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

2013 Supreme(SC) 821

Supreme Court Of India
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, S.A. BOBDE, JJ.
Gangabhavani – Appellant
Versus
Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors. – Respondents
[Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2011]
[Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2011]
Decided On : 04-09-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Evidence should be appreciated in the light of clearly laid down norms and guidelines.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial - Evidence - Medical and ocular - Discrepancy or contradiction - Medical evidence, at best being an opinion, has to be tested - Eye witness account, if reliable - Shall prevail - Where medical evidence positively makes ocular evidence improbable and unreliable - Ocular evidence may be disbelieved, (Paras 7 and 8)

        AIR 1975 SC 1727; AIR 1999 SC 2005; (2010) 10 SCC 259; (2011) 9 SCC 698 - Relied upon

        (b) Criminal Trial - Evidence - Discrepancies - Minor or marginal discrepancies or contradictions in evidence of witnesses - Bound to be ignored. (Para 10)

        (2011) 4 SCC 324; AIR 1959 SC 1012; JT 2012 (9) SC 252; (2013) 4 SCC 557 - Relied upon

        (c) Criminal Trial - Evidence - Related / Interested witness - Not a ground to disbelieve the evidence - Should be relied upon if cogent, credible and trustworthy. (Para 11)

        (d) Criminal Trial - Natural witness and interested witness - Interested witnesses is one wanting to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case - Natural witness should be relied upon even if closely related to victim/deceased. (Para 14)

        AIR 2011 SC 2292; AIR 2013 SC 308; AIR 1981 SC 1390; AIR 2010 SC 3473; AIR 2004 SC 5039 - Relied upon

        (e) Criminal Trial - FIR - Delay and contents - Delay in lodging FIR, if explained - Large number of accused persons - Not mentioning names and details of all accused persons - Not fatal to prosecution case. (Paras 15 and 16)

        AIR 2003 SC 574; AIR 2013 SC 147 - Relied upon

        (f) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 138 r/w section 146 - Witness not making statement on any particular fact or issue - Defence also not cross-examining him on that point - Defence or the Court cannot rely on such fact or issue. (Para 18)

        AIR 2013 SC 1204; JT 2013 (8) SC 181; JT 2013 (10) SC 515 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        The Appellants were convicted and sentenced for offences under IPC and Explosive substances Act.

        High Court, in appeal, reversed the judgment and order of the Court below.

       Finding of the court:

        Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

       Result : Appeals allowed.

       

Judgment

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 13.2.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2005, reversing the judgment and order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in Sessions Case No. 374 of 2000, by which and whereunder the respondents were found guilty and convicted under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'the IPC') and awarded a sentence of 2 years each.

A1 and A2 had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and they were awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. They were also convicted under the provisions of Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1908') and had been awarded the sentence of 3 years with a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- respectively and, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and 15 days respectively. They had further been convicted under Section 5 of the Act 1908, and were awarded the punishment of three years with a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

A3 to A6 had been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo a further period of simple imprisonment of one month each. However, A3 was acquitted for the offence under Section 6 of the Act 1908. A4 and A5 were further convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act 1908 and awarded the punishment of 3 years on each count with a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default, to undergo a further period of imprisonment for one month. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:

A. On 4.12.1999, Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1), Y. Gangadhar Reddy (PW.2) and Y. Gangabhavani (PW.3) were working in their agricultural fields alongwith Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) and his brother Balagangi Reddy and others.

B. Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) and his brother Balagangi Reddy supported the Congress-I party in the elections held for the State Assembly, while the accused persons supported the Telugu Desham Party (TDP). There were ill feelings between two groups as there existed chronic factionalism between the families of the deceased and accused. In State Assembly elections, the political parties created pressure on their supporters to get maximum votes, by any means. The accused persons were waiting for the opportunity to kill Balagangi Reddy and Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased).

C. On 4.12.1999, when PW.1 to PW.3 and some others were doing agricultural work in their fields alongwith Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) in the morning, they heard weeping cries from the agricultural field nearby. All of them rushed to that place and found that Rayapati Narayana Reddy had died due to electrocution. After sometime, they returned to their fields and attended to their work. At 7.30 A.M., the accused Rayapati Venkata Reddy (A1), Rayapati Ramanjul Reddy (A2), Rayapati Bheema Reddy (A3), Korrapati Rami Reddy (A4), Korrapati Thimma Reddy (A5), Kadiyam Rami Reddy (A6), Rayapati Thirupathi Reddy (A7), Rayapati Pedda Venkata Reddy (A8), Kadiyam Rama Subba Reddy (A9), Rayapati Pedda Venkata Reddy (A10), Rayapati Chinna Bali Reddy (A11), Rayapati Venkata Reddy (A12) and Chinnapureddy Bala Chenna Reddy (A13) came to the fields where PW.1 to PW.3, namely, Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1), Y. Gangadhar Reddy (PW.2) and Y. Gangabhavani Reddy (PW.3) were working armed with deadly weapons like sticks, knives, bombs and sickles whistling war cries and hurling bombs with the intent to kill Ramachandra Reddy and Balagangi Reddy. Balagangi Reddy fled his fields due to fear and was chased by A7 to A13. PW.1 hid himself




























































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