Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 84 of 2011

Gangabhavani                              …Appellant

Versus

Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors.                             …Respondents

With  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 86 of 2011

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the impugned  

judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  at  

Hyderabad  dated  13.2.2007  passed  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  41  of  

2005, reversing the judgment and order dated 22.12.2004 passed by  

the Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in Sessions Case  

No.  374 of  2000,  by  which  and whereunder  the  respondents  were

Page 2

found guilty and convicted under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code,  

1860 (hereinafter referred as `the IPC’) and awarded a sentence of 2  

years each. A1 and A2 had been convicted for the offence punishable  

under Section 302 IPC and they were awarded life imprisonment with  

a  fine  of  Rs.500/-  and  in  default,  to  undergo  further  simple  

imprisonment for one month.  They were also convicted under the  

provisions  of  Section  3  of  the  Explosive  Substances  Act,  1908  

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1908’)  and had been awarded the  

sentence of 3 years with a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- respectively  

and, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month  

and  15  days  respectively.  They  had  further  been  convicted  under  

Section 5 of the Act 1908, and were awarded the punishment of three  

years  with  a  fine  of  Rs.500/-  each,  in  default  to  suffer  simple  

imprisonment  for  one  month.   A3  to  A6  had  been  convicted  and  

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-  

each under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and, in default of  

payment of fine, to undergo a further period of  simple imprisonment  

of one month each.  However, A3 was acquitted for the offence under  

Section 6 of the Act 1908.  A4 and A5 were further convicted under  

Sections 3 and 5 of the Act 1908 and awarded the punishment of 3  

2

Page 3

years on each count with a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default, to undergo  

a further period of imprisonment for one month.  However, all the  

sentences were directed to run concurrently.   

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:

A. On 4.12.1999, Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1), Y. Gangadhar Reddy  

(PW.2)  and  Y.  Gangabhavani  (PW.3)  were  working  in  their  

agricultural fields alongwith Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) and  

his brother Balagangi Reddy and others.   

B. Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) and his brother Balagangi  

Reddy supported the Congress-I  party in the elections held for  the  

State  Assembly,  while  the  accused  persons  supported  the  Telugu  

Desham Party (TDP).  There were ill feelings between two groups as  

there  existed  chronic  factionalism  between  the  families  of  the  

deceased  and  accused.   In  State  Assembly  elections,  the  political  

parties created pressure on their supporters to get maximum votes, by  

any means.  The accused persons were waiting for the opportunity to  

kill Balagangi  Reddy and Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased).  

C. On 4.12.1999, when PW.1 to PW.3 and some others were doing  

agricultural work in their fields alongwith  Y. Ramachandra Reddy  

3

Page 4

(deceased)  in  the  morning,  they  heard  weeping  cries  from  the  

agricultural field nearby. All of them rushed to that place and found  

that Rayapati  Narayana Reddy had died due to electrocution. After  

sometime, they returned to their fields and attended to their work.  At  

7.30  A.M.,  the  accused  Rayapati  Venkata  Reddy  (A1),  Rayapati  

Ramanjul Reddy (A2), Rayapati Bheema Reddy (A3), Korrapati Rami  

Reddy (A4), Korrapati Thimma Reddy (A5), Kadiyam Rami Reddy  

(A6),  Rayapati  Thirupathi  Reddy  (A7),  Rayapati  Pedda  Venkata  

Reddy  (A8),  Kadiyam  Rama  Subba  Reddy  (A9),  Rayapati  Pedda  

Venkata Reddy (A10), Rayapati Chinna Bali Reddy (A11), Rayapati  

Venkata Reddy (A12) and Chinnapureddy Bala Chenna Reddy (A13)  

came to the fields where PW.1 to PW.3, namely, Y. Eswara Reddy  

(PW.1),  Y. Gangadhar Reddy (PW.2) and Y. Gangabhavani Reddy  

(PW.3)  were working armed with deadly weapons like sticks, knives,  

bombs and sickles whistling war cries and hurling bombs with the  

intent to kill Ramachandra Reddy and Balagangi Reddy.  Balagangi  

Reddy fled his fields due to fear and was chased by A7 to A13. PW.1  

hid  himself  under  cheeky  bushes  near  his  field.   Y.  Ramachandra  

Reddy (deceased) fled on his cycle.  A2 hurled a bomb which fell on  

the cycle of the deceased and exploded causing the deceased to fall  

4

Page 5

from his  cycle.   A1 also hurled a  bomb which hit  the head of  Y.  

