[NON-REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1274 OF 2009

Anisetti Veerabhadra Rao & Anr.                 ..Appellants

Vs.

State of A.P. ..Respondent

O R D E R

1. This appeal arises out of the following facts :-

Four persons, A-1-Anisetti Veerabhadra Rao, A-2-Anisetti Venkata  

Ramana, A-3-Anisetti Ramulu and A-4-Anisetti Sesharatnam were  

put on trial for offences punishable under Section 448 read with  

Section 34, 302 and 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian  

Penal Code.  As per the prosecution story the four accused were  

closely related to each other; A-1 and A-2 being the sons of A-3  

and A-4.  The houses of the accused and that of Yanamandra Subba  

Rao since deceased were separated by a path.  A-3 had hired the  

tractor belonging to the deceased about 5 or 6 years prior to  

the date of occurrence and he was to pay him a sum of Rs.3000/-  

towards the hire charges but as this amount had not been paid  

over a period of time, PW-10-Kona Bapiraju intervened in the  

dispute and pursuant to a settlement, A-3 had paid the hire  

charges.  The accused were however slighted and aggrieved as  

they felt that a personal dispute had been made public by the  

deceased and as a consequence of this ill-will, A-1 and A-2 had  

often threatened him with dire consequences.  At about 6:00 p.m.

on the 12th August, 2001 the deceased was sitting in front of his  

house when A-1 and A-2 attacked him.  He attempted to ward off  

the blows but his right hand got severed in that process.  A-1  

and  A-2  thereafter  caused  several  other  injuries  to  the  

deceased.  The mother of the deceased, PW-1-Surya Prakasamma,  

rushed to the site, on hearing the noise.  She noticed that A-3  

and A-4 too were standing outside the house of the deceased.  

The  incident  was  also  seen  by  PW-3-Kada  Subrahmanyam,  Subba  

Rao’s servant .  PW-3 then rushed to the house of PW-5-Vithanala  

Ganiraju who came to the scene and the deceased, who was then  

alive, told him that he had been attacked by A-1 and A-2.  PW’s  

1, 3 and 5 thereafter shifted him to the Government Hospital  

Kakinada in a car owned by PW-11-Madhavarapu Ramachandrarao @  

Rajababu and on the way PW-2-Yanamandra Venkateswara Sidhanthi,  

Yanamandra Subba Rao’s brother also joined them.  On an enquiry  

by PW-2, Subba Rao told him that he had been injured by A-1 and  

A-2.  After the injured had reached the hospital, PW-16-Dr. K.  

Appalacharyulu,  Civil  Assistant  Surgeon  of  the  Government  

General Hospital, Kakinada, sent intimation to the police post  

on  which  PW-19-K.V.  Raghavulu,  Head  Constable  reached  the  

casualty ward and recorded Subba Rao’s statement  Exhibit-P-18.  

On the basis of the information received by the police, a case  

under Sections 448 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian  

Penal Code was registered. PW-17-Dr. B. Rangarao of the casualty  

department in the hospital also requisitioned the services of a

Magistrate to record the statement of Subba Rao, on which PW-14-

K. Chandrasekhara Rao, Special Mobile Magistrate, reached the  

hospital  and  recorded  the  dying  declaration  Exhibit  P-12 in  

which  he  stated  that  the  first  and  third  sons  of  A-3  had  

attacked him.  Subba Rao was thereafter referred to the Care  

hospital  on  the  13th August,  2001  where  he  succumbed  to  his  

injuries the next day at 10:00 a.m.  The offence under Section  

307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was altered to  

one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.  The accused  

were also arrested during the course of the investigation and  

several weapons were recovered at their instance.

2. The trial court relying on the eye-witness account of PWs-

1, 3 and 4 and on the two dying declarations, one recorded by  

the police officer and the other by the Magistrate, convicted A-

1 and A-2 for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 302 of  

the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment  

for one year and life respectively.  A-3 and A-4 were, however,  

acquitted.  

