1. Factional rivalry leading to a bomb attack on a vehicle — deaths and injuries — convictions under Sections 302, 307, 149 IPC and Explosive Substances Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 1299
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors. - Appellants
versus
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 567 of 1993
Decided on 8-12-1995
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was quite justified in interfering with the order of acquittal as passed by the trial court and in convicting the accused of the offences with which they were charged.
High Court was quite justified in interfering with the order of acquittal as passed by the trial court and in convicting the accused of the offences with which they were charged.
Subject
Criminal Law - Offences against the Human Body
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 r/w 149,307 and Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act - Offences under - Acquittal of appellants by Sessions Court - High Court in appeal, reversing the acquittal - Appeal u/s 379 Cr.P.C. r/w. 2 of Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 to Supreme Court - Whether High Court on the facts of the present case, was justified in interfering in appeal against acquittal and in re-appreciating the evidence on record? (Yes) (Paras 34 and 35)
Held: All the people who traveled by Jeep received injuries having received splinters of the exploded bombs hurled by appellants - Trial Judge gave curious reasoning to disbelieve this clinching evidence. It is rightly re-appreciated by High Court.
(ii) I.P.C.,1860 - Sections 302 and 149 Unlawful assembly to have murderous attack by hurling Bombs killing two and injuring others - Eye witnesses PW 8 and PW 9 - Illiterate menial servants - Rejected by trial Court but accepted by High Court - Whether the evidence of PW 8 & PW 9 was required to be accepted as held by the High Court? (Yes). (Para 49)
Held: Alleged nine infirmities do not affect the core of their evidence and their presence on spot cannot be doubted. All the accused are rightly held guilty of offence u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC.
(iii) Criminal Trial - Evidence of injured eye-witnesses PW 1 and PWs 4 to 7 - Rejected by trial Court - Whether it was rightly accepted by High Court? (Yes). (Para 50)
(iv) Investigation of offence - Offences u/ss 302 r/w 149 IPC, 307 IPC and sections 3 & 5 of Explosive substances Act - Seven Submissions by counsel for accused alleging that the investigation in present case was lopsided, biased & unfair - Whether of any avail? (No). (Para 59)
Held: In our view none of the aforesaid submissions can whittle down the efficacy of the eye-witness account of the injured eye-witnesses who had suffered bomb blast injuries. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record we find that the investigation cannot be said to be partial or unfair to the accused from any angle. (Para 52)
(v) IPC, 1860 - Sections 302 r/w 149, 307 and Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act - High Court reversing acquittal in appeal and convicting the accused under said offences and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and other sentences as detailed in the judgment-Appeal to Supreme Court - Whether the conviction and sentence as imposed by the High Court on the accused stand justified in the light of the evidence on record? (Yes)-Result-Appeal dismissed.
Held: As a result of the aforesaid discussion it must be held that the High Court was quite justified in interfering with the order of acquittal as passed by the Trial Court and in convicting the accused of the offences with which they were charged. Eye-witness account of injured eye-witnesses being occupants in the jeep car P.W. 1 and P.Ws. 4 to 7 as well as eye witness account of P.Ws. 8 and 9 has remained well sustained on the record and is fully corroborated by medical evidence as well as by the evidence of damage to the jeep car as found in panchnama Ex. P. 19. Consequently no case is made out for our interference in this appeal.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. (Paras 60 & 61)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
-
practice and procedure
- criminal appeals
- evidence
- investigation
Advocates:
G.Prabhakar, K.Mahajan, P.H.Parekh, R.N.VERMA, S.U.K.SAGAR, T.GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY, U.R.Lalit
G.Prabhakar, K.Mahajan, P.H.Parekh, R.N.VERMA, S.U.K.SAGAR, T.GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY, U.R.Lalit
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to reversal of acquittal — reliability of eye-witnesses and injured witnesses — allegations of tutored testimony and biased investigation versus medical and forensic evidence. (Para 24 , 25 )
3. Trial court's acquittal was perverse for ignoring medical evidence and injured witnesses — eye-witness accounts were consistent and corroborated by vehicle damage and forensic reports. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 )
4. Appellate courts may reverse acquittal if the trial court's view is perverse, infirm, or not a possible view based on the evidence on record. (Para 28 )
5. Appeal dismissed — convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court upheld. (Para 60 , 61 )
6. When can an appellate court reverse a trial court's order of acquittal?
An appellate court can interfere and reverse an acquittal if it finds that the view taken by the acquitting court was not a possible view on the evidence or was perverse, infirm, or palpably erroneous. (Para 28 )
7. How should the court treat the testimony of injured eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence?
Testimony of injured eye-witnesses that is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, such as bomb splinter injuries, and forensic evidence, such as vehicle damage, is highly reliable and cannot be dismissed as tutored merely because it is accurate. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 50 )
8. Does the failure of a witness to immediately report a crime or their decision to hide during an attack necessarily render their testimony unreliable?
