Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL Nos.   1521-1522 OF 2011   

PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY                     ….  APPELLANT

VERSUS

    STATE OF A.P. & ETC.               ….  RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NOs.    1102-1103 OF 2011   

WITH

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NOs.    1100-1101 OF 2011   

WITH

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NOs.    1093-1094 OF 2011   

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J.

1. This  batch of  appeals  is  preferred by the  accused against  the  

common judgment and order dated 23rd March 2004 in Criminal Appeal  

Nos. 954 and 956 of 2008. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1521-1522 of 2011 are  

filed by the Accused No. 1; Criminal Appeal Nos. 1102-1103 of 2011 are  

filed by the accused Nos. 2-7; Criminal Appeal Nos. 1100-1101 of 2011  

by the accused  

Nos.  8-12;  Criminal  Appeal  Nos. 1093-1094 of 2011 are filed  by the  

Accused No. 2, Konduru Nagure Reddy. Since they arise out of the same  

incident/judgment they have been taken up together for disposal.

2.  The crime in question is the murder of Mudi Parandhami  Reddy in an

Page 2

agricultural  field  on  25.11.96  in  Mettu  village  in  Andhra  Pradesh.  

According to the prosecution, the deceased was a leader of the Congress  

party in the area. He was suspected by the Accused No. 1 Puchalapalli   

Parandhami  Reddy,  a  leader  of  the  Telugu  Desam  Party,  as  being  

responsible for the murder of his  father on 25.3.92.  Land disputes also  

existed  between  Rajagopal  Reddy  (L.W.  2),  his  brother  Pelluru  Murali   

Reddy (P.W. 3)  on one side  and A-19,  Pelluru  Venu Reddy about  the  

division  of survey No. 116.  Litigation  was pending between them in  a  

Court.  Therefore,  Pelluru Murali  Reddy (P.W. 3) and Rajagopal Reddy  

(L.W. 2)  sought the mediation of the deceased Mudi Parandhami Reddy  

and it was decided that the deceased would mediate on 25.11.96.

3.      On  24.11.96,  Pelluru  Murali  Reddy  (P.W.  3)  and  his  brother  

Rajagopal engaged farm labour i.e. P.W. 1 (Vakati  Ramanaiah), P.W. 2  

(Rayapati Venkata Ramanaiah), P.W.  4 (Bandila Mutyhyalaiah)  and P.W.  

5  (Rayapati  Kotaiah)  for  ploughing  the  land.  On  the  next  day,  i.e.  

25.11.1996 the deceased had come to the land and sat on a ridge in the  

field  while  the  ploughing  was going on by the  labourers.  Around 8.00  

a.m., A-19, Pelluru Venu Reddy and A-20, Pelluru Sreedhar Reddy came  

there  and  asked  that  the  ploughing  be  stopped  because  there  was  a  

dispute  over  the  land.  Mudi  Parandhami  intervened  and said  that  the  

dispute will be resolved later and asked the ploughing to go on.  At this  

the accused went away. Around 10 a.m. the accused party came back.  

The accused  no.1 hacked  Mudi  Parandhami   with  a  battle-axe on the  

head.  After  that  A-2,  Konduru  Nagure  Reddy  came and  when  Pelluru  

Murali  Reddy (P.W. 3) intervened, A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy, hit him  