3. Aggrieved  by  the  judgment  of  the  trial  court,  the  

appellants herein filed an appeal before the High Court. During  

the course of arguments on the 27th January, 2006 the High Court  

found that the statements of the appellants under Section 313 of

the Criminal Procedure Code had not been properly recorded as  

all  

the  incriminating  circumstances  had  not  been  put  together,  

particularly the dying declaration Exhibit P-12.  The matter was  

thereafter  remitted  to  the  trial  court  for  framing  fresh  

questions with regard to the dying declarations Exhibit P-12 and  

P-18.   

The trial court recorded the statements of the appellants on the  

17th May, 2006 by putting question Nos.88 to 94 to them with  

reference to the two dying declarations.  The appellants stated  

that they were the fourth and second sons of their parents and  

they also filed several documents including birth certificates  

with respect to their identities.  The trial court, however,  

chose not to rely on these documents as they had been produced  

at a belated stage and also observed that this evidence was not  

trustworthy.  The appellants were again sentenced to undergo six  

months  rigorous  imprisonment  under  Section  448  and  to  life  

imprisonment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.  An  

appeal was thereafter filed before the High Court impugning the  

judgment on remand made by the Sessions Court.  This appeal too  

has been dismissed, leading to the present appeal before us.   

4. Before us today, the learned counsel for the appellants has  

reiterated the stand of the appellants taken in the High Court  

that in the dying declaration  Exhibit P-12, the deceased had  

made a statement that the appellants were the first and third  

sons of A-3 but in the light of the evidence on record it was

clear that they were infact the second and fourth sons of A-3,  

and  as  such  their  very  identification  was  in  doubt.  It  has  

further  been  highlighted  that  as  the  incident  had  happened  

during the hours of darkness it could not have been possible for  

PW-1 and PW-3 to have identified the appellants.  It has also  

been submitted that the two dying declarations were discrepant  

in material particulars and that they too could not be relied  

upon.

5. The learned counsel for the State has, however, supported  

the judgment of the trial court and has contended that there was  

absolutely no reason whatsoever to discard the evidence of PW-1  

and PW-3 and as the incident had happened at about 6:30 p.m. and  

as darkness had not fully set in, there could be no mistake as  

to  the  identity  of  the  as  the  rival  parties  as  they  were  

neighbours.   It  has  also  been  submitted  that  the  dying  

declarations had been recorded by entirely independent observers  

and that there was no material difference between the two.  It  

has further been pleaded that the medical evidence supported the  

ocular version.

6. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  

considered the arguments advanced by them.  We find that there  

is no material difference between the two dying declarations  

Exhibits P-12 and P-18.  In  Exhibit P-18, which is earlier in  

point of time and which had been recorded at about 9:15 p.m. on

the 12th August, 2001 in the presence of the medical officer who  

had  

attested the same, the deceased had specifically named the two  

appellants as his assailants.  The dying declaration Exhibit P-

12 was  recorded  about  an  hour  later  in  which  the  deceased  

referred to the accused as the eldest and the third sons, but  

otherwise he virtually reiterated what he had said in the dying  

declaration  Exhibit P-18.  As a consequence of this somewhat  

uncertain  identification,  the  High  Court,  had  at  the  first  

instance, remanded the matter to the Sessions Court to render an  

opinion afresh.  The Sessions Court, on a reconsideration of the  

evidence now produced on behalf of the appellants, held that the  

plea that the appellants were the first and third sons of their  

parents  could  not  be  accepted  as  this  defence  was  an  after  

thought  and  more  particularly  as  the  appellants  had  been  

specifically named as the assailants in the dying declaration  

Exhibit P-18.   

7. In  any  case,  we  have  absolutely  no  doubt  that  the  

prosecution story is even otherwise proved by the evidence of  

PW-1, the mother of the deceased and PW-3, a servant of the  

deceased.  The medical evidence clearly supports the eye-witness  

account.  The deceased had 13 injuries on his person most of  

them incised wounds which could have been caused with a cutting  

weapon.  It is also evident that PWs 1 & 3 presence at the spot  

was natural as the incident had happened in the house of the

deceased at about 6:30 p.m.  For this reason also there could be  

no confusion about the identity of the appellants.   

8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in  

the appeal.  Dismissed.

……………………………..J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

……………………………..J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

JANUARY 25, 2011, NEW DELHI.