Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. GANGA RAO, T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, JJ.
S.V. Nageswara Rao Raja and Others - Petitioners
Versus
P.P., Hyd. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1041 of 2015
Decided On : 28-10-2022
CRIMINAL - APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - COMMON INTENTION - EYEWITNESSES - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - MOTIVE - RECOVERY OF WEAPONS - SECTION 293 CR.P.C. - HELD, THE EVIDENCE OF EYEWITNESSES WAS CREDIBLE AND INSPIRING CONFIDENCE. NON-SUPPORTING SUCH A VERSION BY INDEPENDENT WITNESSES WOULD BE NO GROUNDS, TO DISCARD THEIR TESTIMONY. THE PRESENCE OF PWS.1 AND 2 AT THE SCENE OF THE OFFENCE, ALONG WITH THEIR DECEASED FATHER, IS QUITE NATURAL, AND THEY ARE POSSIBLE EYEWITNESSES. THEY ARE NOT TO BE CATEGORISED AS INTERESTED WITNESSES. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT MERELY BECAUSE A PERSON IS A RELATED WITNESS OR SOLE WITNESS, THE COURT CANNOT REJECT SUCH EVIDENCE. OTHERWISE, THE SAME IS FOUND CREDIBLE. AS THE TRIAL COURT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE PROSECUTION CASE REGARDING THE ROLE PLAYED BY A4 AND A5 IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE, IT DOES NOT MEAN TO REJECT THE ENTIRE CASE. IT DOES NOT DEBAR THE COURT FROM SEPARATING THE TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD AND ACCEPTING A PART OF THE EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
THE APPELLANTS WERE CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC). THE PROSECUTION CASE WAS THAT ON 12.12.2011 AT 12.30 PM, WITH A COMMON INTENTION TO DO AWAY WITH THE LIFE OF LINGINENI MURALI BABU THEY OBSTRUCTED AND ATTACKED HIM WITH DEADLY WEAPONS AND CAUSED INJURIES NEAR HARIZANAWADA, MUTTUPALLI AND MURDERED HIM.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE OF EYEWITNESSES WAS CREDIBLE AND INSPIRING CONFIDENCE. NON-SUPPORTING SUCH A VERSION BY INDEPENDENT WITNESSES WOULD BE NO GROUNDS, TO DISCARD THEIR TESTIMONY. THE PRESENCE OF PWS.1 AND 2 AT THE SCENE OF THE OFFENCE, ALONG WITH THEIR DECEASED FATHER, IS QUITE NATURAL, AND THEY ARE POSSIBLE EYEWITNESSES. THEY ARE NOT TO BE CATEGORISED AS INTERESTED WITNESSES. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT MERELY BECAUSE A PERSON IS A RELATED WITNESS OR SOLE WITNESS, THE COURT CANNOT REJECT SUCH EVIDENCE. OTHERWISE, THE SAME IS FOUND CREDIBLE. AS THE TRIAL COURT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE PROSECUTION CASE REGARDING THE ROLE PLAYED BY A4 AND A5 IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE, IT DOES NOT MEAN TO REJECT THE ENTIRE CASE. IT DOES NOT DEBAR THE COURT FROM SEPARATING THE TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD AND ACCEPTING A PART OF THE EVIDENCE.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE OF EYEWITNESSES WAS CREDIBLE AND INSPIRING CONFIDENCE? 2. WHETHER THE PRESENCE OF PWS.1 AND 2 AT THE SCENE OF THE OFFENCE, ALONG WITH THEIR DECEASED FATHER, IS QUITE NATURAL, AND THEY ARE POSSIBLE EYEWITNESSES? 3. WHETHER THEY ARE TO BE CATEGORISED AS INTERESTED WITNESSES? 4. WHETHER MERELY BECAUSE A PERSON IS A RELATED WITNESS OR SOLE WITNESS, THE COURT CANNOT REJECT SUCH EVIDENCE? 5. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE PROSECUTION CASE REGARDING THE ROLE PLAYED BY A4 AND A5 IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE, IT DOES NOT MEAN TO REJECT THE ENTIRE CASE? 6. WHETHER IT DOES NOT DEBAR THE COURT FROM SEPARATING THE TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD AND ACCEPTING A PART OF THE EVIDENCE?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. THE EVIDENCE OF EYEWITNESSES WAS CREDIBLE AND INSPIRING CONFIDENCE. NON-SUPPORTING SUCH A VERSION BY INDEPENDENT WITNESSES WOULD BE NO GROUNDS, TO DISCARD THEIR TESTIMONY. 2. THE PRESENCE OF PWS.1 AND 2 AT THE SCENE OF THE OFFENCE, ALONG WITH THEIR DECEASED FATHER, IS QUITE NATURAL, AND THEY ARE POSSIBLE EYEWITNESSES. 3. THEY ARE NOT TO BE CATEGORISED AS INTERESTED WITNESSES. 4. MERELY BECAUSE A PERSON IS A RELATED WITNESS OR SOLE WITNESS, THE COURT CANNOT REJECT SUCH EVIDENCE. OTHERWISE, THE SAME IS FOUND CREDIBLE. 5. AS THE TRIAL COURT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE PROSECUTION CASE REGARDING THE ROLE PLAYED BY A4 AND A5 IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE, IT DOES NOT MEAN TO REJECT THE ENTIRE CASE. 6. IT DOES NOT DEBAR THE COURT FROM SEPARATING THE TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD AND ACCEPTING A PART OF THE EVIDENCE.
