2015 Supreme(SC) 336

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Vutukuru Lakshmaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2047 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2052 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 205O OF 2008
Decided On : 24-04-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
When each accused was well aware that he is being tried for being a part of unlawful assembly which was armed with weapons, no prejudice is caused to the accused persons by not framing charge u/s 149. Non framing of charge u/s 149 would not be fatal to prosecution.
There is nothing like chance witness. In a case of murder on the street only passers-by will be the witnesses.
When dying declaration is recorded following prescribed procedure and it categorically states every aspect in detail with no infirmity or inherent contradiction or inconsistency; it can be relied upon for convicting the accused.
Plea of alibi is not an exception under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is only a rule of evidence. Strict proof thereof will be required.
When the accused had strong motive for assaulting the deceased whom he stabs repeatedly, section 302 IPC is attracted.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 149 – Charge not framed u/s 149 – Each accused well aware of being tried for being a part of unlawful assembly which was armed with weapons – No prejudice caused to accused person by not framing charge u/s 149 – Non framing of charge u/s 149 not fatal to prosecution. (Para 12)

       AIR 1956 SC 116; (2009) 12 SCC 546 – Relied upon

       (b) Criminal trial – ‘Chance’ witness – There is nothing like chance witness – In murder on the street only passers-by will be the witnesses – Prosecution establishing presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence – Categorical deposition about participation of accused-appellants in the crime – Plea of poor light not sustainable. (Para 15)

       (1983) 3 SCC 327; (2009) 9 SCC 719 – Relied upon

       (c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration made in perfectly conscious state of mind – Recorded by competent person – Categorically stating every aspect in detail – No infirmity or inherent contradiction or inconsistency – Rightly relied upon by courts below for convicting the accused. (Para 16)

       (2007) 13 SCC 112 – Relied upon

       (2013) 7 SCC 162 – Referred

       (d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 11 – Plea of alibi – Not an exception under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – It is only a rule of evidence – Strict proof required – Instantly, prosecution establishing presence of appellant at the scene of occurrence – On available evidence, High Court rejecting plea of alibi – No infirmity. (Para 19)

       (1997) 1 SCC 283; (2002) 8 SCC 18; (2010) 8 SCC 430; (2012) 6 SCC 204 – Relied upon

       (e) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Deceased a witness against the accused-appellant in a murder case – Medical report stating five stab injuries on different parts of body of deceased – Conviction u/s 302 justified. (Para 20)

       (2002) 5 SCC 323; (2007) 10 SCC 371; (2008) 3 SCC 205 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       The deceased, Patrangi Ramanaiah, was a supporter of the Telugu Desam Party, while accused Vutukuru Lakshmaiah, A-1, was the Councilor for Ward No. 16 of Nellore Municipality and belonged to the Congress Party. One Patrangi Velongini Raja of Telugu Desam Party was allegedly murdered by accused, A-1, and his brother and in the said prosecution the deceased and PW-1 were witnesses.

       On 14.05.1996 about 9.30 p.m., Pamula Ramanaiah, PW-1, and the deceased were travelling on their scooter towards Akuthota Harijanawada, and when they reached a sweet meat shop, Meriga Yedukondalu, A-4, and Utukuru Seenaiah, A-6 (since deceased) attacked them as a result of which, PW1, who was driving the scooter lost control of the scooter and both of them fell down. As the prosecution story proceeds, Vutukuru Lakshmaiah, A-1, Rayapu Srinivasulu, A-2, Rayapu Sivaiah, A-3, Meriga Ramaiah, A-5, and Meriga Penchlaiah, A-7, stabbed the deceased multiple times with knives, while A-4 and A-6 beat him with iron rods. A-2 then tried to stab PW-1 but missed. Thereafter A-3 stabbed PW-1 with a knife on his left arm, but he managed to escape and hid in the PWD office situated nearby.

       The trial court convicted A-1 to A-5 and A-7 to A-9 for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 IPC for causing death of deceased Patrangi Ramanaiah, convicted A-2 to A-4 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with 149 IPC for causing injuries to PW-1.

       The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in respect of the present appellants and partly allowed the appeal thereby acquitting A4, A8 and A9 giving them the benefit of doubt.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment does not require interference.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.