Ramachandra  Reddy.   His  head was  fractured  and he  died  due  to  

injuries.  A4 and  A5 also hurled bombs towards the deceased.   

D. PW.1 to PW.3 witnessed the same, however, failed to give a  

report immediately to the police due to fear of their lives.  Y. Eswara  

Reddy (PW.1) preferred a complaint to the police, thus, Case Crime  

No. 137 of 1999 of Muddanur PS was registered. S.V. Ramana, C.I.  

(PW.9) began investigation, and conducted the inquest over the dead  

body of the deceased in presence of R. Pedda Naidu (PW.4) and  M.  

Pratap Naidu (PW.7).  He also seized blood stained tar, control tar,  

bomb blast thread pieces and the cycle of the deceased.  Further, the  

Dhoti,  Banian  and  waist  thread  of  the  deceased  were  also  seized.  

Chappals  of  A5 which had been lying there were recovered in the  

presence of M. Pedda Aswartha Reddy (PW.5).  The dead body of Y.  

Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) was sent for post-mortem which was  

conducted by Dr. Y. Karunasree (PW.6) wherein it was opined that he  

died of shock due to a fracture of the skull bones and lacerations to  

brain matter.  The materials collected were sent for forensic analysis  

and  it  was  found  that  the  bombs  contained  Potassium,  Chlorate  

Chloride, Arsenic, Sulphide and Sulphate etc.  

5

Page 6

E. After  concluding  the  investigation,  a  chargesheet  was  filed  

against  A1 to A13.  During the trial,  the prosecution examined 14  

witnesses.  The accused in their statement under Section 313 of Code  

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’)  

denied  their  involvement  and submitted  that  they had been falsely  

implicated because  of  political  enmity.  The defence  also examined  

one Penugonda Sreenivasulu (DW.1), who claimed to have prepared  

the site plan (Ex.X-1) but not on the basis of scale measurement.   

F. On the basis of the evidence etc., the trial court found A1 to A6  

guilty  of  the  aforesaid  offences  and  awarded  them  sentences  as  

referred to hereinabove, however, A7 to A13 were acquitted.  

G. Aggrieved,  A1 to A6 filed Criminal  Appeal  No.  41 of  2005  

which has been allowed by the High Court.   

Hence, these appeals by the complainant as well as by the State  

of Andhra Pradesh.   

3. Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the  

State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  Shri  Huzefa  Ahmadi,  learned  senior  

counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant/complainant,  have  

submitted that the High Court acquitted the said respondents without  

any  justification.   The  High  Court  mainly  found  material  

6

Page 7

contradictions in  the evidence of  PW.1 to PW.3 and doubted their  

presence at the place of occurrence; considered the delay in lodging  

the FIR fatal;  found contradictions in  medical  evidence and ocular  

evidence; doubted the  witnessing of the occurrence as there could be  

no visibility because of the smoke created by the bombs at the time of  

explosion; PW.1 did not mention that A6 used a sickle in the FIR; and  

that only interested witnesses had been examined. It was contended  

that  the  High  Court  erroneously  did  the  same  even  though,  the  

contradictions in the medical and ocular evidence were insignificant  

and the contradictions in the statements of PWs 1 to 3 were minor in  

nature.  The findings of fact recorded by the High Court are perverse  

being based on no evidence.  Thus, the appeals deserve to be allowed  

and the judgment of the trial court deserves to be restored.   

4. Per contra, Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel appearing  

on behalf of the respondents, opposed the appeal contending that this  

Court  should  not  interfere  with  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  

keeping in mind the well settled parameters for interference with the  

order  of  acquittal.   The  High  Court  has  given  cogent  reasons  for  

acquittal of the respondents. The incident occurred in a faction-ridden  

village and, admittedly, there had been a political rivalry between the  

7

Page 8

parties.  The delay in lodging the FIR which is at about 3.00 P.M.,  

though the incident occurred at 7.00 A.M.– 7.30 A.M., was inordinate  

in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  police  had  arrived  at  the  scene  of  

occurrence  at  about  9.00  A.M.   The  FIR  was  lodged  after  due  

deliberation with political leaders.  Thus, no interference is called for  

and appeals are liable to be dismissed.  

