1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.557 OF 2008

GARLAPATI KRISHNA                                 APPELLANT

                VERSUS

STATE OF A.P REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR             RESPONDENT

O R D E R

This  appeal is  directed against  the judgment  and order  

passed by the High Court of Judicature,  Andhra Pradesh in Criminal  

Appeal No.1113 of 2004 dated 11th August, 2006.  By the impugned  

judgment and order, the High Court has affirmed the findings and the  

conclusions reached by the II  Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track  

Court  No.II)  in  S.C.No.159  of  2001  dated  21.04.2004.  The  Trial  

Court,  after  ignoring  the  minor  contradictions,  has  come  to  the  

conclusion  that  the  Prosecution  has  proved  the  case  against  the  

accused  person.  Accordingly,  it  has  convicted  and  sentenced  the  

accused person to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of  

the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.').  

We  have  heard  Mr.A.T.M.Ranga  Ramanujam,  learned  senior  

counsel for the appellant.  The learned senior counsel would contend  

that the finding and conclusion reached by the Trial Court is fully  

perverse and, therefore, requires interference of this Court.  In  

support of this contention, the learned senior counsel would take us  

through the evidence of P.W.Nos.1,2,6, 16 and 17.

We have carefully perused the evidence that was read to us

2

by Shri Ranga Ramanujam.   After reading the evidence, we cannot  

agree with the submission that the findings of the Trial Court as  

well as the High Court suffers from the vice of perversity.  In that  

view of the matter, we cannot accept the submission of the learned  

senior counsel Shri Ranga Ramanujam.

The  learned  senior  counsel  would  further  contend  that  

there  is  enormous  delay  in  lodging  the  First  Information  Report  

before the jurisdictional police authority.  In the present case,  

the incident took place at 10.30 p.m. on 10.02.2000.  On the next  

date i.e. on 11.02.2000 at 7.00 a.m. F.I.R. was lodged.

This aspect of the matter has been taken note of by the  

High Court and the High Court has stated as under :

“In the case covered by the above decision, the incident  occurred opposite to the police station.  When there was a  delay  of  12  hours  in  giving  the  complaint,  the  Court  entertained a doubt about the genuineness of the version  given by the prosecution at a belated stage and made the  above observation. But in the present case, the offence  took place at about 10.30 p.m.  Immediately, they took the  deceased to the hospital and the doctor on examining the  deceased declared dead and they remained at the hospital  till  the  morning  and  the  report  was  presented  to  the  police at about 7.00 a.m. on the next day morning.  This  is a case against the sole accused.  There was consistency  in the version of the prosecution from the beginning that  the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased.  The accused is no other than the neighbour of the deceased  and related to them. If there are number of accused and if  overt  acts  are  attributed  to  such  accused,  one  can  apprehend that the people who have not participated in the  commission of offence were also arrayed as accused after  due  deliberations  by  taking  sufficient  time.   But  here  there was only one accused who was inimical towards the  deceased, therefore, the delay in preferring the complaint  by itself is not a ground to threw away the prosecution  case   when there is sufficient material to establish that

3

the  accused  is  responsible  for  the  commission  of  the  offence, the above decision is not applicable to the facts  of the case.”

We have carefully seen the conclusions reached by the High  

Court. In our opinion, this is the only conclusion that could have  

been  taken  by  the  High  Court  keeping  in  view  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the case. The view that is taken by the High Court  

cannot be characterized as a perverse finding. In that view of the  

matter,  the  submission  of  the  learned  senior  counsel  cannot  be  

accepted by us.

Accordingly, we do not see any infirmity in the judgment  

and order passed by the Trial Court which is affirmed by the High  

Court.  Therefore, confirming the order and judgment passed by the  

High Court, we reject the appeal filed by the appellant. Ordered  

accordingly.

......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

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

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 03, 2011