Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1792 OF 2013

P.EKNATH                                            Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS Y.AMARANATHA REDDY @ BABU & ANR                     Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1) This appeal, filed by the appellant/Complainant is directed against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  17.08.2012  passed  by  the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused (Respondent No.1 herein) and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed  by  the  trial  Court  for  the  offences  punishable  under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC and acquitted him of the charges.

2) This case pertains to double murder of the deceased Pasupuleti Lohita, aged 12 years and the deceased Pasupuleti Venkatramana, aged 50 years and double life attempts on Pasupuleti Chandrakala and  Pasupuleti  Eknath,  all  residents  of  Prasanth  Nagar, Madanapalle, and theft in the dwelling house by the sole accused Yerraballi Amaranatha Reddy @ Babu Reddy-Respondent No.1 herein.

3) The relevant facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this appeal are narrated hereunder:

Page 2

2

4) According to the case of the prosecution, on 18.09.2005, at about 10.00 p.m., the accused went to the house of P. Venkatramana (the deceased No.2) along with a sickle.  While the deceased No.2 and the accused were talking and when the others had retired for the night, at about 1.30 a.m., the accused took out the sickle and attacked the deceased No.2 and hacked him indiscriminately.  When P.W. 2 wife of deceased No.2 tried to intervene, he attacked her too and caused severe bleeding injuries.   

5) P.W.1  (son  of  deceased  No.2)  witnessed  the  incident,  and called his brother P.W.3 on the phone and informed him about the incident.  As P.W.3 was sleeping, he could not understand the message of P.W.1, so he called back.  The accused lifted the phone and heard P.W.1 talking to P.W.3 and went to the bedroom of P.W.1 and attacked him and caused injuries which led to bleeding.  When the deceased No.1 tried to run down the stairs, the accused caught her on the staircase and hacked her to death.  Meanwhile, P.W.1 locked  the  doors  of  his  bedroom.   The  accused  also  committed theft of Rs.2,500/- from the shirt of the deceased.  

6) On the information furnished by P.W.3, police came to the scene of offence and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and Crime No. 115 of 2005 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC was registered.  P.W.23 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.1 and got the scene of offence photographed and sent the deceased No.2 and P.W.2 to  the  hospital  for  treatment.   While  undergoing  treatment, deceased No.2 died in the hospital and an inquest was held on his

Page 3

3

dead body.  The body was also sent for postmortem examination. 7) On 15.10.2005, P.W. 23 arrested the accused and recorded his confessional  statement  in  the  presence  of  P.Ws  11  and  12  and seized  the  sickle  used  in  the  commission  of  offence  at  his instance.  The accused also showed the place where he burned his blood stained shirt.

8) P.W. 13 doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.1, opined that the deceased died due to injury to  skull  bones,  cervical  vertebrae  leading  to  internal  and external haemorrhage, shock and death.  P.W. 14, the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No. 2, opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to the vital organs by a sharp  object.   P.W.  23  sent  the  material  objects  to  FSL  for examination  and  on  receipt  of  the  report  from  the  FSL  and  on completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused.   The  learned  Sessions  Judge  has  framed  charges  under Sections 302, 307 and 380 IPC against the accused.

9) In  order  to  establish  the  said  charges,  the  prosecution examined  P.Ws  1  to  23.  The  trial  Court,  after  taking  into consideration  the  evidence  adduced,  both  oral  and  documentary, held that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to also to pay

Page 4

4

a fine of Rs. 5,000 with default stipulation.

10) Being aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court and the said Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC and acquitted him.  

11) The appellant-Complainant preferred this appeal, by way of special leave.

12) We have heard Mr. Suyodhan Byrapaneni, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Complainant and Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the accused/Respondent No.1 and Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, the learned counsel appearing for the State at considerable length.

13) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused without taking into consideration  the  well  reasoned  judgment  of  the  Trial  Court completely ignoring the evidences of P.Ws 1 and 2, who were the eyewitnesses and also the injured witnesses in the incident.

14) Per  contra,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  accused contended that the High Court is right in coming to its conclusion by  observing  that  the  prosecution  has  failed  to  establish  the motive for the commission of offence by the accused. 15) After hearing the contentions of the parties and carefully

Page 5

5

perusing  the  records  of  the  case  and  after  going  through  the judgments of both the trial Court as well as the High Court, it appears to us that except motive, the High Court has not given any other plausible reasons for setting aside the well reasoned order of the Trial Court.

16) Further,  after  going  through  the  evidence  which  has  been placed before us, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who are injured eye witnesses.  The High Court has not even taken into account the evidence of PWs 20, 21 and 22 who just after the incident came to the spot in question.