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the records. Before deciding the  

factual controversies, we will first deal with LEGAL ISSUES:

APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL:

6. This Court has persistently emphasised that there are limitations  

while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases  

where  there  are  compelling  circumstances  and the  judgment  under  

appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with  

the order of  acquittal.  The appellate court  should bear in mind the  

presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal  

by  the  lower  Court  bolsters  the  presumption  of  his  innocence.  

Interference  in  a  routine  manner  where  the  other  view is  possible  

should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.

8

Page 9

CONTRADICTIONS IN MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND OCULAR  EVIDENCE:

7. It is a settled legal proposition  that where the evidence of the  

witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical  

evidence  or  the  evidence  of  the  ballistics  expert,  it  amounts  to  a  

fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless it is reasonably  

explained may discredit the entire case of the prosecution. However,  

the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on  

the subject. Such an opinion is required to be tested by the court. If the  

opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go  

by that opinion. After all an opinion is what is formed in the mind of a  

person regarding a particular fact situation. If one doctor forms one  

opinion and another  doctor  forms a  different  opinion on the  same  

facts, it is open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective  

or  probable.  Similarly,  if  the  opinion  given  by  one  doctor  is  not  

consistent or probable, the court has no liability to go by that opinion  

merely because it is given by the doctor. “It would be erroneous to  

accord  undue  primacy  to  the  hypothetical  answers  of  medical  

witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses’ account which had to be tested  

9

Page 10

independently and not treated as the ‘variable’ keeping the medical  

evidence as the ‘constant’ ”.

Where  the  eyewitnesses’  account  is  found  credible  and  

trustworthy,  a  medical  opinion  pointing  to  alternative  possibilities  

cannot be accepted as conclusive. The eyewitnesses’ account requires  

a  careful  independent  assessment  and evaluation  for  its  credibility,  

which should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other  

evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the  

test of such credibility.

(Vide:  Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727;  

State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, AIR 1999 SC 2005; Abdul Sayeed  

v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; and Rakesh v. State of M.P.,  

(2011) 9 SCC 698).

8.     Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction  

between medical evidence and ocular evidence stands crystallised to  

the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater  

evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence  

makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor  

in  the  process  of  the  evaluation  of  evidence.  However,  where  the  

10

Page 11

medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility  

of  the  ocular  evidence  being  true,  the  ocular  evidence  may  be  

disbelieved.

CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE:

9.    In State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, this Court after  

considering a large number of its earlier judgments held:  

“In  all  criminal  cases,  normal  discrepancies  are   bound to occur  in  the  depositions  of  witnesses  due  to   normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory   due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as   shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the   omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious   doubt  about  the  truthfulness  of  the  witness  and  other   witnesses  also  make  material  improvement  while   deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to   rely  upon.  However,  minor  contradictions,   inconsistencies,  embellishments  or  improvements  on   trivial  matters  which  do  not  affect  the  core  of  the   prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which   the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has   to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness   and  record  a  finding  as  to  whether  his  deposition   inspires confidence.

Exaggerations  per  se  do  not  render  the  evidence   brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility   of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is   put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of   credibility.

Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements   of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the   same may be elaborations of the statement made by the   witness  earlier.  The  omissions  which  amount  to   contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root   of  the  case/materially  affect  the  trial  or  core  of  the   prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness   liable to be discredited.”  

11

Page 12

A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Tehsildar Singh  

& Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012; Pudhu Raja & Anr. v.  

State, Rep.  by  Inspector  of  Police,  JT  2012 (9)  SC 252;  and  Lal  

Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 4 SCC 557).  

10. Thus, it is evident that in case there are minor contradictions in  

the depositions of the witnesses the same are bound to be ignored as  

the same cannot be dubbed as improvements and it is likely to be so as  

the statement in the court is recorded after an inordinate delay. In case  

the contradictions are so material that the same go to the root of the  

case,  materially affect  the trial or core of the prosecution case,  the  

court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and  

find out as to whether their depositions inspire confidence.  