Final Decision: THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WAS CONFIRMED.
JUDGMENT :
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
1. The appellants herein are accused nos.1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.119 of 2013, who faced the trial for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). By its Judgment dated 08.06.2015, the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, convicted A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC. Accordingly, it sentenced each to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of rupees one thousand each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months each.
2. We may note that by the impugned Judgment, A.4 and A.5 were found not guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted. The state has not preferred the appeal against the acquittal.
3. The substance of the charge against A1 to A5 is that on 12.12.2011 at 12.30 PM, with a common intention to do away with the life of Lingineni Murali Babu they obstructed and attacked him with deadly weapons and caused injuries near Harizanawada, Muttupalli and murdered him.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief, as disclosed by the material prosecution witnesses, is that, P.W.1-Lingineni Surendra and P.W.2-Lingineni Suresh are the brothers and sons of the deceased. PWs.1 and 2 are residents of Edupalli Village of Nagaram Mandal. The deceased was a native of Linginenivaripalem of Nizampatnam Mandal but shifted his residence to Edupalli about 18 years back. The deceased herein was one of the accused in a murder case about 18 years back. The junior paternal uncle of A1 was deceased in that case. Both the parties compromised in that case, and said case ended in acquittal.
5. According to P.W.1, on 12.12.2011, in the early hours, he and his brother Suresh went to the fields to attend work. At about 08.00 AM, his father brought tiffin for them, and they all had tiffin at their fields. About 12.15hours after completion of work, they were returning home for lunch, he and his father were coming on one cycle, and his brother P.W.2 was coming on another cycle. When they reached Muttupalli Harizanawada, A2 called his father 'Babai' while arriving on a motorcycle. Then he turned back. A3 and A4 came in front of him, putting their bike across. Due to fear, his father got down the cycle and started running towards their village. By running, A.1 picked out the knife and stabbed his father in the head. A2 got down from the bike and hacked his father on his nape and his hands. When he and his brother tried to rescue their father, they threatened to kill him by showing the knife, and his father died on the spot. A.1 to A.4 ran towards Nizampet's side on their bike, and he lodged Ex.P.1 report containing the signature.
6. According to P.W.14, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nizampatnam, on 12.12.2011 at 01.30 PM, he received the report (Ex.P1). Based on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.44 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of IPC. He informed the in-charge Circle Inspector of Police about the crime's registration. Ex.P10 is the First Information Report.
7. According to P.W.15 - A.V. Suresh Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police, on the instructions of Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bapatla, took up an investigation. He rushed to the scene of the offence at Muttupalli Harizanwada at 02.30 PM and secured the mediators, i.e., P.W.13 Karra Ravi Kumar and L.W.15 P. Ramakrishna Reddy, examined the scene of the crime. There was a dead body of one Lingineni Murali Babu lying in a pool of blood on the roadside between the church under construction and the house of one Merugupala David, and got prepared the Ex.P6 scene observation report. At the scene, he seized material objects, secured a photographer, and got taken Exs.P11 to P15 photos with a CD of the dead body of the deceased lying at the scene. He prepared Ex.P16 rough sketch of the scene of the offence. He secured the mediator L.W.16 - M. Sambasiva Rao and conducted an inquest over the de
THE EVIDENCE OF EYEWITNESSES IS CREDIBLE AND INSPIRING CONFIDENCE. NON-SUPPORTING SUCH A VERSION BY INDEPENDENT WITNESSES WOULD BE NO GROUNDS, TO DISCARD THEIR TESTIMONY. THE PRESENCE OF PWS.1 AND 2 ....
The court ruled that eyewitness evidence, despite familial bias, may be credible; thus, a conviction under Section 304(i) IPC was appropriate, reflecting mitigating circumstances and reevaluating the....
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
When evidence of eye-witnesses are not trust worthy to believe, then motive place an important role to prove guilt of accused.
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness accounts, asserting that discrepancies did not undermine the prosecution's case.
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
