IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not and cannot be a substitute for a regular appeal where the same is not provided for by the law.
2. An appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not a regular appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court. The appellant cannot seek reversal of views taken by the Courts below simply because another view was possible on the evidence adduced in the case.
3. In cases based on eye witness account of the incident proof or absence of a motive is not of any significant consequence.
4. Once the deposition of eye-witnesses examined at the trial is accepted as trustworthy the non-examination of other witnesses would become inconsequential.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860- Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act-Prosecution of accused persons A1 to A5 and five others for hurling bombs at jeep of deceased and assaulting him with hunting sickles thereby causing his death-Trial Court while convicting A1 to A5 acquitted other co accused persons-Appeal –Dismissed by High Court-Appeals- Right from the stage of lodging of FIR till recording of depositions in the court political rivalry was said to be the motive for killing of deceased- Again appellants were unable to demonstrate that correction of First Information Report No.84 to 85 suggested any distortion in the prosecution case or prove that the first information report was false or ante timed- Depositions of eye witnesses PWs 1 to 3clear and free from any embellishments hence completely reliable-Difficult to believe that witnesses who were closely related to deceased would screen the real offenders and falsely implicate appellants only because of political rivalry between the two groups-Nothing in the examination of eye- witnesses from which court may infer that injuries found in post mortem examination of deceased could not have been caused by sharp edged sickles that accused were carrying with them and are said to have used in the course of the incident - Non-examination of driver of jeep not, made any dent in the prosecution case - Non-seizure of Jeep made no difference to veracity of prosecution case- No reason to interfere with view taken by courts below-Appeals dismissed. (Paras 20 to 36)
        Criminal Trial-Absence of motive-In cases based on eye witness account of the incident proof or absence of a motive is not of any significant consequence-If a motive is proved it may support the prosecution version- But existence or otherwise of a motive plays a significant role in cases based on circumstantial evidence-The prosecution in the instant case examined as many as five eye witnesses in support of its case that deceased was done to death by appellants. – Held If the depositions giving eye witness account of incident that led to the death of deceased were indeed reliable as the same had been found to be, by Trial Court and first appellate Court, absence of a motive would make little difference (Para 13)
        Criminal Trial –Delay in lodging FIR- A report regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, lodged within an hour of the incident cannot be said to be so inordinately delayed as to give rise to a suspicion that delay - if at all the time lag can be described to be constituting delay, was caused because the complainant, resorted to deliberations and consultations with a view to presenting a distorted, inaccurate or exaggerated version of the actual incident-Instantly No suggestion was made to PW1 first informant that he delayed lodging of report because he held any consultation in order to present a false or distorted picture of incident-A promptly lodged report may also at times be inaccurate or distorted just as a delayed report may despite the delay remain a faithful version of what had actually happened- It is the totality of the circumstances that would determine whether the delay long or short has in any way affected truthfulness of the report lodged in a given case- The credibility of a report cannot be judged only by reference to days, hours or minutes it has taken to reach the police station concerned- Viewed thus credibility of report was not affected on account of the so called delay of one hour in lodging of the complaint (Para 18)
       Facts of the Case :
        Accused persons A1 to A5 and five others were prosecuted herein in the instant case for hurling bombs at jeep of deceased and assaulting him with hunting sickles thereby causing his death. Trial Court while convicting A1 to A5 acquitted other co accused persons. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
        2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Right from the stage of lodging of FIR till recording of depositions in the court political rivalry was said to be the motive for killing of deceased. Prosecution case that accused appellants had a motive for commission of the offence alleged against them thus stood satisfactorily proved. Again appellants were unable to demonstrate that correction of First Information Report No.84 to 85 suggested any distortion in the prosecution case or prove that the first information report was false or ante timed. Depositions of eye witnesses PWs 1 to 3 were clear and free from any embellishments hence were held completely reliable.It was held Difficult to believe that witnesses who were closely related to deceased would screen the real offenders and falsely implicate appellants only because of political rivalry between the two groups. There was Nothing in the examination of eye- witnesses from which court may infer that injuries found in post mortem examination of deceased could not have been caused by sharp edged sickles that accused were carrying with them and are said to have used in the course of the incident . Non-examination of driver of jeep not, made any dent in the prosecution case. Non-seizure of Jeep made no difference to veracity of prosecution case. Held that there was no reason to interfere with view taken by courts below. Appeals were dismissed.