with  the  blunt  edge  of  the  chilla  kathi.  Then  A-3,  Konduru  Dayakar

Page 3

Reddy, hacked Mudi Parandhami  with an axe on his head. When Pelluru  

Murali Reddy (P.W. 3)  intervened, A-3, Konduru Dayakar Reddy, hit him  

on the left hand. After this A-4, Konduru Ramachandra Reddy, came and  

stabbed  Mudi  Parandhami  on  his  left  shoulder.  A-5,  Putchalapalli   

Ramamohan Reddy,  then stabbed mudi Parandhami on his chest. A-6,  

Putchalapalli  Srinivasulu  Reddy,  then  stabbed Mudi  Parandhami  with  a  

spear on the left side of his back. Thereafter A-7, Putchalapalli  Niranjan  

Reddy, stabbed Mudi Parandhami on his back. Then A-8, Avula Sudhakar,  

stabbed Mudi Parandhami on his left ear and his abdomen. Thereafter A-

9, Putchalapalli  Subrahmanyam Reddy, stabbed Mudi parandhami on the  

left side of the chest. A-10, Yellasiri Masthan, then hit Mudi Parandhami  

with  a stick  on the left  temple.  A-12, Chennur Venkataramana Reddy,  

gave a blow on the head to Mudi Parandhami.  When Rajagopal Reddy  

Rajagopal  Reddy  (L.W.  2),  intervened  A-12,  Chennur  Venkataramana  

Reddy hacked him on the head with the same battle axe and felled him.  

In  the incident Mudi Parandhami Reddy died.  P.W. 3 (Murali Reddy) L.W.  

2  (P.  Raja  Gopal  Reddy)  and  L.W.  3  (Pelluru  Karunakar  Reddy)  were  

injured.

4.    Since  no  doctor  was  available  at  Vakadu,  one  Subrahmanyamm  

Reddy  brought  a  car  and  Veluru  Gopal  Reddy,  P.W.  6,  Pelluru  Murali  

Reddy P.W.3  took him in the car to the Government Hospital,  Gudur.  

However, since his condition was critical the hospital authorities advised  

them to take him for special treatment to Tirupati.  On 26.11.1996 the  

Additional District Munsif, Tirupati recorded the Dying Declaration of P.W.  

2 - P  Rajagopal  Reddy  (the  injured)  at  the  Government  Hospital,  

Tirupati. P.W. 17, K. Bala Reddy, Inspector of Police, Vakadu conducted  

inquest over the body of the deceased Mudi Parandhami Reddy and sent

Page 4

his body for post mortem to the Government Hospital, where PW 13, Dr.  

M.C.  Narashimhulu,  conducted  post  mortem  over  the  body  of  the  

deceased.

5. First  Information  Report  was  lodged  after  about  seven  hours.  

The  Investigating  Officer,  Mr.  K.  Prasad  Rao,  P.W.  14,  recorded  the  

statement of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) at the Government Hospital,  

Gudur and registered Crime No. 175 of 1996 and recorded the confession  

of accused No. 2 (Konduru Nagure Reddy) and recovered M.Os 1 to 10.  

Rest of the investigation was conducted by K. Bala Reddy (Inspector of  

Police),  P.W.  17.   The  post  mortem  was  conducted  by  Doctor  M.C.  

Narasimhulu (P.W.13).  The wound certificate showed the following ante-

mortem injuries:

“(1)  A  bone  deep  lacerated  injury  of  about  3"  x  1/2"  extending from middle of skull  to the left parietal  bone.  Blood  stains  present  with  congestion.  Deeper  to  it  sub  scalp congested and dark. L shaped fracture of  skull  in  mid line for about 3 ½” and to the right side of parietal   bone.  Brain  coverings  congested  and  dark.  Subdural  haematoma present over the middle of brain. Brain matter  congested  and  dark.  There  is  basal  fracture  of  skull  transversely  from one  petrous  part  of  the  bone  to  the  other and fracture of right parietal bone, blood clots and  congestion  present  over  the  base  of  skull  and  at  the  fractured areas. Injury is ante mortem.

(2)  Swelling  over  right  fronto  parietal  area  of  skull.  Deeper  to it  sub-scalp  congested with  dark blood clots.  Injury ante mortem.

(3) Cut injury cartilage deep of about 1" over the upper  part of helix of left ear present. Blood stains present with  congestion. Injury is ante mortem.

(4) Skin discoloured dark with swelling over left  parotid  region and a part of left face. Deeper to it dark blood clots  with congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.

(5) An incised injury of about 2 ½” x ½” x unknown depth  in between 3rd and 4th intercostals space just medial to  the mammary plane. Blood stains and congestion present.  Deeper  to  it  fracture  of  3rd  rib,  severing  the  3rd  intercostals  space  entering  the  thoracic  cavity  injured  irregularly left lung by cutting irregularly and injured the

Page 5

anterior part of heart muscle opening the heart chambers  (auricle  and ventricle)  for about 2 ½” . Blood clots and  congestion  present  at  the  intercostals  region,  over  the  lung  injury  and  over  the  heart.  Injury  ante  mortem in  nature.

