L shaped fracture of skull in

mid line for about 3 ½” 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 right parietal bone, blood clots and

congestion present over the base of skull and at the

fractured areas. Injury is 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 hitting the deceased on the head

as the injury shows, and therefore he is lying or was not present. In the

first 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 used. It is

equally possible that the sharp edge of the axe is actually very 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 Parandhami Reddy hit the deceased

without a battle axe, as is obvious from the injury. Moreover, it is not

possible to doubt the presence of this witness, who has himself been

injured. Dr. M.C. Narasimhulu, P.W. 13, Medical Officer, has stated in his

evidence that on 25-11-1996 at about 3.30 p.m., he examined this

witness - P.W.3 - P. Murali Reddy and found the following injuries:

“(1) Diffused swelling with tenderness over middle 1/3

rd

and back of left forearm.

(2) A lacerated injury skin deep of about ½” over the back

of head. Bleeding present with tenderness and swelling

around.”

13. We are also not impressed by the finding of the trial court that

Page 11 there is discrepancy between the statement of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W.

3) and his oral testimony because he said 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 house 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 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 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 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 5 in the F.I.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 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,

Page 12 accused 19 and 20 came there and objected for ploughing the land. The

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, 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 shoulder. A-5 stabbed the

deceased on the chest. A-6 stabbed 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 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, 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 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

Page 13 the house.

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 the brothers. The deceased promised to

come on the next day. 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 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.

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 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 and post

mortem report. The injuries were caused to the deceased by the accused,

which are as under:

“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.

A-3 - with axe – beat the deceased on the head.

Page 14 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 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.

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.

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.

A-11 – Chilakathi – stabbed on the left side temple region 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.

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:

A-1 - hacked the deceased - with battle axe on the head.

A-3 - with axe – beat deceased Parandhami Reddy 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 of the chest

and also underneath the left arm pit.

A-6 –With Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side back portion.

A-7 – With Spear stabbed the deceased on the left side back portion.

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.

A-10 – With Stick – beat the deceased on the left side temporal region.

A-11 – hacked the deceased with Chilakathi on the left 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.

P.W. 5 (Rayapati Kotaiah) – spoke about the injuries on the deceased

as under:

A-1 – With axe beat Parandhami Reddy on the head.

A-3 – hacked the deceased with axe on the head.

Page 15 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.

A-6 –With Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side back portion.

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.

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.

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.

Other accused beat the deceased indiscriminately.

P.W. 6 - Veluru Gopal Reddy stated about the injuries 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.

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.

A-8 – stabbed Parandhami Reddy on the left ear and also on the

abdomen.

A-9 – stabbed Parandhami Reddy on the left side chest 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 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:

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 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.

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.

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.

Page 16 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.

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 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.

21. In State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh, A.I.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

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 crimes could

also be pointed. The public are generally reluctant to come

forward to depose before the Court. It 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 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 back up a

good case by false or exaggerated version. It is also

experienced that invariably the witnesses add embroidery

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. It is the duty of

the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the

evidence 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 see that a guilty man does not

escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public

Page 17 duties which the Judge has to perform.”

22. In State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271,

this Court held as follows:

“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 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 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 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.”

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 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 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 prosecution was not examined. Though

Page 18 his dying declaration was recorded by the IInd Additional Munsif, Tirupati

on 26.11.1996, this witness survived.

25. In Sunil Kumar & Ors. V. State of M.P., AIR 1997 SC 940, this

Court held as under:

“……….. 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 164, Cr. P.C. and can be used for corroboration

or contradiction. This statement recorded by the

Magistrate 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 his tutoring. On the contrary, this statement

was made at a 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 noticed, the

evidences of the doctors fully supports his version of the

incident.”

(Emphasis added).

26. In Maqsoodan & Ors . V. State of U.P., 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 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 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:

“Be that as it may, the question is whether the court could

Page 19 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

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 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 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

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 & 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 at all. No issue has

been raised whether a witness could have corroborated or contradicted on

the basis of the statement recorded by the IInd Additional Munsif,

Tirupati.

30. Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for 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

Page 20 (P.W. 3) intervened during the attack, he beat the said PW 3 with the

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 1½”

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-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy, awarded by the trial court

and 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 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.

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.

...........................………………..J.

[ DR. B.S. CHAUHAN ]

….....................………………………J.

[ S.A. Bobde ]

Page 21

New Delhi,

October18, 2013