SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, JJ.
KORABU SATYANARAYANA, VISAKHAPATNAM ANR. - Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF AP., REP PP. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2015
Decided On : 14-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: G VIJAYA SARADHI
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AP

Point of Law: It is the quality and not the quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence. Evidence has to be weighed not counted.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 read with 34 and 304 Part-II – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 207, 209 and 313 - Evidence Act - Section 134 - Offence of murder – Examination of accused - Deceased is husband of PW1 and Nephew of PW2 material prosecution witnesses are residents and are eking out their livelihood by doing cultivation - A1 and A2 are also residents Village - A1 was working School of the same village - Deceased went to house coming to know that Works Inspector was at his house to collect installment amounts for allotment of Government Houses - Deceased and PW1 reached the house deceased questioned A1 as to why he is distributing mango saplings supplied by the I.T.D.A. to his own people. A wordy quarrel ensued between them - attacked the deceased with a stick and beat him on head while A2 is said to have pressed the neck of the deceased. Seeing incident, PW3 intervened and tried to separate them, but could not do so - Separated them and took the deceased to his house - Deceased is said to have complained of pain and burning sensation due to head injury.

Finding of the Court: Appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not number of witnesses, but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence stating that a particular number of witnesses must be examined in order to prove/disprove a fact - It is a time-honoured principle, that evidence must be weighed and not counted - Test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise - Legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, as opposed to the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses – Court are of the view that the conviction of Appellants/Accused No.1 and 2 has to be scaled down to one under Section 304 Part-II of IPC - Conviction under Section 302 IPC is set-aside and Appellants/Accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years - Appellants/Accused No. 1 and 2 are on bail in pursuance of the Order - Appellants/Accused No.1 and 2 are directed to surrender themselves forthwith before Judicial First Class Magistrate on such surrender, the Magistrate shall, in turn.

Result: Appeal is allowed in part.

JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, through BlueJeans video conferencing APP.

2. Accused No. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2013 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, are the Appellants herein. Originally the accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’]. By its Judgment, dated 23.07.2014, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under the said count and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

3. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that, on 19.11.2012 at the house of one Vanjari Appala Naidu, both the accused caused the death of one Dongabanti Satyanarayana [‘Deceased’] by beating him with a stick on his head and also pressing his neck with pressure, which lead to his death on the intervening night of 19th/20th November, 2012, at 2.00 a.m.

4. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under :

    i. The deceased is the husband of PW1 and Nephew of PW2. All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Godugurayi Village and are eking out their livelihood by doing cultivation. A1 and A2 are also residents of Godugurayi Village. A1 was working as Vidya Volunteer in Kuneti School of the same village.

ii. While things stood thus, on the fateful day, the deceased went to the house of one Vanjari Appala Naidu on coming to know that the Works Inspector was at his house to collect installment amounts for allotment of Government Houses under Indiramma Pathakam. When the deceased and PW1 reached the house of said Vanjari Appala Naidu, A1 and A2 were also present at his house. At that time, the deceased questioned A1 as to why he is distributing mango saplings supplied by the I.T.D.A. to his own people. A wordy quarrel ensued between them. Then A1 is said to have attacked the deceased with a stick and beat him on the head while A2 is said to have pressed the neck of the deceased. Seeing the incident, PW3 intervened and tried to separate them, but could not do so. However, after the attack, he separated them and took the deceased to his house. The deceased is said to have complained of pain and burning sensation due to head injury. But, however, he was not taken to hospital, instead they tied a wet cloth around the head of the deceased in order to prevent burning sensation. Since, there were no medical facilities available, the deceased was not taken to hospital and, as such, at about 2.00 A.M., on the intervening night of 19/20-11-2012 the injured died in the house. Thereafter, PW1 is said to have gone to the police station and lodged a report before PW8, who on receipt of instructions from the Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. of GMadugula Police Station. Further investigation, in this case, was taken up by PW9 – Inspector of Police.

iii. It is said that, on receipt of a copy of First Information Report from PW8, he along with PW8 and PW4 reached the scene of offence and noticed the dead body in the house. He took photographs of the body with his camera and thereafter proceeded to the scene of offence. At the house of the deceased, he conducted inquest over the dead body. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. After completing the inquest proceedings, the body was sent for postmortem examination.

iv. PW7 – the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Paderu, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P16 – post-mortem certificate. The Doctor noticed two contusions and one fracture to thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone on the body of t

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top