EVIDENCE OF A RELATED/INTERESTED WITNESSES:

11.  It  is  a settled legal  proposition that  the evidence of  closely  

related  witnesses  is  required  to  be  carefully  scrutinised  and  

appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding  

the  convict/accused  in  a  given case.  Thus,  the  evidence  cannot  be  

disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each  

12

Page 13

other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it,  

is cogent,  credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be  

relied upon.

(Vide: Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of U.P.,  AIR 2011 SC 2292;  

and  Dhari & Ors. v. State of U. P., AIR 2013 SC 308).

12. In  State of Rajasthan v.  Smt. Kalki & Anr.  AIR 1981 SC  

1390, this Court held:  

“5A. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to   rely on the evidence of P.W. 1 on two grounds: (1) she   was  a  "highly  interested"  witness  because  she  "is  the   wife of the deceased"……For, in the circumstances of the   case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was   the only person present in the hut with the deceased at   the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw   the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased;   but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is   related to  the deceased.  'Related'  is  not  equivalent to   'interested.  A  witness  may  be  called  'interested'  only   when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a   litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an   accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one   and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances   of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant   case P.W.1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit,   and falsely implicating the respondents.”

          (Emphasis added)

(See also:  Chakali Maddilety & Ors.  v. State of A. P.,   AIR 2010  

SC 3473).

13

Page 14

13. In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P.,  AIR 2004 SC 5039,  

while dealing with the case this Court held:  

“7.  …..Murders are not committed with previous notice   to  witnesses;  soliciting  their  presence.  If  murder  is   committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house   are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street,   only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot   be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground   that  they  are  mere  'chance  witnesses'.  The  expression   'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every   man's home is considered his castle and everyone must   have  an  explanation  for  his  presence  elsewhere  or  in   another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression   in  a  country  where  people  are  less  formal  and  more   casual,  at  any  rate  in  the  matter  explaining  their   presence.”

14. In  view  of  the  above,  it  can  safely  be  held  that  natural  

witnesses  may  not  be  labelled  as  interested  witnesses.  Interested  

witnesses  are  those  who  want  to  derive  some  benefit  out  of  the  

litigation/case.  In case  the circumstances  reveal  that  a  witness was  

present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime,  

his  deposition  cannot  be  discarded  merely  on the  ground of  being  

closely related to the victim/deceased.  

DELAY IN LODGING FIR AND ITS CONTENTS:

15. The case of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely on the  

ground of delay in lodging the FIR.  The court has to examine the  

14

Page 15

explanation  furnished  by  the  prosecution  for  explaining  the  delay.  

There  may  be  various  circumstances  particularly  the  number  of  

victims,  atmosphere  prevailing  at  the  scene  of  incidence,  the  

complainant  may  be  scared  and  fearing  the  action  against  him  in  

pursuance  of  the  incident  that  has  taken place.   If  the  prosecution  

explains  the  delay,  the  court  should  not  reject  the  case  of  the  

prosecution solely on this ground.  Therefore, the entire incident as  

narrated by the witnesses has to be construed and examined to decide  

whether there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay which goes  

to the root of the case of the prosecution and even if there is some  

unexplained delay, the court has to take into consideration whether it  

can be termed as abnormal.   

(Vide:  P. Venkataswarlu v. State of A.P., AIR 2003 SC 574; and  

State of U.P. v. Munesh, AIR 2013 SC 147).   

16. It is also a settled legal proposition that merely not mentioning  

all  the  names  of  all  the  accused  or  their  overt  acts  elaborately  or  

details of injuries said to have been suffered, could not render the FIR  

vague or unreliable.  The FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all the facts.  

More so, it is quite natural that all the names and details may not be  

given in the FIR, where a large number of accused are involved.  