JUDGMENT

T.S. Thakur, J.

1. Political rivalry at times degenerates into personal vendetta where principles and policies take a back seat and personal ambition and longing for power drive men to -commit the foulest of deeds to avenge defeat and to settle scores. These appeals by special leave present a somewhat similar picture and assail the judgment and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur of Gooty and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in appeal. The prosecution case may be summarised as under:

2. Gosu Ramchandra Reddy (A1) and his two brothers Gosu Jayarami Reddy (A2) & Gosu Jayaranga Reddy (A3) together with Gosu Rameshwar Reddy (A4) and Gosu Rajagopal Reddy (A5) sons of Gosu Ramchandra Reddy (A1) all residents of village Aluru of Anantapur District in the State of A.P. were political activists owing their allegiance to the Telugu Desam Party. The opposite group active in the region and owing allegiance to the Congress party comprised Shri Midde Chinna Pulla Reddy (deceased) his son Shri M. Sanjeeva Reddy (PW1) and his two nephews M. Rammohan Reddy (PW2) and M. Veeranjaneyuly (PW3); all residents of village Kaveti Samudram in the District of Anantpur. -

3. Elections to MPTC/ZPTC were held in July 2001 which saw Gosu Jayaranga Reddy (A3) contesting for M.P.T.C. from Virapuram village, while Gosu Ramchandra Reddy (A1) sought election from the neighbouring Yerraguntapalli village. Both of them were set up by Telugu Desam Party. Electoral contest took a bitter turn when the duo mentioned above sought the support of the deceased M. Chinna Pulla Reddy which he declined for he claimed to be a staunch congressman committed to supporting the candidate set up by his party. It so happened that A1 and A3 were both defeated at the hustings.

4. The accused did not, according to the prosecution, reconcile to the defeat. Instead they started nursing a grudge against M. Chinna Pulla Reddy who was in their view the cause of their humiliation in the electoral battle. The animosity arising out of the electoral debacle of the two accused persons provided the motive for a murderous assault and resultant death of M. Chinna Pulla Reddy on 31st July, 2001 at village Sajjaladinne where the deceased -had established a slab polishing factory in the name and style of Reddy & Reddy Slab Polishing factory.

5. The prosecution case is that the deceased Shri M. Chinna Pulla Reddy reached his house at Tadipatri from his village in a Tata Sumo Jeep alongwith his son M. Sanjeeva Reddy (PW1) and his nephews M. Rammohan Reddy (PW2) and M. Veeranjaneyuly (PW3). One Hanumanatha Reddy and Mabu also accompanied them. From there the deceased and his companions came to the Slab Polishing Factory at Sajjaladinne at about 5.00 p.m. Hardly had Ganur Shankar the driver of the jeep parked the jeep at the factory office when A1 to A5 entered the factory from the main gate, with A2 carrying bombs and A1 & A3 to A5 carrying hunting sickles. Coming closer, accused Gosu Jayarami Reddy (A2) hurled two bombs towards the Jeep out of which one fell and exploded on the bonnet of the Jeep while the other fell on its left side door and exploded thereby partially damaging the Jeep. The inmates of the Jeep ran for safety in different directions. The deceased also got down from the jeep and started running towards -the office room of the factory, when A-1 Gosu Ramchandra Reddy and A3 to A5 viz. Gosu Jayaranga Reddy, Gosu Rameshwar Reddy and Gosu Rajagopal Reddy attacked him with the hunting sickles which they were carrying. The prosecution case is that A1 Gosu Ramchanda Reddy hacked the deceased on his head, while A3 Gosu Jayaranga Reddy assaulted him on his neck. A4 Gosu Rameshwar Reddy and A5 Gosu Rajagopal Reddy also similarly hacked the deceased resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot. The entire incident is said to have been witnessed by M. Sanjeeva Reddy (PW1) from behind the workers room and by M. Ram Mohan Reddy (PW2) fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 699

Cases Referred (15)