SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(SC) 284

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.
Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy and others, Appellants
Versus
State of A.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1979
Decided on 7-5-1991.
1469

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 r/w 149 - Offence of Unlawful assembly and Murder - Trial Court acquitted all accused but On appeal by State, High Court convicted these appellants – Appeal against conviction - Accused No. 3 was elected as a Sarpanch of village with active support of deceased - However, differences arose between them as they supported rival groups in election in neighbouring village. 10 days before incident, deceased is stated to have openly declared that he would get Accused-3 removed by moving a no-confidence motion - This according to prosecution is motive for crime - On date of occurrence, deceased met PW-1 and PW-2 in hotel of PW-8 in neighbouring village - Deceased along with two witnesses attended a cinema show at Anwar Talkies - They came out of theatre 10 minutes earlier around 9.30 p.m. and were walking along road towards us stand - Held, Credibility of the evidence relating to the identification depends largely on opportunity the witness had to observe the assailants when the crime was committed and memorize the impression. This aspect of the matter had been stressed by the trial Court in appreciating evidence of PWs 1 and 2. The High Court has ignored the inherent infirmity and failed to deal effectively with every important circumstance in the evidence which weighed with the trial Court to disbelieve the prosecution case - In identification of other accused, PW-4 who claimed acquaintance with Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 was mixed up with PWs 1 and 2 - When persons who have already known accused persons to be identified are mixed up with witnesses, test identification is clearly vitiated and is futile - Court do not consider that view taken by learned Sessions Judge on whole was erroneous - Overall view of evidence taken by learned Sessions Judge is reasonable and plausible, while it is true that some of reasons given if taken individually do not appear to be substantial - Even when two evenly balanced views of evidence are possible one must necessarily concede existence of a reasonable doubt - We accordingly allow appeal, set aside conviction and sentence and maintain order of acquittal - Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

FATHIMA BEEVI, J.:— The appellants are Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy (A-1), Bollavaram. Chinna Narsi Reddy (A-2), Kavalakuntla Rama Subba Reddy (A-3), Duddula Venkata Subba Reddy (A-5) and Mala Prakasam (A-6) before this Court. These appellants along with accused No. 4 Duddela Ramana Reddy, were tried for the murder of one Chandrasekhara Reddy on the night of August 15, 1974. The trial Court acquitted all the accused. On appeal by the State, the High Court convicted these appellants under Sections 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed short-term imprisonment for minor offence to run concurrently.

2. Chandrasekhara Reddy, the deceased, and the accused were residents of village Jeereddy Kotharpalli. In 1970, Accused No. 3 was elected as a Sarpanch of the village with active support of the deceased. However, differences arose between them as they supported rival groups in the election in the neighbouring village. 10 days before the incident, the deceased is stated to have openly declared that he would get Accused-3 removed by moving a no-confidence motion. This according to the prosecution is the motive for the crime.

3. On the date of occurrence, Chandrasekhara Reddy met PW-1 (Guddeti Balaveera Reddy) and PW-2 (Donthireddi Subba Reddy) in the hotel of Subbamma (PW-8) in the neighbouring village Proddatur. The deceased along with the two witnesses attended a cinema show at Anwar Talkies. They came out of the theatre 10 minutes earlier around 9.30 p.m. and were walking along the road towards the bus stand. When they reached near the old telephone exchange about 50 metres away from Anwar Talkies, there was an explosion of crackers. The accused persons suddenly surrounded the deceased. They were armed with daggers. They attacked him after one of them pushing aside PW-1. PW-1 fell on the barbed wire fence of the transformer and received scratches on his thigh. The deceased was stabbed indiscriminately and simultaneously by all the assailants who retreated in two different directions and the deceased died on the spot instantaneously. Besides PWs 1 and 2, who witnessed the occurrence, PW-3 Donthireddi Narayana Reddy, and PW-4 Poreddi Subba Reddy, had also seen the attack. These witnesses were passing along the road. PW-5, Mekkamalla Balireddi, reached the scene attracted by the crowd and had seen the accused persons running away. The street light besides the electric light at a petrol bunk and the light in the bunk on the side of the road were burning at the time of the occurrence. The assailants had been identified by the witnesses in that light. The assailants were strangers to the PWs 1 and 2 but A-2, 3 and 5 were known to PWs 3 and 4 and 5 who had also acquaintance with the deceased. PW-5 informed PW-7 (Polagiri Siva Reddy), the brother of the deceased, about the occurrence, while PWs 3 and 4 left the place after seeing the deceased lying at the scene. This in short is the prosecution case.

4. The Town Police Station is situated about two furlongs away from the place of occurrence. PW-1 along with PW-2 went to the police station and lodged the first information report. A crime was registered against six unidentified persons. PW-16 (Sri S. Khasim Sub-Inspector of Police), recorded the statement Ex.P-1. The Circle Inspector visited the scene. PW-2 was referred to the Medical officer at 4 a.m. The inquest on the dead body was held on the next morning. The post-mortem examination revealed that deceased had sustained 54 injuries all except one being incised wounds. At the time of the inquest, the statements of PWs-2 and 7 were recorded. PW-7 suspected the involvement of Accused 2, 3 and 5. On 17-8-1974, the police dogs were pressed into service. It is stated that the sniffer went to the village of the deceased and thereafter to the houses of Accused 2 and 3. Statements of PWs 3, 4 and 5 were recorded on 18-8-1974. Accused.No. 6 was arrested on 25-9-1974. A test identification











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top