17) We have also considered the sketch of the spot which has been shown to us, and there is no doubt that deceased No.2 died on the ground floor, lying in a pool of blood, and the daughter who is 12 years old, was also lying dead in the middle of the staircase.

18) It further appears that the reason behind this is that some loan was taken by the accused and was not returned to the deceased No.2 victim as a result whereof these ghastly murders have taken place.  

19) The evidence which has been put forward by doctor P.W.14 who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased No.2, as well as the other doctor P.W.13 who further conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.1 clearly shows that all injuries were of a shart edged weapon.  In our considered opinion, there is no discrepancy with regard to the ocular evidence or the evidence

Page 6

6

of the doctors who deposed before the Court.  The weapon (sickle) which was used by the accused was recovered at the instance of the accused himself.  The said sickle also contained human blood in terms of the FSL Report which was produced before the Court at the time of hearing of the matter in question.

20) After taking into consideration and summing it up together, it appears to us that the High Court did not take into account all these facts which were brought before us had been placed before the High Court at the time of hearing of the appeal.

21) We have been able to find out from the material available on record that the accused had the requisite motive for committing the offence and the weapon used i.e. sickle can be convincingly linked to the injuries caused on the deceased.  The FSL report, credibility of witnesses, foot prints of the offender, narration of incident by the circumstantial witness, identification of the accused/weapon, presence of light in the murder scene, all leads to the guilt of the accused.

22) Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  cited  before  us  some judgments  which,  in  our  opinion,  cannot  be  helpful  to  the respondent in the facts and circumstances of this case.  

23) In our opinion, the High Court has failed to appreciate such evidence which was brought before the Court and further the facts which ought to have been taken into consideration at the time of the matter to be decided by the High Court and without giving any

Page 7

7

reasons, set aside the well reasoned order of the Trial Court.  

24) Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law and we set aside the order passed by it affirming the order passed by the trial Court.  

25) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

26) We direct the concerned Police Authorities to take custody of  the  respondent  forthwith  to  serve  out  the  remainder  of sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

......................J (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

......................J NEW DELHI;   (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) February 09, 2017.

Page 8

8

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1792 OF 2013

P. EKNATH                 …APPELLANT

VERSUS

Y. AMARANATHA REDDY  @ BABU & ANR.          ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  R.F. Nariman, J. (Concurring) 1. A concurring judgment is usually written because a Judge

feels that he can reach the same conclusion, but by a different

process of  reasoning.   In  the present  case,  the reason I  have

penned this concurrence is because the impugned judgment of

the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated 17 th

August, 2012, has been characterized by my learned brother as

“perverse”.   “Perverse”  is  not  a  happy  expression,  particularly

when used for a judgment of a superior court of record.  I  am

constrained to observe this because in the facts of the present

case,  there  has  been  a  heinous  double  murder,  as  has  been

pointed  out  by  my  learned  brother.  And,  despite  an  extremely

well-considered judgment by the trial court, dated 31st July, 2008,

the High Court has acquitted the respondent-accused before us. I

Page 9

9

entirely agree that this judgment is “perverse”, and wish to give

my own reasons as to why it is so.   2. The skeletal facts necessary to understand the present case

have already been set out  by my learned brother.  The salient

features of the case are that the accused entered the family home

of deceased no. 2 on 18th September, 2005 at about 10.00 P.M.

PW-2, being the wife of the deceased no. 2, a grievously injured

eyewitness in the present case.  She cooked some food for him,

and then went to bed along with her two children by about 11.00

P.M.  At about 1.30 A.M. on 19th September, 2005, she heard a

tremendous commotion, and found the accused hacking away at

her husband with a sickle.    She also witnessed the accused

hacking away at her daughter, who was a young girl  of tender

age.  The accused succeeded in his attempt at murdering both

her husband and her  daughter.   She narrowly escaped death

only  because  she  feigned  unconsciousness,  but  ultimately  did

become unconscious. Her 14 year old son also escaped being

murdered,  and  was  also  seriously  injured,  because  he  bolted

himself  inside a bedroom, and contacted his  brother  by phone

who came to the scene of the crime some time later.   What is

interesting to note is that, at 3.57 A.M. on 19th September, 2005,

PW-2 recorded what was supposed to be a dying declaration to

Page 10

10

the  duty  doctor  Shri  R.  Chennaiah,  at  the  Area  Hospital,

Madanapalle. This dying declaration reads as follows: “On 18.9.2005 night 10.00 hours, we came out after meals  and  babu  locking  the  gate  (my  babu  name Ekanth).   At  that  time Babu Reddy, Yerracherlopalli came.  At that time preparing meals and asked him to take meals  prepared chapathi  and given him.    My husband and himself sat by discussion.  I  went and slept.  After about 1.00 hours, I woke up on hearing sounds and saw Babu Reddy hacking  my husband P.Venkatramana with sickle.  I went to rescue and he hacked me.  I lost my conscious.  Again hacked my husband  as  having  life.   On  hearing  sounds,  my children Ekanth, Lohita and sister son Manoj woke up. Hacked my daughter Lohitha.  My son Ekanth bolted the door.  Babu Reddy having money dealings with my husband.    Babu Reddy due amount.   I  caught  the legs but not left me.   Though I am having conscious and acted as unconscious.  He left me as I died.  My son  Ekanth phoned to Sreedhar and Sreedhar came after phone call.”     

