Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA & RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.
Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah & Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1424 of 2003 With Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2004
Decided On : 22-04-2014
(b) Criminal Trial – Appreciation of evidence – FIR not registered on basis of statement of injured witness – Delay in registering FIR giving rise to suspicion of doctoring in the form of dying declaration of PW1 – Trial court reasoning appearing correct – Ought not to have been disturbed. (Para 14)
(c) Criminal Trial – Appreciation of evidence – Manner and timing of recording dying declaration raising suspicion of deliberation with prosecution party members – Injured first taken to village then to hospital – Strong possibility of consultations before further course of action – Prosecution story not credible. (Para 16, 17)
(d) Criminal Trial – Appreciation of evidence – Major discrepancies like omission of names of witnesses and accused, absence of TI Parade etc. noted by trial court – Acquittal not liable to be interfered. (Para 18, 19)
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Trial court view a reasonable view – Many major discrepancies in the evidence – High Court not noticing any perversity in trial court judgment – Still, High Court interfering and convicting accused person – Not permissible. (Para 20)
(2007) 4 SCC 415; (2003) 1 SCC 204; (2004) 9 SCC 186 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellants were charged and tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
The Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused.
The High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellants as under:
A1-Nallabothu, A3-Rayidi Brahmaiah, A4-Rayidi Purnaiah, A11-Nallabothu Sreenivasa Rao, A14-Rayidi Kotiah, A15-Rayidi Veera Mallaiah, A16-Mupalla Ramaiah, A21-Rayidi Lingiah, A23-Rayidi Sreenivasarao, A24-Duggineni Peraiah, A25-Mannem Hanumantha Rao, A27-Rayidi Ramarao and A29-Rayidi Venkateswarlu, under Section 302 of the IPC; Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 under Section 324 of the IPC. Accused No.25 was convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and also under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The appellants A38-Chalamala Veeraiah and A39-Chalamala Subbarao were, however, convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The appellants were also convicted under Section 148 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Tondepi village was faction-ridden with two rival groups involved in land disputes and prior cases.[1000541200002] On 16/3/1993 at about 1:30 p.m., some accused abducted and attempted to kill PW-19 V. Seshagiri Rao, leading to Crime No.5 of 1993 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 364, 307 read with 149 IPC; PW-19 was saved by police and admitted to Government Hospital, Sattenapally.[1000541200003] (!) After admitting PW-19, PW-1 to PW-10, Challa Singaiah, Rachankonda Chanchiah and others returned to the village in a tractor at night between 16/3/1993 and 17/3/1993.[1000541200003] At Dammalapadu Donka, accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with iron rods, axes, spears, sticks and bombs, attacking the group; bombs were hurled, Singaiah died on the spot, Chanchiah and injured PW-1 to PW-10 admitted to Government Hospital, Sattenapally, where Chanchiah died on 17/3/1993.[1000541200003] (!) Hospital intimated Additional Munsiff Magistrate, who recorded PW-1's dying declaration (Ex-P/1) at 3:15 a.m. on 17/3/1993; FIR (Crime No.43/1993) registered at PS Sattenapally under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302/149 IPC and Sections 3/5 Explosive Substances Act, re-registered as Crime No.6/1993 at PS Muppala. (!) [1000541200012] Accused charged under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302/149 IPC; trial court (Sessions Case No.967/1994) acquitted all accused on 11/2/2000.[1000541200001] (!) State appealed; High Court by judgment dated 24/7/2003 set aside acquittal, convicting specified accused (A1, A3, A4, A11, A14, A15, A16, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A29) under Section 302 IPC (life imprisonment), some additionally under 324 IPC, A25 under 324/149 IPC, appellants A38/A39 under 324/149 IPC, all under 148 IPC (sentences concurrent).[1000541200001] (!)