(6) Another incised injury of about 2" x ½” x unknown  depth  over  the  4th  intercostals  area  just  medial  to  mammary plane on left chest. Blood stains and congestion  present. Deeper to it the 3rd intercostals space opened and  left  4th  rib  fractured  and  entered  the  thoracic  cavity.  Congestion and blood clots present at the fractured site  and intercostals area. Injury is ante mortem in nature.

(7) A cut injury bone deep of about 2" x ½” over the 5th  intercostals space in the left anterior axillary line. Blood  stains and congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.

(8) Another cut injury bone deep of about 1 ½” x ½” over  the  7th  left  intercostals  space  in  the  anterior  axillary  plane. Congestion and blood stains present. Injury is ante  mortem.

(9) Another cut injury bone deep of about 2 ½” x ½” in  the mid axillary line on 5th left intercostals space. Blood  stains and congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.

(10) Cut injury skin  deep of about ½” x ½” in  7th left   intercostals area in the mamillary plane. Blood stains and  congestion present. Injury is ante mortem.

(11) Another cut injury of about ½” x ½” skin deep just  below the above injury.

(12) Another cut injury of about 2" x ½” x unknown depth  over  the  lower  aspect  of  back  of  left  chest  present.  Internally  the  last  rib  fractured  on  the  back  in  the  posterior  mid  line  on  left  side  entering  the  abdominal  cavity  and  injured  the  left  kidney  for  about  ¾.  Congestion and blood clots present over the injured areas  internally. Thoracic cage contained clotted blood for about  1 ½ liters. Blood clots also present in abdominal cavity.  Injury is ante mortem.

(13) Another cut injury bone deep of about 1 ½” x ½”  over the line on lumbar area. Blood stains and congestion  hyoid  bone,  normal.  Neck  tissues  normal.  Stomach  contains of about 1 oz of coffee coloured fluid. Genitals  normal. Intestines normal.”

The doctor opined that the deceased died due to shock from head injury  

and  injury  to  the  brain  and  heart  and  other  multiple  injuries  and  

hemorrhage.  

6. Since  Rajagopal  Reddy  (L.W.  2)  was  injured  and  critical,  his

Page 6

dying  declaration  was  recorded  on  26.11.1996  by  the  IInd  Additional  

District Munsif, Tirupati.

7.   At  the  trial  the  prosecution  examined 17 witnesses.   The defence  

examined  D.Ws  3  to  6  to  prove  their  plea  of  alibi.   P.W.  1  (Vakati  

Ramanaiah),  P.W.  2  (Rayapati  Venkata  Ramanaiah)  and  P.W.  11  (SK  

Ahmed Basha) turned hostile.  The prosecution did not examine Rajagopal  

Reddy  (L.W.  2),  Mohan  (L.W.  11)  and  Karunakara  Redddy  (L.W.  3).  

Charge-sheet  was filed against 20 accused under Sections 147, 148 and  

302  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (IPC)  against  all  the  accused,  under  

Sections 307 and 326 against A2, A3 and A12, under Section 307 read  

with Section 149 IPC and under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC  

against  A-1,  A-4  to  A-11  and  A-13  to  A-20.   Upon  considering  the  

evidence and after hearing, the IIIrd -Additional District & Sessions Judge  

(Fast Track), Nellore found none of the accused guilty  for the offences  

they were charged with and acquitted them.

8. The plea of alibi has been rejected by the Trial Court as well as  

the High Court.  Rejection of this plea is based on complete improbability   

of the plea and is not necessary to consider it any further, particularly,  

since it was not pressed seriously before us.  In Appeal and Revision, the  

High Court considered the entire evidence on record and found that:  

(a) Accused Nos. 1 to 12 are found guilty  under  Section  235  (2)  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  (Cr.P.C.)  for  the  offences  under  Sections  147,  148  and  302 read with Section 149 of IPC for causing the death of  the deceased Mudi Parandhami Reddy and further under  Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC for causing simple  injuries  to  P.W.  3.   They  were  awarded  rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  period  of  one  year  each  for  the  offences under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC;  

(b)  Accused  1  to  12  were  further  sentenced  to  'imprisonment for life' for the offence under Section  302

Page 8

Talevar  (2011)  11  SCC  666  and  Govindaraju  v.  State   (2012) 4 SCC 722].”

