G. Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1983
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.82 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.A.Nos. 1086-88 of 1980)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.82 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.A.Nos. 1086-88 of 1980)
Petitioner: G. Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors.
Respondent: The State of Andhra Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1983
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.82 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.A.Nos. 1086-88 of 1980)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.82 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.A.Nos. 1086-88 of 1980)
Judges: R.M. SAHAI & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 05, 1994
Appearances:
Mr. A.K. Sen, Senior Advocate Mr. A. Subba Rao and Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
Ms. K. Amreshwari, Senior Advocate and Mr. G. Prakash, Advocate with her for the Respondent.
Mr. R.K. Gupta and Mr.K.K. Gupta, Advocates for the Complainant.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code
Sections 302/149, 326- Murder – Evidence of disinterested and independent witness believed and conviction of one accused confirmed – Other accused admitted as statement of witness about murder weapon not believed.
Held:
Held that Accused A5 had been identified in the court as the person who had caused the head injury to the deceased with a ponnukara. As these two witnesses have been accepted as disinterested and independent and nothing has been brought to our notice to disbelieve them, we uphold the conviction of A5 under Section 302. (Para 7)
Held that we have not felt inclined to accept the evidence of PW3 and PW5 about A.14 causing stab injury at the back with the peishcup. It is not enough to sustain the conviction of A.14 under Section 302 which would see him behind the bars for life, because that injury could not have been caused by a ponnukara with which he was said to have been armed – We therefore set aside his conviction under S. 302.
JUDGEMENT:
HANSARIA, J.:
1. 30th January, which is an auspicious day for the people of India, turned an ominous day for the family of Krishnareddy as it was on that day of the year 1980 at about noon that he met his end in Annapurna Hotel belonging to PW4. Krishnareddy was not expected to be at the hotel at that time, but per chance he happened to be there, so also the accused persons, who belong to a different faction. Prosecution case is that Krishnareddy was belaboured by as many as 21 persons causing large number of injuries resulting in his spot death. The FIR, however, came to be lodged after two and a half hours after the matter had been discussed in detail by PW1 with one Loyashayya, which set the police in action resulting in booking of 21 persons for trial under various sections of law including 302/149. During the course of the trial, A 11 died and 15 accused were acquitted. The remaining 5 came to be convicted, of whom, A5 and 14 under section 302; and A1, 10 and 11 under section 326. For the offence of 302 the punishment of imprisonment of life was awarded and for the other offence RI for 3 years.
2. The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal; so too the convicted persons. The High Court heard both the appeals together and dismissed both. There is no appeal against acquittal of 15 accused persons. In this appeal, we are concerned with the legality of conviction of the aforesaid five accused persons.
3. We may take up the cases of accused Nos. 1,10 and 12 first. Having heard Shri Subba Rao for them, we do not find any infirmity in the conviction of these appellants. Keeping, however, in view the fact that the occurrence is of 1980 and these appellants have been on bail since 1983 pursuant to the order of this Court and each of them has already undergone imprisonment for a year or so, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
4. Insofar as A 14 is concerned, his conviction has come to be sustained by the High Court by relying on what was deposed by PWs 1,2,3 and 5. Shri Sen, the learned senior counsel appearing for him, has submitted that in view of the fact that A14 was the leader of the rival faction, the evidence of these persons has to be scrutinised very carefully, and if this would be done then on the basis of what has been deposed by these 4 PWs, it cannot be held for definite that A14 had caused the injury at the back of the deceased with peishcup as has been deposed by them. As to PW1 it is urged that even courts below did not find him reliable. The same submission is advanced regarding PW2. Perusal of the judgment of the trial court as well as of the High Court would bear this submission of Shri Sen. Smt. Amareswari, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State, would not like us, in any case, to discared the evidence of PWs 3 and 5 and as they did not belong to either of the factions, and so, have to be taken as disinterested witnesses. They cannot, however, be so taken because it has been observed even by the High Court that PW3, though not associated with the faction, was involved in some nuisance cases and also in the sessions cases prior to the instant. It is because of this that an observation has been made that though the presence of this witness at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted his evidence should be strictly scrutinised. The High Court had made the same observation regarding PW5, which was, of course , for the reason that he was associated with the deceased in party politics. This observation assumes significance because earlier the High Court had characterised PWs 4, 6 and 9 as disinterested, independent and truthful. There is no dispute that none of these latter witnesses has specifically deposed that the stab injury at the back, injury No. 6 (or 11) as numbered by the autopsy surgeon, had been caused by A14. The importance of this is that both the courts below have not accepted the prosecution case of the death being caused in pursuit of the common object or in furtherance of common intention.
5. No doubt, PWS 3 and 5 have deposed that A14 had caused the stab injury at the back with peishcup, we have not felt inclined to accept this because in their evidence both these witnesses had also stated that A14 was armed with a ponnukara, and not with a peishcup. Smt. Amareswari submits that a peishcup being a dagger like instrument could have been kept concealed and because of this it might have missed the notice of these witnesses. We have not felt inclined to accept this submission because some of the PWs had stated about some other accused being armed with peishcup, and if A-14 would have been similarly armed, the witnesses would have noticed the same as well.
