IMPORTANT POINT
The evidence of a relative witness should be subjected to careful and close scrutiny and if such a witness stood the test of careful and close scrutiny, there is no reason not to accept his testimony.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302/149-Explosive Substances Act, 1908-Section 3-Three appellants were variously charged and tried along with three other co-accused-Trial Court acquitted A2, A3 and A4 from all offences-A1 to A5 and A6 acquitted of some of other charges-Appeal against-High Court set aside conviction u/s 120-B/302-A5 and A6 acquitted-A1 held guilty u/s 147-A2 and A3 convicted u/s 148-A2 held guilty u/s 302-A1 and A3 convicted u/s 302/149-Appeal against-FIR lodged two hours after the occurrence-Presence of PWs 1 and 2 is highly doubtful at the place and time of occurrence-Evidence of PW 4, paternal uncle of deceased, is convincing-No reason not to accept his testimony-Consistent evidence of PWs 4 and 6 coupled with evidence of PWs 5, 8 & 9, as well as that of PW 10-Implication of appellants in crime fully established-No grounds for any interference in impugned judgment-Conviction confirmed.
       Held : PW 4, is the paternal uncle of the deceased who is also having a shop in the same vicinity where the incident had occurred and therefore his presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. He categorically stated that after closing his shop at about 8 PM he went to the centre and saw the deceased talking to PW 6 is front of his shop and it was at that point of time that A-1, A-2 and A-3 along with two others were seen going towards the lorry standing near the shop of the deceased. He further deposed that A-1 to A-3 and three other accused went behind the deceased A-1 exhorted to hurl bombs at which A-2 and A-3 hurled the bombs at the deceased. The bomb hurled by A-2 hit the deceased at his back and the bomb hurled by A-3 fell near him and exploded. Similar is the evidence of PW 6 who deposed that he was working as steam-man Lara-Shed Bitragunta and was going to his duty and had reached the place of occurrence where he saw the deceased talking to PWs 5, 8 and 9 and when they proceeded ahead, the deceased accosted him and started talking to him. It was shortly thereafter that A-1 to A-3 along with three other persons emerged from behind the lorry and on the instigation of A-1, A-2 threw a bomb which hit the deceased on his back and A-3 also threw a bomb which fell near the deceased and exploded. The statement of A-4 is thus corroborated by the evidence of an independent witness PW 6. The note of caution sounded for accepting the evidence of a relative witness is that it should be subjected to careful and close scrutiny and if such a witness stood the test of careful and close scrutiny, there is no reason not to accept his testimony. In the present case we find that the evidence of PW 4 not only with-stood the said test but is also corroborated by the evidence of an independent witness PW 6. (Para 7)
       The presence of PW 6 at the place of occurrence is testified by the independent witnesses, namely, PWs 5, 8 and 9 and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Similar is the evidence of PW 10. From the consistent evidence of PWs. 4 and 6 coupled with the evidence of PW 5, 8 and 9, as well as that of PW 10, the implication of the appellants in the crime is fully established. (Para 8)
       The evidence of PW 6 and other eye-witnesses has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that after the bomb had exploded PWs 4, 6 and other witnesses would not have been able to see the miscreants who had hurled the bomb due to smoke after explosion. But this reasoning is not only faulty but perverse and could not be accepted. It may be noticed that all the eye witnesses have deposed that they first saw the accused persons A-1 to A-3 and three others emerging from behind the lorry stationed near place of occurrence and on exhortation by A-1 the other accused A-2 and A-3 hurled the bombs. It would be but natural that such exhortation would have attracted the attention of witnesses and they would have seen the accused/appellants hurling the bombs. (Para 9)
       (ii) APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL-Scope-Appellate Court should be slow in reversing order of acquittal unless there are good and strong grounds for interference. (Para 9)
       (iii) EVIDENCE-Relation witness-Mere fact that witness happens to be a close relative-No ground to reject his testimony if his evidence is otherwise found to be truthful-However, evidence of a relative witness should be subjected to careful and close scrutiny. (Para 7)

ORDER

In Sessions Case No. 8 of 1980, the three appellants were variously charged and tried along with three other co-accused and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, Nellore by a judgment dated 24th May, 1990 convicted S. Srihari Naidu, the appellant No. 1 as well as R. Ramasubha Reddy and Ganapam Chealla Reddy, the accused Nos. 5 and 6 respectively under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Penal Code. A6 has also been convicted under Section 302/109 IPC as well as under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. All the three were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on each count, but all sentence were directed to run concurrently. The trial Court acquitted A-2, A-3 and A-4 from all the offences they were charged with. A-1 to A-5 and A-6 were also acquitted of some of the other charges that were framed against them. The convicted accused, namely, A-1, A-5 and A-6 preferred an appeal in the High Court. The State of Andhra Pradesh also preferred an appeal against the acquittal of A-2 to A-4 as well as against A-1 and A-5 who was acquitted of some of the other offences. The High Court held that charge under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC was not established against any of the accused persons and therefore set aside the conviction under Section 120-B/302 IPC. The High Court also allowed the appeal of A-5 and A-6 and set aside their conviction and sentence on all counts. But the High Court found the appellant herein A-1 guilty of the offences under Section 147 IPC and after setting aside acquittal of A-2 and A-3 namely, T. Venkaiah Naidu and S. Mallikarjuna Naidu respectively, they were found guilty under Section 148 IPC. The High Court also held A-2 guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and A-1 and A-3 guilty under Section 302/149 IPC. A-2 and A-3 are further held guilty under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and convicted them accordingly and all the three were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction of A-1 and A-3 under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act was also maintained but no separate sentence has been awarded on that count. A-1 has filed Cr. A. No. 741/83 against his aforesaid conviction and A-2 and A-3 have filed Crl. A No. 425/83 against the common judgment. We are informed at the very outset by the learned counsel for the appellants that A-1, namely S. Srihari Naidu died during the pendency of this appeal on 2nd August, 1992 and therefore, Crl. A. No. 741/83 abates.

2. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 21st May, 1979 between 8 - 8.30 PM when the deceased Pallamareddi Ramanareddi, a resident of village Bitragunta-Bogole, had closed his shop. The deceased was running a fancy shop and wine shop in bagole village. He was also a member of Panchayat, A-1 to A 4 are also residents of the same village where A-1 was having a cloth shop adjacent to that of the fancy shop of the deceased. A-1 was also a Sarpanch of the village and there were political rivalaries between the deceased and A-1, A-2 is the son-in-law of A-1 and A-3 is the nephew of A-1. According to the prosecution, prior to the occurrence in question, there were certain incidents on account of which certain criminal case was pending against the deceased due to which there was enmity between them. This apart, the A-1 was indulging in cotton market gambling and the deceased made complaints to the Police and the Police bagan to keep watch on the activities of A-1 and hence A-1 was having grudge against the deceased. It is said that since A-1 to A-3 entertained grudge against the deceased, they issued threats to his life. On the date and time of the occurrence, the brothers (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) of the deceased had closed the shop while the deceased was standing in front of his shop along with his clerk. At that point of time, P.Ws. 5, 8 and 9 arrived there. The deceased was talking to them and when they proceeded, PW 6 arrived there and when they were busy in talking

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1299

IMPORTANT POINTThe evidence of a relative witness should be subjected to careful and close scrutiny and if such a witness stood the test of careful and close scrutiny, there is no reason not to accept his testimony.

IMPORTANT POINT
The evidence of a relative witness should be subjected to careful and close scrutiny and if such a witness stood the test of careful and close scrutiny, there is no reason not to accept his testimony.