10. In Murugesan (supra), this Court has observed as under:

“21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had  emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo  Swarup is  to  be  found  in  para  42  of  the  report  in  Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka : 2007 (4)  SCC 415.  The same may, therefore, be usefully  noticed  below:  (SCC 432)

“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view,  the following general principles regarding powers of the  appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an  order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full  power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which  the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal  Procedure, 1973 puts no  limitation,  restriction  or  condition  on  exercise  of  such power and an appellate court on the evidence  before  it  may  reach  its  own  conclusion,  both  on  questions of fact and of law.

(3)  Various  expressions,  such  as,  "substantial  and  compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds",  "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions",  "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail  extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal  against  acquittal.  Such  phraseologies  are  more  in  the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise  the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with  acquittal  than to curtail  the power of the court  to  review  the  evidence  and  to  come  to  its  own  conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind  that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption  in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of  innocence is available to him under the fundamental  principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person  shall  be  presumed  to  be  innocent  unless  he  is  proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly,  the  accused  having  secured  his  acquittal,  the  presumption of his  innocence is  further reinforced,  reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the

Page 9

basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court  should not disturb the finding of acquittal  recorded  by the trial court.  

(Emphasis supplied)”

11. According  to  the  learned  counsel  the  trial  court  has  rightly  

disbelieved the prosecution case, particularly, in view of the evidence of  

Pelluru  Murali  Reddy  (P.W.  3)  and  the  non-examination  of  Rajagopal  

Reddy (L.W. 2).   Other  witnesses  from the initial  list  have also  been  

examined.  As found by the trial court, the learned counsel submitted that  

the  depositions  of  several  witnesses  of  the  prosecution is  without  any  

credibility and even the presence of some of them on the scene of the  

crime is doubtful or, they are interested witnesses.  A conviction based on  

such  evidence  is  not  tenable.   It  was  also  submitted  by  the  learned  

counsel  that the evidence of PW-3, who claims to be present,  is  itself  

doubtful.   Pelluru  Murali  Reddy  (P.W.  3)   is  the  younger  brother  of  

Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2), whose son is K. Reddy.  A-19, Pelluru Venu  

Reddy, is the elder brother of PW 3.  A-20, Pelluru Sreedhar Reddy is son  

of A-19, Pelluru Venu Reddy.  Admittedly, there is a dispute pertaining to  

land between Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2)  

on one hand and A-19, Pelluru Venu Reddy and A-20, Pelluru Sreedhar  

Reddy, on the other.  Therefore, the animus of this witness against the  

accused is clear.  Moreover, the evidence of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3)  

is  itself  unreliable  because  the  witness  deposed  that  the  A-1  -  

Puchalapalli  Parandhami Reddy, hacked the deceased with a battle axe  

whereas the injury on the head shows that it must have been caused by  

blunt  side  of  an  axe.   The  injury  in  question  i.e.  injury  No.  1,  is  as  

follows:

“(1)  A  bone  deep  lacerated  injury  of  about  3"  x  ½”  extending from middle of skull  to the left parietal  bone.

Page 10

Blood  stains  present  with  congestion.  Deeper  to  it  sub  scalp  congested and dark. L  shaped fracture of  skull  in  mid line for about 3 ½” and to the right side of parietal   bone.  Brain  coverings  congested  and  dark.  Subdural  hematoma present over the middle of brain. Brain matter  congested  and  dark.  There  is  basal  fracture  of  skull  transversely  from one  petrous  part  of  the  bone  to  the  other and fracture of right parietal bone, blood clots and  congestion  present  over  the  base  of  skull  and  at  the  fractured areas. Injury is ante mortem.”