3. Ultimately,  the  learned  Sessions  Judge  framed  charges

under  Sections  302,  307,  and  380  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,

inasmuch as there were two murders and two attempts at murder

of two other persons who narrowly escaped with their lives.   

4. The trial  court  convicted the accused both  under  Section

302 for the double murder, as well as Section 307 for the attempt

to murder PW-1 and PW-2, and the accused was convicted and

sentenced to life imprisonment on both counts.   

5. In appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court, the accused

was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 as well  as the

Page 11

11

offence under Section 307.

6. The reasoning of the High Court in acquitting the accused of

this heinous double murder and the heinous attempt at another

double murder leaves much to be desired.  In its reasoning, the

High  Court  judgment  begins  with  the  evidence  of  PW-13  and

PW-14.  It  must not be forgotten that PW-13 is the doctor who

conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased no.1, who

was the murdered daughter in the present case.  PW-14, on the

other  hand,  conducted  the  autopsy  over  the  dead  body  of

deceased no. 2, who was the father and the head of the family.   

7. After  setting  out  the  evidence  of  PW-13 and PW-14,  the

High Court examined only the evidence of PW-14, and stated that

despite the fact that the doctor opined that the deceased would

have appeared to have died of  shock and hemorrhage due to

multiple injuries caused to the vital organs, and despite stating the

above injuries could be caused by a sharp edged weapon like a

sickle, in his cross-examination he admitted that the injuries are

“lacerated” injuries. The trial court has correctly appreciated this

evidence,  and stated that  what  was really  meant  was that  the

injuries were caused by a sharp object. However, the High Court

came  to  the  conclusion,  based  on  Medical  Jurisprudence  on

Toxicology by Dr. K.S. Reddy, that “lacerated” injuries could only

Page 12

12

be caused with a blunt object.  The High Court then went on to

state that in his re-examination the doctor stated that “lacerated”

injuries could be caused if the reverse side of a sickle is used,

which is blunt.  

8. On  this  evidence,  the  High  Court  concluded  that  injuries

found on deceased no. 2 are not  possible with a sharp edged

weapon like a sickle.   It also went on to conclude that given the

number of injuries, it is also possible that it could have been done

with  two  distinct  weapons.  Both  the  aforesaid  reasons  are

perverse.  There was no gainsaying that the blunt edged side of a

sickle  could  possibly  have  been  used.  Be  that  as  it  may, the

theoretical  possibility  that  the injuries  could  have been caused

with  two  distinct  weapons  is  purely  in  the  nature  of  surmise.

But this does not end the matter.  What is seriously wrong with the

judgment under appeal is that it  conveniently forgets the entire

testimony of PW-13. In so far as PW-13’s testimony is concerned,

there  is  no  doubt  whatsoever  that  all  9  injuries  caused  on

deceased no. 1, who was the daughter, were incised injuries and

that they were all  caused with a sharp edged weapon being a

sickle.   The  High  Court  judgment  conveniently  forgets  about

PW-13, and then lumps PW-13 and PW-14 together to arrive at

the astounding conclusion that the injuries sustained by deceased

Page 13

13

nos.1 and 2 are not possible with a sickle and that further, more

than one weapon might have been used.   

9. The  High  Court  then  goes  on  to  discuss  whether  the

accused could be said to have carried the sickle along with him at

all.   It  arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  the  accused carrying  the

sickle along with him is itself doubtful.  This is done without at all

adverting to the fact that the sickle was recovered under a pile of

stones  only  because  the  accused  led  the  police  to  the  hiding

place of the sickle. Further, it also ignored the FSL report which

made  it  clear  that  there  was  human  blood  found  on  the  said

sickle.   And this omission becomes even more egregious in that

the High Court,  in  passing,  while  narrating the facts,  has itself

observed:

“On  15.10.2005,  PW.23  arrested  the  accused  at Neerugattuvaripalle  and  recorded  his  confessional statement  in  the  presence  of  PWs.11  and  12  and seized the sickle used in the commission of  offence from the heap of stones at Ammacheruvemitta and the accused also shown the place where he has burnt his blood stained shirt.”  

