Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal, JJ.
Narayana Reddy @ Babu - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 532 OF 2012
Decided On : 12-05-2016
MURDER - Criminal Trial - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 302, 149 - The court acquitted accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and acquitted them of other charges. The High Court acquitted Accused No. 2 and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The appellant challenged the verdict, and the High Court maintained its decision. The appellant was convicted based on the testimony of PW-1, the eye witness of the incident. However, the medical evidence and other circumstances raised doubts about the credibility of PW-1's testimony, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
Six persons were implicated in a trial for the murder of Govind Reddy. The complaint alleged that the appellant had stabbed the deceased with a knife. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution, and after the trial, the trial court acquitted accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6, convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and acquitted them of other charges. The High Court acquitted Accused No. 2 and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The appellant challenged the verdict, and the High Court maintained its decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's conviction was primarily based on the testimony of PW-1, the eye witness of the incident. However, the medical evidence and other circumstances raised doubts about the credibility of PW-1's testimony, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Issues: The key issue was the credibility of the testimony of PW-1, the eye witness of the incident, and the reliability of the medical evidence and other circumstances presented in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the doubts raised about the credibility of PW-1's testimony, the medical evidence, and other circumstances, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant, ordering his immediate release unless he was wanted in some other case.
ORDER :
1. Six persons were implicated in a trial for murder of one Govind Reddy. A complaint to this effect was lodged with the Koramangala Police Station by Srinivasa @ Raja (PW-1) on 12.04.1999 at about 10 P.M. stating that the Accused No. 1 (who is the appellant before us in this appeal) had stabbed Govind Reddy with knife (M.O.7) after 8.30 p.m. between 9.15 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. FIR to this effect was registered. In his later statements, PW-1 named Accused Nos. 2 to 6 also, who are the relatives of the appellant. The matter was investigated into and ultimately charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against all the six accused persons.
2. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW-1 and PW-2 (Prakash) claimed that they were the eye witnesses to the incident. PW-3 and PW-4 were Panch witnesses to the alleged recovery of the weapon. PW-5 was the junior engineer who had prepared the sketch by visiting along with the police team to the place of occurrence where dead body of the deceased was found and recovered. PW-6 is the wife of the deceased. She is not an eye-witness but stated that she had come to the spot after she was informed about the murder of her husband by PW-1. PW-7 is the Doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination. PW-8 is the police officer who prepared the investigation report though he was not the investigating officer, as the investigating officer had died in the meantime. After the conclusion of the trial, statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied the charges or evidence against them stating that the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 had deposed falsely in the court.
3. After hearing the arguments, the trial court acquitted accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 of all the charges framed but convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted them of other charges. Accused No. 4 had died during the trial and, therefore, the trial against him has abated.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed appeal before the High Court. The High Court vide its judgment dated 25.03.2010 acquitted Accused No. 2 and dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein. The appellant challenged the said verdict of the High Court by filing special leave petition in this Court being SLP(Criminal) No. 4721 of 2001 in which leave was granted and it was converted into Criminal Appeal No. 2235/2011. This appeal was decided by this Court on 29.11.2010 by remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. In the meantime, the appellant was ordered to be released on bail. After the remittal of the case to the High Court, the High Court heard the same afresh and has maintained its earlier decision inasmuch as the appeal of the appellant was again dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 16.06.2011. It is this judgment which is impugned in the present appeal.
5. To state the case of the prosecution in brief, Accused No. 4 who died during the trial was the landlord of plot bearing Sy. No. 116/8 of erstwhile Koramangala Village in Bangalore City. Accused No. 4 and Accused No. 5 are the full brothers. The Bangalore Development Authority acquired the above land for the development of Bangalore City. There was a public road to the north of the said property. Accused No.4 and Accused No. 5 alleged to have erected a compound and encroached upon the said public road. PW-1 (Srinivasa @ Raja) and others filed a petition before the Revenue Assistant Commissioner and got it demolished. Accused No. 4 filed civil suits before the City Civil Court, Bangalore City against PW-1 and others which are still pending for adjudication before the respective Civil Courts. In spite of it, there were petty quarrels between the two groups in connection with the said path way as Acc
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