12. The doctor has opined that this injury could have been caused by  

a blunt object.  According to the learned counsel the witness did not say  

that the accused reversed the axe while hitting the deceased on the head  

as the injury shows, and therefore he is lying or was not present.  In the  

first place, we find that other witnesses have given the same deposition.  

It is possible that the statement of the witness is slightly inaccurate or  

the witness did not see properly which side of the axe was used.  It is  

equally possible that the sharp edge of the axe is actually very blunt or it   

was reversed just before hitting the head.  It is not possible to say what  

is the reason.  That is however no reason for discarding the statement of  

the witness that A-1 - Puchalapalli  Parandhami Reddy hit the deceased  

without a battle axe, as is obvious from the injury.  Moreover, it is not  

possible  to doubt  the  presence of  this  witness,  who has himself  been  

injured.  Dr. M.C. Narasimhulu, P.W. 13, Medical Officer, has stated in his  

evidence  that  on  25-11-1996  at  about  3.30  p.m.,  he  examined  this  

witness - P.W.3 - P. Murali Reddy and found the following injuries:

“(1) Diffused swelling with tenderness over middle 1/3rd  

and back of left forearm.

(2) A lacerated injury skin deep of about ½” over the back  of  head.  Bleeding  present  with  tenderness and swelling  around.”

13. We are also not impressed by the finding of the trial court that

Page 11

there is discrepancy between the statement of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W.  

3) and his oral testimony because he said in the statement that he saw  

the tractor in which the accused had arrived just before the house of A-

19, Pelluru Venu Reddy and deposed that the house could not be seen  

from where he was standing.   Such a discrepancy does not detract from  

the basic credibility of this witness, who along with his brother has been  

injured in the attack.  

14. Besides, the evidence of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3), there is a  

similar  deposition  by  P.W.   4  (Bandila  Mutyhyalaiah)   and  P.W.  5  

(Rayapati Kotaiah) who were engaged by Pelluru Murali  Reddy (P.W. 3)  

and his brother and P.W. 6 (Veluru Gopal Reddy) and P.W. 7 (Manneti  

Chenchaiah), who had accompanied the deceased.   

15. The  evidence  of  P.W.  4  (Bandila  Mutyhyalaiah)   and  P.W. 5  

(Rayapati Kotaiah) was attacked on the ground that they were engaged  

by  Pelluru  Murali  Reddy  (P.W.  3)  and  P.W.  5  (Rayapati  Kotaiah)  and  

therefore are interested witnesses and not reliable.   Such a contention  

cannot be accepted.  There was no reason for these witnesses to falsely  

depose.  It is equally true that there is no mention of these witnesses i.e.  

PWs 4 and 5 in the F.I.R. We do not find anything significant in their non-

mention  since  they  were  apparently  from a  different  village  and  it  is  

possible that their names were left out.

16. Their depositions are clear and consistent about the incident and  

are on the following line.  That at about 7.30 or 8 a.m., P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and  

5 were ploughing the land with nagallu. The deceased was sitting on the  

northern  side  of  the  ridge.  P.W.  6  (Veluru  Gopal  Reddy),  Chenchaiah  

L.W.10 and Mohan L.W.11 were standing on the eastern side. Meanwhile,

Page 12

accused 19 and 20 came there and objected for ploughing the land. The  

deceased intervened and informed that the disputes will  be settled later  

and asked them to plough the land. On that, A- 19 and 20 left the fields.   

On the same day at about 10 a.m., A-1 came to the scene and hacked the  

deceased with a battle-axe on the head. After that, A-2 came and when  

P.W.3  intervened,  accused  No.  2  beat  P.W.3  with  the  butt  end  of  a  

chilakathi  on  the  head.  Then  accused  No.  3  came  and  hacked  the  

deceased with an axe on the head. When P.W.3 intervened, accused No. 3  

beat with the same axe on the left hand of P.W.3. Thereafter, accused No.  