In appeals against acquittal, appellate courts have full power to review evidence but must respect double presumption of innocence (fundamental presumption reinforced by trial court's acquittal); if two reasonable views possible, acquittal not to be disturbed merely because appellate court prefers another view, absent perversity, glaring mistakes or distorted conclusions.[1000541200006] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000541200019] Trial court's finding on insufficient light at night-time incident (no mention in FIR/observation/inquest reports, tractor/torch light implausible amid bomb smoke/dust, 50 attackers) was reasonable, enabling no reliable identification of accused/overt acts; High Court erred in interfering.[1000541200009][1000541200010][1000541200011] Failure to register FIR on injured witnesses' immediate statements despite police presence (PW-28 SI Muppala at spot/police camp, informed by witnesses of rival group attack), waiting for PW-1 dying declaration (recorded 3:15 a.m.), raised suspicion of fabrication/doctored FIR, especially with faction rivalry/prior attack; trial court's view correct, High Court wrongly dismissed as irregularity.[1000541200012][1000541200013][1000541200014][1000541200015] Dying declaration timing/manner suspicious: injured first to village (per PW-13) then hospital (contra PW-28), hospital intimation Ex-P/20 dated 16/3/1993 (pre-midnight), requisition Ex-P/18 initially 16/3/1993 overwritten to 17/3/1993, PW-19 (prior attack victim) in same hospital, party leaders visited (per PW-8); scope for deliberation/tutoring, undermining credibility.[1000541200016][1000541200017] Major discrepancies (omissions of witness/accused names in dying declaration/FIR, no TI parade despite unknown accused, inconsistent roles/deaths/timing, PW-1's contradictory statements) rendered prosecution case unreliable; trial court meticulously noted these, view reasonable, not perverse.[1000541200018] (!) High Court failed to identify perversity/compelling reasons for reversal, erred in interfering with reasonable acquittal.[1000541200019][1000541200020]
Judgment :-
Smt. Ranjana Prakash Desai, J. –
1. Both these appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 24/07/2003 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.921 of 2000 and, hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The appellants were charged and tried by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Sessions Case No.967 of 1994 inter alia for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 11/2/2000 acquitted all the accused. The State of Andhra Pradesh carried an appeal from the said order to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. By the impugned judgment and order dated 24/07/2003, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1424 of 2003 viz. A1-Nallabothu, A3-Rayidi Brahmaiah, A4-Rayidi Purnaiah, A11-Nallabothu Sreenivasa Rao, A14-Rayidi Kotiah, A15-Rayidi Veera Mallaiah, A16-Mupalla Ramaiah, A21-Rayidi Lingiah, A23-Rayidi Sreenivasarao, A24-Duggineni Peraiah, A25-Mannem Hanumantha Rao, A27-Rayidi Ramarao and A29-Rayidi Venkateswarlu, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“the IPC”) and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. In addition, Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 were convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Accused No.25 was convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and also under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2004 viz. A38-Chalamala Veeraiah and A39-Chalamala Subbarao were, however, convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The appellants in both the appeals were also convicted under Section 148 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the appellants have approached this Court. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the accused and the prosecution witnesses as per the numbers assigned to them by the trial court.
3. Tondepi village is a faction-ridden village within the limits of Muppala Police Station. There were two groups in the village, against whom, cases and counter-cases were pending. There were land disputes between A28-Rayidi Anjaiah and his father Rayidi Venkatappaiah. One group was supporting A28-Rayidi Anjaiah and the other group was supporting his father.
4. On 16/3/1993, at about 1.30 p.m., some of the accused abducted PW-19 V. Seshagiri Rao and tried to kill him. However, due to the timely intervention of the police, he was saved and admitted in the Government Hospital, Settenapalli. In this connection, the police registered a case being Crime No.5 of 1993 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 364 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC against some of the accused in this case. As they were unsuccessful in their attempt to kill PW-19 V. Seshagiri Rao, they armed with iron rods, axes, spears, sticks and bombs waylaid in Dammalapadu Donka and formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of killing the persons belonging to Nallabothu Venkaiah group. After admitting PW-19 V. Seshagiri Rao, in the Hospital at Sattenapally, Challa Singaiah and Rachankonda Chanchiah and PW-1 to PW-10 and some others were returning to their village in a tractor in the night intervening 16/3/1993 and 17/3/1993. The accused attacked Singaiah and Chanchiah and PWs-1 to 16 when they reached Dammalapadu Donka.
Bombs were hurled. Singaiah succumbed to the injuries at the spot. PW-1 to PW-10 and Chanchiah, who sustained injuries, were admitted in the Government Hospital, Sattenapally. Chanchiah succumbed to the injuries on 17/3/1993 while he was undergoing trea
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