No. Hiding during a terrifying attack or waiting for a master or superior before reporting to police can be natural behavior driven by fear and self-preservation, and does not necessarily dilute the evidence. (Para 44 , 45 , 48 )
9. Does the non-production of a police diary or the sequence of recording an FIR automatically indicate a biased investigation?
No. If the defense does not request the police diary during trial, its non-production is insignificant. Similarly, recording an FIR after a superior officer arrives to gather full details is not inherently unnatural or biased. (Para 53 , 55 , 56 )
JUDGMENT
S.B. Majmudar, J. - This is an appeal under Section 379, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. It is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by which the High Court reversed the acquittal of the appellants and convicted them of diverse offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian penal Code (I.P.C.), Section 307, I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and other sentences as detailed in the judgment under appeal. The appeal against acquittal of original accused No. 10 has been dismissed by the High Court and so far as his acquittal is concerned it is no longer in challenge before us. In this appeal, we are concerned with the conviction and sentence of appellants 1 to 9 who were original accused Nos. 1 to 9 respectively before the Trial Court. We shall refer to the appellants as accused Nos. 1 to 9 in this judgment for the sake of convenience.
Background Facts
2. A few relevant facts leading to this appeal are required to be noted at the outset to appreciate the grievance voiced on behalf of these nine accused by their learned counsel. The prosecution case against them ran as follows:
A-1 to A-9 and most of the material prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 1, 7 to 9 and father of P.W.1 K. Ramalinga Reddy (who was subsequently murdered on 15.5.1989) are all residents of Boilkuntla village. P.Ws. 2 and 3 belonged to Chelmur. P.Ws. 5 and 6 belonged to R. Pampalli and Revenur villages respectively. A-10 belonged to Yerragaddenna village.
3. There are factions consisting of the sons of Bali Reddy on one side and Gangulapratap Reddy who was by then a sitting M.L.A., from Allagadda constituency, on the other side. P.Ws. 1 to 9 and father of P.Ws. 1 to 7 - K. Ramalinga Reddy - are the followers of sons of Bali Reddy while A-1 to A-9 are the followers of Gangula Pratap Reddy. Due to the ill feelings between the two camps, at about 5.30 p.m. on 18.9.1985 A-1 to A-9 and others made an attempt to kill Ramalinga Reddy having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, by hurling country-made bombs at him arid his followers at the outskirts of Boilakuntla village in Kumool District of Andhra Pradesh. On the basis of the said incident, Crime No. 75/85 of Sirvel Police Station was registered and A-I to A-9 were waiting for an opportunity to do away with the lives of K. Ramalinga Reddy and his followers.
4. On May 30, 1987 at about 4 p.m. all the accused met near Basapuram road crossing and entered into a criminal conspiracy to do away with the life of Ramalinga Reddy. Pursuant to the above conspiracy, on 1.6.1987 at about 9 a.m. A-1 to A-9 hid themselves behind the trees existing on either side of Nandyal Mahanandi road which is also known as Gajulapalli Mahanadi Road.
5. On June 1, 1987 at about 8 a.m. P.Ws. 1 to 9 Ramalinga Reddy, Damodara Reddy (in brief Deceased No.1) and K.V. Rajsekhar Reddy (in brief deceased No.2) left together by Mahindra Jeep bearing No. ADF 790 from their village Boilkuntla to Mahanandi to attend the marriage of one G. Mahanandi Reddy. The said 12 persons came to Mahanandi cross roads, halted for about an hour near the residential school belonging to Ramalinga Reddy and at about 9 a.m. left in the said jeep to Mahanandi.
6. By the time the jeep reached Baggi road, A-1 to A-4 who were hiding themselves by the side of the trees situated on tile eastern side of the road came out being armed with bombs. When the jeep slowed down to negotiate the turning at the Baggi road A-1 to A-4 hurled bombs at tile jeep. Immediately A-5 to A-9 who were hiding on the western side came out and hurled bombs. In the front seat Ramalinga Reddy and P.Ws. 1 to 3 were sitting e while Ramalinga Reddy was sitting on extreme left, P.W.1 was driving the jeep sitting on the extreme right, P.W.2 was sitting
