Back
2010 (5) Supreme 752
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. M. Lodha and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
Siddanki Ram Reddy — Appellant
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1852 of 2008
Decided on : 27-7-2010
Facts of the Case :
Appellant along with fourteen others was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased in court premises by sprinkling chilly powder in his eyes and thereafter cutting him by an axe. Trial Court while acquitting rest of accused persons convicted appellant .Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Instantly, a mob attacked deceased in the crowded corridors of court premises and PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6 in their evidence in the court claimed to have seen appellant chasing the deceased with an axe and assaulting deceased with axe on his neck. All these three eye witnesses also stated that soon after the assault appellant ran away from court premises. The three eye witnesses thus saw the assailant for a very short time when he assaulted the deceased with the axe and thereafter when he made his escape from the court premises. When an attack is made on the assailant by a mob in a crowded place and eye witnesses had little time to see the accused, substantive evidence should be sufficiently corroborated by a test identification parade held soon after the occurrence and any delay in holding the test identification parade may be held to be fatal to the prosecution case. However test identification parade in the instant case had not been fair to the appellant. Although eight suspects were arrested, only the appellant and one other were produced before the witnesses at the Test Identification Parade. This gave room for a lot of doubt on the case of the prosecution that none other than the appellant was the assailant. Hence corroboration of substantive evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 6 on the identification of suspect by the test identification parade could not be held to be trustworthy. Both trial court and High Court had mechanically relied on the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 6 that it was the appellant who had attacked the deceased with an axe in the court premises without appreciating that it was unsafe to rest conviction upon the evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 6 with regard to the identification of the assailant. Impugned judgments of High Court and trial court were set aside .Appeal was allowed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
A.K. Patnaik, J. —
This is a Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated July 4, 2008 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2006.
2.The facts very briefly are that on February 28, 2005 one Komidi Sai Baba Reddy (deceased) was killed in the court premises of R.R. District at Cyberabad. The father of the deceased lodged a First Information Report (FIR) before the Station House Officer, P.S. L.B. Nagar alleging that on February 28, 2005 at 11.00 a.m. when the deceased was coming to the court, Narsimha Reddy’s son, Srinivas Reddy and others sprinkled chilly powder in the eyes of the deceased and cut him by an axe and all this was done due to old vengeance. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against 15 accused persons including the appellant in the court of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, R.R. District, Cyberabad. As accused nos. 11 to 15 were absconding, the case was split up and accused nos. 1 to 10 were tried for several charges in Sessions Case No.195 of 2005. After the trial the 5th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) acquitted accused nos. 2 to 10 of the charges and convicted the appellant, who was the accused no.1, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year.
3.Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that it will be clear from the evidence led by the prosecution that the deceased was killed in the court premises by a mob and there is no reliable evidence on record to show that it was the appellant who had killed the deceased. He took us through the evidence of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6, who according to the prosecution are the eye witnesses, to show that none of them have been able to identify the assailant of the deceased. He referred to the FIR (Ext.P1) to show that the appellant-Ram Reddy had not been named in the FIR lodged by PW-1. He submitted that in the FIR the accused persons named are Narsimha Reddy’s son and Srinivas Reddy, and the appellant is neither Narsimha Reddy’s son nor Srinivas Reddy and, therefore, the evidence of PW-1 that the appellant was the assailant is not at all reliable.
4.He submitted that PWs 5 and 6 were police constables performing court duty and they did not know the appellant personally and yet they have deposed before the court that the appellant was the assailant of the deceased. He submitted that PW5 has stated that the appellant was wearing a Kurta and Lachi, whereas the Inspector of Police (PW-36), who arrested the appellant, has stated in his evidence that at the time of arrest, the appellant was neither wearing a Kurta nor a Lachi.
5.He next submitted that the Test Identification Parade was not at all fair because the appellant was arrested and eight others had also been arrested but only the appellant and one other accused were produced before the witnesses in the Test Identification Parade before the Judicial Magistrate (PW-34). He submitted that though the appellant was arrested on March 9, 2005, he was produced in the Test Identification Parade on April 23, 2005 about 54 days after the arrest and this inordinate delay in conducting the Test Identification Parade has not been explained by the prosecution.
6.He submitted that in any case in the Test Identification Parade PWs 1, 5 and 6 have not been able to properly identify the appellant. He submitted that PW-1, father of the deceased, has not identified the appellant at all. He argued that PWs 5 and 6 had enough opportunity to see the appellant prior to the Test Identification Parade and in fact when the appellant was produced before the court alongwith other accused persons after the arrest, PW-5 was one of the members of the police escort party and therefore he knew who was the accused before the Test Identification Parade. He submitted that PW-6 has stated before the Magistrate (PW-34) carrying out the Identification
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