10.   With regard to the scene of the offence, in so far as the dead

body of the female child was concerned, the High Court refers

only  to  the  inquest  report  Exh.P7  to  conclude  that  since  the

evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 state that the body of the girl child

was on the staircase, and the inquest report  states that  it  was

Page 14

14

found  in  the  middle  of  the  bedroom  of  the  children,  there  is

contradictory evidence with regard to the finding of the dead body

of deceased no. 1.  Here again, the High Court falls into grievous

error in completely ignoring the evidence of PW-3, 4, 5, and 6, all

of whom consistently record that the dead body of the girl child

was found only on the staircase. Further, in the rough sketch that

was drawn by the Investigating Officer and exhibited as Exh.P-16,

it is also made clear that the dead body of the deceased female

child was found only on the staircase.

11.     Also, with regard to the amount of light that was there in the

house in  order  that  the injured eye-witnesses could be said to

have successfully  identified the accused,  the High Court  refers

only to the evidence of PW-22, S.I. of the Police, to state that “a

zero  watt  bulb  was  burning  in  the  bedroom”.  From  this  it

concludes that “only a zero watt bulb was burning in the house”

whereas  both  the  eye-witnesses  stated  that  there  was  power

supply and illumination of lights. Here again, the High Court falls

into grievous error in completely ignoring the consistent testimony

of PWs-20, 21, and 23, all  of whom state that there was more

than  sufficient  light  in  the  house  at  the  time  of  the  incident.

Further, it is clear that both deceased no.2 and the accused were

sitting and talking till the incident occurred, and this they obviously

Page 15

15

did with the lights on in the house.    

12.   What  is  also  ignored  by  the  High  Court  is  the  entire

discussion of the trial court on the heinous hacking away at the

two injured eye-witnesses, and the dying declaration recorded at

3.57 A.M. shortly after the incident by PW-2 in the hospital before

the Doctor-in-charge.  Without setting aside the finding of the trial

court based on the necessary evidence, the High Court went on

to upset the conviction under Section 307.   

           To summarize therefore –

(i) The High Court completely ignored the testimony of PW-13

who  conducted  the  autopsy  over  the  dead  body  of

deceased no.1, the young daughter, which testimony clearly

showed that the daughter had been murdered by a sickle,

all 9 injuries on her being incised injuries; (ii) The High Court has erred in reading the evidence of PW-14

as a whole to conclude that injuries found on deceased no.

2 are not possible with a sharp edged weapon like a sickle,

and that it is distinctly possible that they could have been

caused with two distinct weapons. This reasoning ignores

the hypothesis that a sickle has a blunt side which could

cause “lacerated injuries”. Further, as the trial court records,

the  doctor  who  used  the  expression  “lacerated”  actually

Page 16

16

meant “incised”.  Also, the fact that there were 14 wounds

would not at all lead to the conclusion that they were caused

with two distinct weapons – a complete surmise on the part

of the High Court; (iii) The High Court mixes up the testimony of PWs-13 and 14 to

conclude that the injuries sustained by both deceased nos.

1 and 2 are not possible with a weapon like a sickle; (iv) The High Court ignores vital evidence as to recovery of a

blood stained sickle which was hidden under stones, and

which was recovered with the complicity of the accused. To

state that the accused carrying the sickle along with him is

doubtful is to ignore this vital piece of evidence; (v) Equally, with regard to the scene of offence in so far as the

young  daughter  was  concerned,  to  rely  solely  upon  the

Inquest Report and again to ignore the evidence of PWs-1,

3, 4, 5, and 6, (and the site plan referred to above), all of

whom said consistently that the dead body of the deceased

daughter  was  found  on  the  staircase  and  not  in  the

bedroom, is again to ignore the overwhelming evidence in

favour of the dead body being found on the staircase;  (vi) To conclude, based only on PW-22’s evidence, that there

was a zero watt bulb which alone was burning in the house,

and to ignore the evidence of PWs-1, and 20 to 23 on the

sufficiency  of  the  lighting  in  the  house  together  with  the

Page 17

17

common sensical  conclusion  that  if  the  accused and the

deceased no.2  were speaking together, it could not have

been in the dark, is again to ignore vital evidence; (vii) The  High  Court  has  completely  ignored  “the  dying

declaration” made by PW-2 immediately after the incident;

and (viii) The High Court has not set aside the finding of the trial court

together  with  its  reasoning  based  on  evidence  that  the

offence under Section 307 was made out, and has yet set

aside the conviction based on Section 307.

13.     In the result, it must be declared that the Division Bench

judgment  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  cannot  but  be

characterized as perverse on all counts, and must therefore be

set aside.   

    ………………………J.      (R.F. Nariman)

New Delhi; February 09, 2017.