15

Page 16

NON-CROSS  EXAMINATION  OF  A  WITNESS  ON  A  PARTICULAR ISSUE:

17. This  Court  in  Laxmibai  (Dead)  Thr.  L.Rs.  &  Anr.  v.  

Bhagwanthuva (Dead)  Thr.  L.Rs.  &  Ors., AIR  2013  SC  1204  

examined  the  effect  of  non-cross  examination  of  witness  on  a  

particular fact/circumstance and held as under:

“31.  Furthermore,  there  cannot  be  any  dispute  with   respect  to the settled legal proposition,  that  if  a party   wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of   the  statement  of  a  witness,  the  said  witness  must  be   given  an  opportunity  to  explain  his  statement  by   drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been   objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without   this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a   law  has  been  advanced  in  view  of  the  statutory   provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act,   1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine   a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by   him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope   of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the   Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned,   inter-alia,  in order to test  his  veracity.  Thereafter,  the   unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon,   for  the  reason  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  witness  to   explain  or  elaborate  upon  any  doubts  as  regards  the   same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect   to the circumstances which indicate that the version of   events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the   witness himself,  is  unworthy of credit.  Thus,  if  a party   intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate   opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a   

16

Page 17

full  and  proper  explanation.  The  same  is  essential  to   ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses.”

                                                                                (Emphasis supplied)

(See also:  Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana,  JT 2013 (8) SC  

181; and Gian Chand & Ors. v. State of Haryana, JT 2013 (10) SC  

515).

18. Thus, it becomes crystal clear that the defence cannot rely on  

nor can the court base its finding on a particular fact or issue on which  

the witness has not made any statement in his examination-in-chief  

and the defence has not cross examined him on the said aspect of the  

matter.  

19. The case is thus, required to be examined with reference to the  

aforesaid legal propositions.  

Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1) submitted the complaint stating that  

they were working in their respective fields in the morning, and had  

gone to the neighbouring field after hearing the hue and cry and found  

that  one  Rayapati  Narayana  Reddy  had  died  due  to  electrocution.  

When they returned  and began to work in their field, the accused  

persons came there armed with sticks, knives, bombs and sickles and  

some  of  them  were  whistling  war  cries.  Y.  Ramachandra  Reddy  

17

Page 18

(deceased) and his brother Balagangi Reddy also came there.  The  

accused trespassed in their field and chased the deceased who escaped  

on his cycle.  A2 hurled a bomb at Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased)  

which hit him on the legs and he fell down from the cycle. A1 hurled  

a bomb which fell on the head of Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased)  

and A3, A4 and A5 also hurled bombs which fell in close proximity of  

Y.  Ramachandra  Reddy  (deceased).   A6  hacked  Y.  Ramachandra  

Reddy (deceased)  with a hunting sickle  on his  head.   The witness  

apprehended danger to his life and ran away and hid in the bushes.  

When  he  returned  he  did  not  find  any  person  at  the  scene  of  

occurrence.  He came to the village at 10.30 A.M.  The police took  

him into custody and took him to the agricultural field where Rayapati  

Narayana Reddy had died as the police suspected him to be involved  

in his murder. He wanted to lodge a complaint regarding the death of  

his brother, however, as the police was involved in settling down the  

tension in the village, he was told that  it would be registered after  

some time. He deposed that he was totally illiterate and was asked by  

the police to get the complaint written by somebody.  He submitted it  

later at about 1.00 P.M., though, it was shown at 3.00 P.M. He had  

18

Page 19

also  disclosed  that  the  two  groups  belonged  to  different  political  

parties and there was rivalry between them.   

20. The deposition of Y. Gangadhar Reddy (PW.2), the nephew of  

Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased), corroborated the evidence of Y.  

Eswara  Reddy  (PW.1)  regarding  the  death  of  Rayapati  Narayana  

Reddy who had died due to electrocution. They came back to their  

field and started working.   The accused persons came fully armed  

with  sticks,  knives,  bombs  and  sickles  and  some  of  them  were  

whistling war cries. Y. Balagangi Reddy ran towards Railway Gate.  

Narayanamma and Y. Gangabhavani (PW.3) followed him.  Accused  

A7 to A13 chased Balagangi Reddy.  Apprehending danger to his life,  

Y. Ramachandra Reddy escaped on his cycle.  A1 to A6  chased him.  

A2 threw a bomb which hit Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) on his  

legs. He fell down from the cycle.  A1 hurled another bomb which hit  

him on his  head and he suffered a  fracture.  A3 to A5 also hurled  

bombs but the same fell in his close proximity.  A6 was holding a  

sickle with which he hacked the head of deceased.  