4 came and stabbed the deceased on the left shoulder. A-5 stabbed the  

deceased on the chest. A-6 stabbed the deceased with a spear on the left  

side  back  portion.  A-7  stabbed  the  deceased  on  the  back  side.  A-8  

stabbed the  deceased  on  the  left  ear  and  also  on  the  abdomen.  A-9  

stabbed  the  deceased  on  the  left  side  chest  portion.  A-10  beat  the  

deceased with a stick on the left temple. A-11 stabbed the deceased with  

a chilakathi on the left side of the chest and on the left tempo. A-12 beat  

the  deceased with  an axe on the head.  When Rajagopal  Reddy L.W.2  

intervened, A-12 hacked him with the same battle-axe on the head. Due  

to  that  blow,  he  had  fallen  on  the  ground.  After  15  minutes,  

Subrahmanyam Reddy, resident of Thimmareddyvagu, brought a tractor  

to the scene. P.W 6, P.W.3 and Subrahmanyam Reddy took the injured  

Rajagopal Reddy L.W.2 in the said tractor to Vakadu for treatment as his  

condition  was  serious.  As  there  was  no  doctor  available  at  Vakadu,  

Subrahmanyam  Reddy  brought  a  car  and  himself,  Rajagopala  Reddy  

L.W.2,  P.W.3  and  Subrahmanyam  Reddy  together  took  him  to  the  

Government Hospital, Gudur. There they were advised to take the injured  

L.W.2 to Tirupati for expert treatment and thereafter he returned back to

Page 13

the house.

17. Deposition  of  P.W.  6,  who  accompanied  the  deceased  fully  

corroborates the version of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3).  He stated that  

PW 3 and LW 2 came to the house of the deceased and requested him to  

mediate  the  dispute  among the  brothers.   The  deceased  promised  to  

come on the next day.  On the next day what transpired is narrated by  

him as above.  There is no substance in the contention that this witness  

supported the prosecution side in  some earlier  litigation, therefore, his  

testimony is  liable  to be discarded.  P.W. 7 (Manneti  Chenchaiah) was  

also present when the deceased was requested to mediate the dispute on  

the earlier date and accompany him to the field on the next day.  His  

narration of the incident is similar to the deposition of other witnesses  

and have been believed by the High Court.  The prosecution case is fully   

supported by rest of the witnesses and the evidence.

18. The  prosecution  in  this  case  has  sufficiently  established  the  

motive, which is  the political  rivalry and the land dispute between the  

parties; their preparation, which consists the accused party going to the  

field of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3) and Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2) with  

arms; the recovery of these arms at the instance of A-2, Konduru Nagure  

Reddy; the discovery of blood stains on the knife and battle-axe and ante  

mortem injuries inflicted on the deceased, as per the inquest and post  

mortem report.  The injuries were caused to the deceased by the accused,  

which are as under:

“P.W.  3  -  Pelluru  Murali  Reddy stated  about  the  injuries  on  the  deceased as under:

A-1 - hacked the deceased on the head with battle axe.

A-3 - with axe – beat the deceased on the head.

Page 14

A-4 - with bitchuva (knife) stabbed the deceased on the left side chest  and underneath of left arm pit.

A-5 – With Bitchuva (Knife) – stabbed the deceased Paradhami Reddy on  the left side of the chest and underneath, left arm pit resulting bleeding  injuries.

A-6  –  Spear  –  stabbed  the  deceased  on  the  left  side  back  portion,  resulting bleeding injuries.

A-7 – Spear – on left side back portion of the deceased resulting bleeding  injuries.

A-8  –  Chilakathi  –  stabbed  the  deceased  on  the  left  ear  and  on  his  abdomen.

A-9 – Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side chest portion and  also on umbilicus.

A-10 – Stick – beat the deceased on the left temporal region.

A-11 – Chilakathi – stabbed on the left side temple region near the left   ear and also on the abdomen causing bleeding injury.

A-12  –  with  battle  axe  –  backed  the  deceased  on  the  head  caused  bleeding injury.

Other  accused beat  the  deceased  indiscriminately  with  sticks  and iron  rods.

P.W.  4  -  Bandila Mutyhyalaiah –  spoke about  the  injuries  on  the  deceased as under:

A-1 - hacked the deceased  - with battle axe on the head.

A-3 - with axe – beat deceased Parandhami Reddy on the head.

A-4 – stabbed – deceased with Bitchuva on the left side of the chest and  also underneath left arm pit.

