Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Burla Jayarami Reddi - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 09-07-55
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - FACTIONS BETWEEN HARIJANS - RIOTING - MURDER - HURT - EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES - RELIABILITY - CORROBORATION - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - MANIPULATION OF CASE DIARY - IMPROPER INVESTIGATION - FAILURE TO SEND COPY OF CASE DIARY ENTRIES - INFERENCE OF NON-EXISTENCE OF ENTRIES - FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE - ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
A riot broke out between two factions of Harijans in Burlavaripalem, resulting in the death of one Narasayya and injuries to P. W. 1. The prosecution alleged that the 1st and 12th accused instigated the other accused to attack the deceased due to a previous dispute. The deceased was beaten with pestles and dragged to a tamarind tree, where he was further assaulted by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, P. Ws. 3 and 4, was unreliable and could not be relied upon to corroborate the testimony of P. Ws. 1, 2, and 5. The court also found that the case diary had been manipulated by the investigating officer, P. W. 11, and that the entries in the diary were not made contemporaneously with the events they purported to record. The court further found that Exhibit P-1, which was presented as the first information report, was not admissible as it was prepared at a later stage and was not a true representation of the events.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 was reliable and could be used to corroborate the testimony of P. Ws. 1, 2, and 5. 2. Whether the case diary had been manipulated by the investigating officer, P. W. 11, and whether the entries in the diary were made contemporaneously with the events they purported to record. 3. Whether Exhibit P-1 was admissible as the first information report.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 was unreliable and could not be used to corroborate the testimony of P. Ws. 1, 2, and 5 because: a. They had implicated innocent persons in the case. b. Their evidence was found to be false in material particulars. c. They had a motive to speak against the accused. d. There were inconsistencies in their testimony. 2. The court held that the case diary had been manipulated by the investigating officer, P. W. 11, and that the entries in the diary were not made contemporaneously with the events they purported to record because: a. The investigating officer failed to send a copy of the entries in the case diary to the Magistrate as required by Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. b. The investigating officer admitted to manipulating the diary to suit the exigencies of the case. c. There were discrepancies between the statements of the witnesses and the entries in the diary. 3. The court held that Exhibit P-1 was not admissible as the first information report because: a. It was prepared at a later stage and was not a true representation of the events. b. It was not drafted by the informant, P. W. 1, but by a third person, D. W. 1.
Final Decision: The court acquitted all the appellants as the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court also directed that the appellants be set at liberty and their bail bonds, if any, be cancelled.
( 1 ) THE appellants are accused 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. They along with 16 others were arraigned before the Sessions Judge, Nellore, on charges of rioting, murder and hurt in respect of an incident that took place, on the 27th of july, 1954, at about 5 P. M. , in the Harijan quarters of Burlavaripalem. In the course of this rioting one Narasayya was fatally wounded and P. W. 1 had received seme minor injuries while A-2 and A-10 also sustained some injuries. For over a year before the occurrence, there were factions between the Harijans of Burlavaripalem of gudur taluk, Nellore District and those of the neighbouring village, Balireddipalem, the leaders of the first party being the 1st and 12th accused and one Subba- ramireddy the borther-in-law of P. W. 8 the Village Mansif of Burlavaripalem being the leader of the other. A few Harijan families of Burlavaripalem who had affiliations in the other village refused to join the faction headed by A-1 amongst whom was the deceased, P. Ws. 5 and 7. It is alleged that the 1st accused and the I2th accused resented this and tried every means to bring them into their fold by victimising those who were not amenable, to their influence, such as the extortion of a promissory note on the 12th of August, 1953, by A-1 and A-I2 from the deceased. The promissory note was executed in favour of A-1 for a sum of rs. 200 and this did not have the desired effect.
( 2 ) IT is the prosecution case that on the morning of 27th July, 1954, a number of persons led by A-1 and A-12 went to the field of P. W. 7 and began to uproot the gingili crop thereon. When P. W. 7 and the deceased went to the field as usual and found mischief being committed, they protested. Inspite of this, the miscreants proceeded with the destruction of the crop. P. W. 7 and the deceased returned home and after food they went to the Police Station at Kota and reported the matter to P. W. 10 the Station Writer who was then in charge of the Station. After this, they both returned home and the deceased was sitting on a pial in front of his house. Shortly thereafter, all the accused numbering 21 came in a body, A-1 and a-12 unarmed. A-2 and A-5 armed with pestles, A-7 and A-9 with kathuvas and the rest with sticks. Seeing this hostile crowd, the deceased and P. W. 1 who also happened to be there went inside the house. A-1 instigated the other accused to pull the deceased out of the house and stab him, for reporting against them. Thereupon, the 2nd accused entered the house and beat the deceased with a pes tle on the back of the head while A-5 struck a blow with a similar weapon on the back of the neck. On receipt of the injuries the deceased fell down bleeding. Meanwhile A-4 and a-6 also went in and all the four of them dragged the deceased to a tamarind tree 17 yards from their house. Excepting A-1 and A-12 all the accused kicked the victim and beat him with hands while all the while A-1 and A-12 were saying "kick him ". P. Ws. 1 and 2 the son and wife respectively of the injured man intervened only to be beaten by A-2 and A-5. Immediately P. W. 1 ran to the house of the village Munsif P. W. 8 and told him of what had happened. P. W. 8 wanted a written report. Within 15 minutes, P. W. 1 returned with one got written by a stranger exhibit P-1. The Village Munsif went to the scene, found the deceased unconscious under the tree, advised P. W. 1 to take Narasayya to a Local Fund Dispensary at Kota. Narasayya was then taken to the hospital by about 7-25 P. M. Finding his condition serious the doctor sent intimation of it to the police station. On receipt thereof, P. W. 11 (Sub-Inspector of Police) proceeded to the hospital, saw the injured, examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the former of them said that it was not necessary for him to make any statement as he had already sent a report through the Village Munsif. Meanwhile P. W. 8 sent reports Exhibits P 11 and P-12 to the Police and the magistrate based on Exhibit P-1. Exhibit P-11 reache
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