21. Y.  Gangabhavani  (PW.3)  widow of  Y.  Ramachandra  Reddy  

(deceased),  duly  corroborated  the  evidence  of  Y.  Eswara  Reddy  

19

Page 20

(PW.1) and Y. Gangadhar Reddy (PW.2) by narrating the incident in  

the same manner. She also deposed about how her husband fell down  

from the cycle after being hit by the bomb which was hurled by A2.  

Bomb hurled by A1 hit him on his head, which caused fracture on the  

head of deceased. A3 to A5 hurled bombs which exploded by the side  

of her husband. A6 hacked on the left side of the head of her husband  

with a hunting sickle. She herself could not muster courage to come  

forward to save her husband rather,  she hid behind the bushes and  

came out only after the police arrived. She identified the clothes of her  

husband and other articles that belonged to him.   

22. Dr.  Y.  Karunasree  (PW.6)  conducted  the  post-mortem  

examination,  who  deposed  that  she  found  on  the  body  of  Y.  

Ramachandra Reddy, the following injuries:  

External Injuries:  

“1)  Crushed lacerated extensive injury involving bones  muscles, vessels, like soft tissues (including brain matter)  parts of skull and right side of the face. Hairy part of the  scalp including upper part of the cranium, both eye balls,  nose, upper jaw, brain matter blown off. Blackening of  the injured parts and surrounding tissues present. Clotting  present over wound edges.  

2)  Incised  injury 3x2 cms into bone deep size present  over left cheek extended and ended into injury No.1.  

20

Page 21

3) Crushed lacerated injury involving left eye ball, nose,  major part of the upper lip and sparing the lower lip.  

4)  Multiple  various  sized  splinter  injuries  present  over  right side of the chest and upper abdominal region with  blackening surrounding tissues. Clotting present over the  wound.    5) Multiple various sized small contusions present over  right  side back,  left  axillary's  region,  left  waist  region,  left  fore arm and upper arm and front of the left  knee  joint.  

6)  Multiple  various  sized  spinster  injuries  with  blackening of surrounding tissues present  over front of  the right upper limb, front and back of the right thigh and  back of left thigh.”

   She opined that deceased appeared to have died of shock due to  

fracture of skull bones and lacerations of brain matter.  In her opinion,  

death occurred 12 to 14 hours prior to her examination.  In her cross-

examination she deposed that:  

“… .Injury No.2 in EX.P-4 is possible by sharp edged  weapon  (Addl.  P.P.  shown  too  hunting  sickles  to  the  witness).   The  injury  No.2  is  possible  with  hunting  sickles shown to me Blackening mentioned in the Injury  No.4  due  to  explosion  bomb.  Injury  NO.5  may  be  possible  by falling on the ground. Injury NO.6 is  also  possible with explosion of bomb…..”  

23. M. Pratap Naidu (PW.7) was a panch witness in the inquest of  

the  dead  body  of  Y.  Ramachandra  Reddy  (deceased).  D.  Khader  

21

Page 22

Basha,  V.A.O., (PW.8) was taken by the police to the place of the  

occurrence.  There he found some bombs in a bucket and he signed  

some documents regarding the recovery of the same.  A1, A2 and A7  

were taken in the police custody in his presence. Some hunting sickles  

and other articles were also recovered from the accused.  

24. S.V. Ramana, C.I. (PW.9) is the police officer who received the  

complaint.  He deposed that he was posted at the concerned police  

station as an S.I.  He received vague information regarding the deaths  

at Kodigandlapalli village. In view thereof, he left the police station  

immediately at 9.40 A.M. and reached the place of occurrence.  Prior  

to his arrival, Inspector of Police, Mondapuram had already reached to  

the scene of the offence.   On the same day, he received a written  

complaint at 3.00 P.M., on the basis of which, an FIR was registered.  

In his cross-examination, he explained that when he reached the place  

of  occurrence,  he  asked  the  persons  present  there  to  submit  a  

complaint in writing but out of fear, nobody did the same.  He  

further  deposed  that  the  distance  between  the  village  and  police  

station was 16 Kms. He reiterated on being asked again in the cross-

examination that he tried his level best to get a complaint from a  

person not concerned with the faction, but no one came forward.  