A-5 – stabbed the deceased with Bitchuva on the left side of the chest  and also underneath the left arm pit.

A-6 –With Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side back portion.

A-7 – With Spear stabbed the deceased on the left side back portion.

A-8 – With Chilakathi – hacked the deceased on the left ear and abdomen  of the deceased.

A-9 – With Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side of the chest and  also on the umbilicus.

A-10 – With Stick – beat the deceased on the left side temporal region.

A-11 – hacked the deceased with Chilakathi on the left side temple and  also on the left side of chest.

A-12 – hacked the deceased with battle axe on the head.

Other  accused  beat  the  deceased  indiscriminately  with  iron  rods  and  sticks.

P.W. 5 (Rayapati Kotaiah) – spoke about the injuries on the deceased  as under:

A-1 – With axe beat Parandhami Reddy on the head.

A-3 – hacked the deceased with axe on the head.

Page 15

A-4 – stabbed – deceased with Bitchuva on the left side of the chest and  also underneath left arm pit.

A-5 – stabbed the deceased with Bitchuva on the left side of the chest  and also underneath the left arm pit.

A-6 –With Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side back portion.

A-7 – Armed with Spear - stabbed on the left side back portion.

A-8  –  stabbed  the  deceased  -  with  Chilakathi  –on  the  left  ear  and  abdomen.

A-9 – With Spear – stabbed the deceased on the left side of the chest.

A-10 – beat the deceased with spear – with stick temporal region.

A-11 – stabbed the deceased with Chilakathi on the left side of the chest  and on the left side of the temple region.

A-12 – hacked the deceased with battle axe on the head.

Other accused beat the deceased indiscriminately.

P.W. 6 - Veluru Gopal Reddy stated about the injuries on the deceased  as under:

A-1 - hacked the deceased with battle axe on the head.

A-4 – stabbed – Parandhami Reddy on the left shoulder.

A-5 – stabbed the deceased on the chest.

A-6 – stabbed the deceased with Spear on the left side back portion.

A-7 – stabbed Parandhami Reddy on the left side.

A-8  –  stabbed  Parandhami  Reddy  on  the  left  ear  and  also  on  the  abdomen.

A-9 – stabbed Parandhami Reddy on the left side chest portion.

A-10  –  beat  the  deceased  with  stick  on  the  left  temporal  region  of  deceased Parandhami Reddy.

A-11 – stabbed the deceased with Chilakathi on the left side of the chest  and left side of the temple region.

A-12 – beat Parandhami Reddy with axe on his head.

P.W. 7 (Manneti Chenchaiah) stated about the injuries on the deceased  as under:

A-1 –axed the deceased on the head with battle axe.

A-3 – hacked Parandhami Reddy with axe on the head.

A-4 – stabbed – Parandhami Reddy with bitchuva on the left side of the  chest and underneath the left arm pit.

A-5 – stabbed Parandhami Reddy with bitchuva on the left side of the  chest and underneath the left arm pit.

A-6 – stabbed the deceased with Spear on the left side back portion.

A-7 – stabbed the deceased with spear on the left side back portion.

A-8 – stabbed the deceased with Chillakathi  on the left ear and also on  the abdomen.

A-9 – stabbed the deceased with spear on the left side of the chest and  also on umbilicus.

Page 16

A-10 – beat Parandhami Reddy with sticks on the left temporal region.

A-11 – stabbed Parandhami Reddy with Chilakathi on the left side of the  chest and left side of the temple region.

A-12 – beat the deceased on the chest with battle axe.”

19. We have found that the injuries on the deceased are completely  

relatable to the injuries to the attack as deposed to by the prosecution  

witnesses.

20. We have carefully examined the alleged discrepancies and we do  

not  find  that  the  discrepancies  and  doubts  are  such  as  makes  their  

testimonies liable to be rejected, in view of the deposition of PWs 3, 6  

and 7, which is clear and consistent.