6. The mere fact that a stab injury was found at the back of the deceased and PWs 3 and 5 deposed about A-14 having given a stab injury at the back, is not enough to sustain the conviction of A14 under section 302 which would see him behind the bars for life, because that injury could not have been caused by a ponukarra with which he was said to have been armed. We, therefore, set aside his conviction under section 302.
7. Insofar as A5 is concerned, PW6 has specifically attributed the authorship of the injury in question to him. PW9 had identified A5 in the court as the person who had caused the head injury to the deceased with a ponnukara. As these two witnesses have been accepted as disinterested and independent and nothing has been brought to our notice to disbelieve them, we uphold the conviction of A5 under section 302. The sentences being imprisonment for life has to be sustained; the same being minimum provided by law.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed qua A5, allowed as regards A14 and as to the three others, while maintaining their conviction under section 326, their sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
1. 30th January, which is an auspicious day for the people of India, turned an ominous day for the family of Krishnareddy as it was on that day of the year 1980 at about noon that he met his end in Annapurna Hotel belonging to PW4. Krishnareddy was not expected to be at the hotel at that time, but per chance he happened to be there, so also the accused persons, who belong to a different faction. Prosecution case is that Krishnareddy was belaboured by as many as 21 persons causing large number of injuries resulting in his spot death. The FIR, however, came to be lodged after two and a half hours after the matter had been discussed in detail by PW1 with one Loyashayya, which set the police in action resulting in booking of 21 persons for trial under various sections of law including 302/149. During the course of the trial, A 11 died and 15 accused were acquitted. The remaining 5 came to be convicted, of whom, A5 and 14 under section 302; and A1, 10 and 11 under section 326. For the offence of 302 the punishment of imprisonment of life was awarded and for the other offence RI for 3 years.
2. The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal; so too the convicted persons. The High Court heard both the appeals together and dismissed both. There is no appeal against acquittal of 15 accused persons. In this appeal, we are concerned with the legality of conviction of the aforesaid five accused persons.
3. We may take up the cases of accused Nos. 1,10 and 12 first. Having heard Shri Subba Rao for them, we do not find any infirmity in the conviction of these appellants. Keeping, however, in view the fact that the occurrence is of 1980 and these appellants have been on bail since 1983 pursuant to the order of this Court and each of them has already undergone imprisonment for a year or so, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
4. Insofar as A 14 is concerned, his conviction has come to be sustained by the High Court by relying on what was deposed by PWs 1,2,3 and 5. Shri Sen, the learned senior counsel appearing for him, has submitted that in view of the fact that A14 was the leader of the rival faction, the evidence of these persons has to be scrutinised very carefully, and if this would be done then on the basis of what has been deposed by these 4 PWs, it cannot be held for definite that A14 had caused the injury at the back of the deceased with peishcup as has been deposed by them. As to PW1 it is urged that even courts below did not find him reliable. The same submission is advanced regarding PW2. Perusal of the judgment of the trial court as well as of the High Court would bear this submission of Shri Sen. Smt. Amareswari, the learned senior counsel appearing for the State, would not like us, in any case, to discared the evidence of PWs 3 and 5 and as they did not belong to either of the factions, and so, have to be taken as disinterested witnesses. They cannot, however, be so taken because it has been observed even by the High Court that PW3, though not associated with the faction, was involved in some nuisance cases and also in the sessions cases prior to the instant. It is because of this that an observation has been made that though the presence of this witness at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted his evidence should be strictly scrutinised. The High Court had made the same observation regarding PW5, which was, of course , for the reason that he was associated with the deceased in party politics. This observation assumes significance because earlier the High Court had characterised PWs 4, 6 and 9 as disinterested, independent and truthful. There is no dispute that none of these latter witnesses has specifically deposed that the stab injury at the back, injury No. 6 (or 11) as numbered by the autopsy surgeon, had been caused by A14. The importance of this is that both the courts below have not accepted the prosecution case of the death being caused in pursuit of the common object or in furtherance of common intention.
5. No doubt, PWS 3 and 5 have deposed that A14 had caused the stab injury at the back with peishcup, we have not felt inclined to accept this because in their evidence both these witnesses had also stated that A14 was armed with a ponnukara, and not with a peishcup. Smt. Amareswari submits that a peishcup being a dagger like instrument could have been kept concealed and because of this it might have missed the notice of these witnesses. We have not felt inclined to accept this submission because some of the PWs had stated about some other accused being armed with peishcup, and if A-14 would have been similarly armed, the witnesses would have noticed the same as well.
6. The mere fact that a stab injury was found at the back of the deceased and PWs 3 and 5 deposed about A-14 having given a stab injury at the back, is not enough to sustain the conviction of A14 under section 302 which would see him behind the bars for life, because that injury could not have been caused by a ponukarra with which he was said to have been armed. We, therefore, set aside his conviction under section 302.
7. Insofar as A5 is concerned, PW6 has specifically attributed the authorship of the injury in question to him. PW9 had identified A5 in the court as the person who had caused the head injury to the deceased with a ponnukara. As these two witnesses have been accepted as disinterested and independent and nothing has been brought to our notice to disbelieve them, we uphold the conviction of A5 under section 302. The sentences being imprisonment for life has to be sustained; the same being minimum provided by law.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed qua A5, allowed as regards A14 and as to the three others, while maintaining their conviction under section 326, their sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