22

Page 23

25.  S.M. Basha, H.C. (PW.10) is the investigating officer, incharge  

of  the  police  station  and  he  deposed  that  the  case  was  registered  

against  the  accused  persons  and  he  further  pointed  out  that  three  

murders had taken place and most of the police personnel had gone  

there and only one or two persons were left in the police station.  He  

also deposed that after getting the complaint, it was forwarded to the  

Magistrate’s Court which was received therein on 5.12.1999 at 1.20  

A.M.

 26. So far  as  P.  Sreenivasulu  (DW.1)  was concerned,  though he  

was  examined  by  the  defence,  he  did  not  depose  with  respect  to  

anything worth mentioning either in support of prosecution or of the  

defence.   

27. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the trial court came to the  

conclusion that there was some delay in lodging the FIR and came to  

the  conclusion  that  it  was  duly  established  from  the  evidence  of  

PWs.1  to  3  that  A1  to  A6  committed  the  offence  against  Y.  

Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) and their narration about the manner  

in  which the  offence  was committed,  could not  be doubted  as  the  

witnesses  have  identified  the  accused  persons  and material  objects  

23

Page 24

particularly M.O.1 to M.O.6.  The FSL report (Ex.P-8) also dealt with  

pieces of thread, blood stained tar road sample and control tar road  

sample contained in M.Os.1, 2, 4 and 7.  The aforesaid articles were  

the  result  of  the  explosion  of  a  mixture  containing  Potassium,  

Chlorate Chloride, Arsenic, Sulphide and Sulphate etc.  The court also  

dealt with other material objects contained in M.Os.9 and 11  and held  

that the accused had bombs that exploded and killed Y. Ramachandra  

Reddy (deceased) and, therefore, they were convicted.

28. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and found fault with  

the judgment of the trial Court and held that there were contradictions  

in medical evidence and ocular evidence. As per the evidence of Dr.  

Y. Karunasree (PW.6) who conducted the post-mortem examination,  

there were incised injuries 3x2 Cms., bone deep over the left cheek  

which was possible only by a sharp edged weapon. However, she did  

not  mention  in  her  cross-examination  which  weapon  could  have  

caused such an injury.   

29. In view of the fact that there is sufficient evidence on record  

that Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) was hacked with a hunting  

sickle and in such a case, A6 was convicted under Section 148 IPC,  

24

Page 25

the want of such an explanation is irrelevant.  The cause of death as  

opined by the medical evidence was shock due to fracture of skull  

bone  and  lacerations  to  the  brain  matter  and  that  in  normal  

circumstances  injury  Nos.  1  to  3  could  cause  death.  The  doctor  

specifically deposed that Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) died of a  

fracture of skull bones i.e. injury no. 1.  Dr. Y. Karunasree (PW.6)  

further explained that she did not mention the type of weapon used for  

the reason that she was not asked about the same.   However, she had  

clearly deposed that injury no. 2 could have been caused by a hunting  

sickle.    This  evidence  of  Dr.  Y.  Karunasree  (PW.6)  stood  fully  

corroborated by the version given by PWs. 1 to 3 who have clearly  

deposed that A6 hacked the deceased with hunting sickle on his head.  

30. In view thereof, we cannot concur with the finding recorded by  

the High Court on this aspect. The High Court has also taken note of  

the fact that the overt act assigned to A6 has not been mentioned in  

the FIR.  The evidence on record clearly revealed that A1 to A6 came  

armed  with  deadly  weapons  whistling  war  cries  and  chased  Y.  

Ramachandra Reddy (deceased). The trial court convicted A6 with the  

aid of Section 149 IPC and not independently for the reason that the  

trial  court  was  not  satisfied  that  A6 had hacked the  deceased.   D.  

25

Page 26

Khader  Basha,  V.A.O.,  (PW.8),  who  was  the  witness  to  the  

recoveries, deposed that seizure of hunting sickle etc. was made at the  

disclosure statement of the accused and he had signed the recovery  

memos for the same.   Thus, the observations made by the High Court  

in this regard cannot be approved.  