21. In  State of U.P. vs.   Anil  Singh, A.I.R.  1988 SC 1998,  this  Court observed as follows:

“In an appeal  against acquittal,  in  the great majority of  cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want  of  corroboration  by  independent  witnesses,  or  for  some  falsehood, stated  or embroidery  added by witnesses.  In  some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not  examining all witnesses to the occurrence. The indifferent  attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes could  also be pointed. The public are generally reluctant to come  forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not  correct to reject the prosecution version only  on ground  that all witnesses to occurrence have not been examined.  It  is  also  not  proper  to  reject  the  case  for  want  of  corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made  out  is  otherwise  true  and  acceptable.  With  regard  to  falsehood  stated  or  embellishments  added  by  the  prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is  a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a  good  case  by  false  or  exaggerated  version.  It  is  also  experienced that invariably the witnesses add embroidery  to  prosecution  story,  perhaps  for  the  fear  of  being  disbelieved.  But  that  is  no  ground  to  throw  the  case  overboard, if true in the main. If there is a ring of truth in  the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of  the  Court  to  cull  out  the  nuggets  of  truth  from  the  evidence  unless  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  inconsistencies  of  falsehood are so glaring as utterly  to  destroy  confidence  in  the  witnesses.  It  is  necessary  to  remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal  trial  merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A  Judge  also  presides  to  see  that  a  guilty  man  does  not  escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public

Page 17

duties which the Judge has to perform.”

22.    In  State of Punjab v.  Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271,  

this Court held as follows:

“There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the  evidence  upon  which  an  order  of  acquittal  is  based.  Generally,  the  order of  acquittal  shall  not  be interfered  with because the presumption of innocence of the accused  is  further  strengthened  by  acquittal.  The  golden  thread  which runs through the web of administration of justice in  criminal  cases  is  that  if  two  views  are  possible  on the  evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of  the  accused  and  the  other  to  his  innocence,  the  view  which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The  paramount  consideration  of  the  court  is  to  ensure  that  miscarriage  of  justice  is  prevented.  A  miscarriage  of  justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no  less than from  -the conviction of an innocent. In a case  where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon  the  appellate  court  to  re-appreciate  the  evidence  even  where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of  ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed  any offence or not.”

23. Having regard to the above law laid down by this Court, the High  

Court was fully justified in reversing the order of acquittal in respect of  

accused Nos. 1 to 12.   

24. At this stage, we might note that we are not impressed by the  

submission  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  that  the  prosecution  

case fails because Rajagopal Reddy (L.W. 2), who is said to be injured in  

the attack, was not examined.  LW 2, the brother of PW 3, is said to have  

received one simple  injury  on the head in  the  attack.   The witnesses  

stated  that  he  received  several  injuries  on  his  head,  however,  the  

evidence of  the  Medical  Officer  shows that  the  X-ray of  the  skull  was  

taken on 25.11.1996 and there was one simple injury on his head on the  

date of the offence.  This witness obviously should have been examined  

but for reasons best known to the prosecution was not examined. Though

Page 20

(P.W. 3) intervened during the attack, he beat the said PW 3 with the  

blunt axe of Chillakathi on his back side.  This according to the learned  

counsel only resulted in a simple lacerated injury skin deep of about 1½”  

over the back head of Pelluru Murali Reddy (P.W. 3).  The Medical Officer  

has opined that this injury is simple.  In the circumstances, the conviction  

and sentence of A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy, awarded by the trial court  

and affirmed by the High Court is  liable  to be modified.  We hold A-2,  

Konduru  Nagure  Reddy,  guilty  only  for  the  offence  punishable  under  

Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.  We, therefore, alter the  

conviction of  A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy,  from  Sections 147, 148 and  

302 read with  Section  149 of  the  IPC etc.   to  Section  324 read with  

Section 34 of the IPC.   In our considered opinion, custody and sentence  

of  2  (two)  years  would  be appropriate  and sufficient.    The  accused-

appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a term of 2 years, if not already  

undergone, in terms of this order.   

31. In view of the above, we allow Criminal Appeal Nos. 1093-1094  

of 2011,  filed  by A-2, Konduru Nagure Reddy, to the extent  indicated  

above.  Rest of the appeals are dismissed.

...........................………………..J.                                                                      [ DR. B.S. CHAUHAN ]

….....................………………………J. [ S.A. Bobde ]

Page 21

   New Delhi, October18, 2013