Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 183

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
M. Nageswara Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 72-73 of 2022
WITH
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Kasireddy Ramakrishna Reddy and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2022
Decided On : 07-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A.Sirajudeen .Sr.Adv. Mr. Parnam Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. D. Srinivas, Adv. Mr. R.Ravi, Adv Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, AOR Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv Mr. K. V. Girish Chowdary, Adv Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. D.Ramakrishna Reddy, Adv. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR C.Rubavathi, Adv. M.Veeraragavan, Adv. C.Raghavendren Adv. V.Senthil Kumar, Adv P.Rajaram, Adv. K.Ethiraj, Adv. Meikandan, Adv. Mr. Goli Ramakrishna,Adv. Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value.
(2) Merely because witnesses were relatives of deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the ground that they were planted witnesses.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 148 – Murder and rioting – Conviction and sentence – There are no major/material contradictions in deposition of eye-witnesses and injured eye-witnesses – All are consistent insofar as accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned – PW6 has identified Accused Nos. 1 to 3 – Merely because witnesses were relatives of deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the ground that they were planted witnesses – PW7 could not identify assailants – However, prosecution has been able to prove incident from deposition/evidence of PW7 and manner in which incident took place – FIR was lodged within seven hours – In facts and circumstances of case, delay of seven hours cannot be said to be fatal to prosecution case – Even FIR was sent to Magistrate within 24 hours, as required under provisions of Cr.P.C. – P.Ws.1, 3 & 6 are all consistent in their testimony and they have fully supported case of prosecution – No reason to doubt their presence and their deposition – High Court has unnecessarily given weightage to some minor contradictions – Contradictions are not material contradictions which can affect case of prosecution as a whole – PW6 was an injured eye-witness and his presence ought not to have been doubted and being an injured eye-witness, his deposition has a greater reliability and credibility – High Court has committed grave error in reversing judgment and order passed by Trial Court convicting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for offences under Sections 148 & 302 IPC and High Court has erred in acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court insofar as acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 deserves to be quashed and set aside and judgment and order passed by Trial Court convicting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for offences under Sections 148 & 302 IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment is to be restored. (Paras 10, 10.1, 11, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
On appreciation of evidence, trial Court held Accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 148 & 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC and one year R.I. for the offence under Section 148 IPC. However, trial Court acquitted Accused Nos. 4 to 11 of all the charges levelled against them. By the impugned common judgment and order, High Court has allowed Criminal Appeal No. 611/2011 preferred by original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and has acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 148 IPC. The High Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 659/2011 preferred by the complainant, confirming acquittal of accused Nos. 4 to 11.
Findings of Court:
Criminal Appeal No. 72/2022 preferred by the original complainant and Criminal Appeal No. 74/2022 preferred by the State, challenging the impugned judgment and order acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 21.02.2018 insofar as acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 148 & 302 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 148 & 302 IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment is hereby restored. Accused Nos. 1 to 3, are hereby directed to surrender to undergo the remaining sentence, within a period of four weeks from today. Insofar as Criminal Appeal No. 73/2022, preferred by the original complainant challenging the acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 is concerned, same stands dismissed.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 611/2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 659/2011, by which the High Court has allowed Criminal Appeal No. 611/2011 preferred by original accused Nos. 1 to 3 (respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2022) and has acquitted original accused Nos. 1 to 3 and by which the High Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 659/2011 preferred by the original complainant-appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 73/2022, challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the rest of the accused, i.e. accused Nos. 4 to 11, the original complainant has preferred the present appeals bearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 72-73/2022.

1.1 Against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting original accused Nos. 1 to 3, the State has also preferred a separate appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2022.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 18.01.2007 at about 8:30 p.m. all the accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with hunting sickles, came from behind the sumo vehicle and surrounded it near Dr. Kabir Clinic at Gayithri Estate, Kurnool, in which the deceased Rajasekhar Reddy and his brother M. Nageswara Reddy (PW-1) and other supporters Shaik Akbar Basha (PW-3), P. Sekhar (PW-7) and S. Venkagamuni (PW-8) were travelling, and S. Rajesh (PW-6) was the driver. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 forcibly opened front left side door and dragged out the deceased by saying that “Ee Naqkodukulaganni Narakandir Raa” and immediately hacked him with hunting sickles indiscriminately while Accused Nos. 8 to 11 hit the glass windows of the sumo vehicle with hunting sickles and broke the glasses. Accused Nos. 9 & 11 hacked the driver Rajesh (PW-6) and he sustained bleeding injuries on his right shoulder, hand and side ribs, while Accused Nos. 4 to 7 chased PW-1, PW-3, PW-7 and PW-8 and when they were fleeing injuries were caused to PW-7 and later all they fled away. The deceased Rajasekhar Reddy died on the spot whereas PW-6 and PW-7 were taken to Government General Hospital, Kurnool. On the report of LW1 (Nageswara Reddy) a case being Crime No. 7 of 2007 was registered against the accused for the abovesaid offences.

2.1 The investigating officer during the course of investigation recorded the statements of the concerned persons-witnesses. He also collected documentary evidences including medical evidence. During the course of the investigation, the investigating officer arrested all the accused. On conclusion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a charge-sheet against all the eleven accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 427 and 302 read with 149 IPC in the Court of learned Magistrate, Kurnool. As the case was exclusively triable by the learned Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Kurnool. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore all of them came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court.

2.2 To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined in all seventeen witnesses and brought on record the relevant documentary evidences through the aforesaid witnesses. According to the case of the prosecution, PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5 were the eye-witnesses to the incident and PW-6 and PW-7 were the injured eye-witnesses who sustained injuries during the incident.

2.3 As per the case of the prosecution and the eye-witnesses/injured eye-witnesses, all the accused persons attacked. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 dragged out the deceased and hacked him with hunting sickles indiscriminately, while Accused Nos. 8 to 11 hit the glass windows of the sumo vehicle with hunting sickles and broke the glass. Accused Nos. 9 and 11 hacked the driver Rajesh, PW-6 and he sustained bleeding injuries on his