31. The High Court  erroneously  observed that  the  eye-witnesses  

did  not  speak  of  the  explosion  of  bombs  by  certain  accused  and,  

therefore, their presence at the place of occurrence was doubted and  

they could also not have seen the incident because of smoke from the  

explosion. Such a finding was totally unwarranted,  uncalled for and is  

perverse being based on no evidence.  Not a single question had been  

put to the eye-witnesses in this respect and, therefore, there is nothing  

on  record  to  show  that  their  visibility  was  impaired  due  to  the  

emanating of smoke and the said finding recorded by the High Court  

could be simply termed as illogical. The witnesses deposed that A3 to  

A5 also hurled the bombs which had fallen in close vicinity of the  

body of  Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) though they did not hit  

him.  It was specifically mentioned that bombs hurled by A1 and A2  

had hit him, therefore, it is clear that there is no discrepancy in the  

testimony of the eye-witnesses with respect to the overt acts of the  

26

Page 27

accused. More so, the High Court doubted the version given by Y.  

Eswara  Reddy  (PW.1)  that  out  of  fear  he  hid  himself  behind  the  

bushes and returned after some time and when he came back there, he  

did  not  find  any  person,  though,  in  his  cross-examination,  he  

explained that about two hundred persons gathered at the place of  

occurrence after the accused had left the place.  The evidence is to  

be  examined  considering  the  tension  prevailing  at  the  place  of  

occurrence.  It  is  natural  that  in  such  a  fact-situation  every  person  

would feel the apprehension of danger to his life and may run away.  

There may be some discrepancy in his evidence in cross-examination  

but it has to be examined while taking into consideration the evidence  

on record  as  a  whole.   As he  explained the  gathering of  a  crowd  

consisting of  approximately 200 persons,  may have been at  a later  

point of time.  Therefore, merely on the basis of such a statement his  

presence could not be doubted and his version could not be discarded.  

32. So far as the delay in lodging of FIR is concerned, it has to be  

considered in light of the prevailing circumstances on that fateful day  

when two persons were murdered and third died of electrocution. The  

incident occurred in a faction ridden village having only 80 houses.  

The accused persons used bombs etc. for killing two persons.  The  

27

Page 28

police arrived at 10 O’clock in the morning in the village.  Y. Eswara  

Reddy (PW.1) was taken into custody suspecting his involvement in  

the  murder  of  Rayapati  Narayana  Reddy  who  died  due  to  

electrocution.  Therefore,  in  such  a  fact-situation,  such  adverse  

inference  could  not  have  been  drawn and testimony of  Y.  Eswara  

Reddy (PW.1), who had submitted the FIR, since he was illiterate and,  

a rustic villager and did not know the niceties of law, could not be  

doubted.  When he lodged an oral complaint, he was asked to get it  

written by somebody and then present  it  for  lodging the FIR.  The  

police officials made it clear in their cross-examination that they had  

asked  persons  present  at  the  place  of  occurrence  to  give  a  

complaint  in  regard  to  the  incident  twice,  but  nobody  came  

forward to give it.  In view thereof, we do not think that a person  

who had lost two of his family members and had been suspected of  

being involved in the murder of Rayapati Narayana Reddy who died  

due  to  electrocution  alongwith  the  fact  that  no  other  person  was  

willing to submit a complaint, the delay of 6 hours, could be fatal,  

particularly in view of depositions of the eye-witnesses.   Thus,  the  

delay has been fully explained by the prosecution and there was no  

28

Page 29

occasion for the High Court to take it to be fatal to the case of the  

prosecution.   

33. There could be no reason for the eye-witnesses i.e. PWs 1 to 3,  

who had lost two of their family members, to falsely implicate the  

respondents and spare the real assailants.    

34. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the High Court  

are liable to be set aside being perverse. The appeals succeed and are  

allowed.  The judgment and order of the High Court dated 13.2.2007  

passed in Crl.Appeal No. 41 of 2005 is set aside, and judgment and  

order of the trial court dated 22.12.2004 passed in Sessions Case No.  

374/2000 is restored. The respondents are directed to surrender within  

a period of 4 weeks from today to serve out the remaining sentence,  

failing  which  the  learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Kadapa,  is  

requested to take them into custody and send them to jail to serve their  

left over sentences. A copy of this judgment be sent to the said court  

for information and compliance.   

                             ……..…………..…………J.                                  (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

                                 ………..……………..……J.                                  (S.A. BOBDE)

New Delhi, September 4, 2013

29

Page 30

30