Madusudhana Reddy v. State Of A. P. — 1993 DIGILAW 1257 (SC)

JUDGMENT K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. (1) ORIGINAL Accused nos. 1 to 4, 10 and 12 are the appellants. They alongwith six others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302/ 149 Indian Penal Code The trial court acquitted them of all the charges. The State preferred an appeal and a Division Bench of the High Court while confirming the acquittal of Accused nos. 5 to 9 and 11, convicted the appellants reversing their acquittal, under Sections 302/149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. They are also convicted under Sections 147 and 148 Indian Penal Code but no separate sentences are awarded. Hence, Accused nos. 1 to 4 and 10 have filed Criminal Appeal No.673/82 and Accused no. 12 has filed Criminal Appeal No.674/82 under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. (2) THE prosecution case is as follows: A-1 and A-2 are sons of one Rami Reddy. A-4 is the son of A-3. A-5 and A-6 are related to them. A-7 to A-12 are alleged to be the associates of A-1. All the convicted accused belong to Village Zilleda. The other acquitted accused belong to close by neighbouring villages. One Raghava Reddy is the deceased in the case and there were ill-feelings between him and A-1 and A-3 since 1975. The deceased, who is no other than the uncle of A-1, purchased some land in Village Anandapur and A-3, the Sarpanch of Village Zilleda claimed a share but the deceased refused. In 1976 A-3 was tried for an offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code but a compromise was brought about. Likewise there were a number of cases. Public Witness 2 is the son-in-law of Raghava Reddy, the deceased and had migrated to Village Zilleda to live with the deceased as his illatom son-in-law. There were security proceedings regarding the property. Raghava Reddy was supporting Public Witness 2 and A-3 was supporting the opposite party. There were several disputes. A-3 also filed a theft case against the deceased. Therefore there was bitter enmity between them. (3) 16TH February, 1980 happened to be a Solar Eclipse day. On the next day the deceased performed the Kalyanam in the local temple and arranged an Annadanam to the villagers on the night of 17.2.1980 and fed about 200 people. A-3 also filed a theft case against the deceased. Therefore there was bitter enmity between them. (3) 16TH February, 1980 happened to be a Solar Eclipse day. On the next day the deceased performed the Kalyanam in the local temple and arranged an Annadanam to the villagers on the night of 17.2.1980 and fed about 200 people. After the Annadanam was over, he was returning home at about 11 P.M. accompanied by Public Witness 2, his son-in-law and P.Ws. 3 to 6. Public Witness I, the son of the deceased was going alongwith his mother behind the deceased and they were walking slowly. When and deceased and P.Ws. 2 to 6 were about 10 yards away from their house walking in the street, all the accused emerged from behind the house of A-l and attacked the deceased with axes, knives and sticks. A-l gave an axe blow to the deceased on his neck. A-2 gave an axe blow to the deceased on his head. A-3 gave an axe blow on the face of the deceased. A-5 gave an axe blow on his thighs. A-4 cut the deceased with a knife on his buttocks. A-7 beat the deceased with a knife on his knee. A-10 stabbed the deceased on the fingers. A-8 poked the deceased with a stick on the back. A-6 and A-12 beat the deceased with sticks on the back. A-9 and A-l 1 were standing there with sticks, instigating the other accused to beat the deceased. The deceased died on the spot. Public Witness I also heard the cry. He ran towards the scene and found A-l to A-12 coming opposite him. P.Ws. 2 to 6 informed him as to how the attack was made by those 12 accused. The Police Patel of the Village was residing in Village Jekkapalli and he arrived at the scene and Public Witness I got the report Ex.P.1 written by the Police Patel. In the early hours of 18.2.1980 Public Witness I took the report and handed over the same in the Police Station. Public Witness I 1, S.I. registered the crime and reached the scene of occurrence at about 10.30 A.M. on 18.2.80. He held the inquest over the dead body, recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused and recovered some weapons. The dead body was sent for postmortem. Public Witness I 1, S.I. registered the crime and reached the scene of occurrence at about 10.30 A.M. on 18.2.80. He held the inquest over the dead body, recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused and recovered some weapons. The dead body was sent for postmortem. One Dr.Subba Rao conducted the post-mortem and issued and certificate Ex.P.24. But as he was involved in an accident and was undergoing treatment he could not be examined and the prosecution examined Public Witness 10, another doctor to identify the handwriting of Dr.Subba Rao in the Post-mortem certificate Ex.P.24. The prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 6, the eye witnesses. When examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused denied the offence and stated in a general/ way that they were falsely implicated. All the eye-witnesses deposed that after Annadanam was over, the deceased accompanied by P.Ws. 2 to 6 was returning and that P.Ws. 4 and 6 were carrying patromax light and other utensils and in the patromax light they could identify the assailants and the parts played by them. P.Ws. 3 to 6 belong to Harijanwada, a suburb of Zilleda and they were sympathisers of the deceased. They also ate their food in the last batch and after the function was over, they stated that they accompanied the deceased carrying the patromax lights, utensils and other articles and on the way the 12 accused attack. This is the gist of the evidence of these witnesses. (4) THE learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused held that no motive was established. He disbelieved the presence of P.Ws. 3 to 6 on the ground that the deceased was having his own farm servants and he had no need to utilise the services of P.Ws. 3 to 6 to carry back home the utensils and the patromax lights. He also rejected the presence of Public Witness 2. He drew an adverse inference against the prosecution that the persons living in the neighbourhood were not examined. The learned Sessions Judge also disbelieved the presence of patromax lights as no such patromax lights were seized and since it was an Amavasya day and therefore in the dark night it would not have been possible for P.Ws. 2 to 6 to identify any of the assailants even if they had been present. The learned Sessions Judge also disbelieved the presence of patromax lights as no such patromax lights were seized and since it was an Amavasya day and therefore in the dark night it would not have been possible for P.Ws. 2 to 6 to identify any of the assailants even if they had been present. The learned Sessions Judge held that the injuries found on the deceased could not have been inflicted with axes as many of them were lacerated injuries. He also felt that there were discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses regarding the actual place of attack and the manner of attack. All the said findings have been assailed before the High Court. The High Court having gone through the entire records particularly the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 6 ultimately held that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are perverse and unsound. (5) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants before us submitted that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are reasonable and hold good and the High Court ought not to have interfered. He also submitted that P.Ws. 2 to 6 are chance witnesses and in a detailed argument, the learned counsel dealt with every ground on which the trial court acquitted the accused. (6) SINCE these are regular appeals we propose to deal with the evidence of the material witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 6 and then advert to the reasoning of the courts -below. Public Witness I is the son of the deceased and he knows A-1 to A-12. A-l and A-2 are brothers and they are the sons of his senior paternal uncle Kami Reddy. A-4 is the son of A-3. A-5 and A-6 are the brothers-in-law of A-1 and the rest are the followers of A-1 to A-3. In his evidence he referred to all the disputes between his father and A-1 and A-3 and the enmity between them. At the relevant time Public Witness I was a student studying in Intermediate class. He stated that one day earlier to this incident there was Solar Eclipse and 17.2.80 being a Sunday, Public Witness I stayed in the house intending to go to Chennur on the next day, where he was studying. On that day the deceased gave Annadanam to the villagers in Mallikarjuna Swamy temple. He used to do it every year. He stated that one day earlier to this incident there was Solar Eclipse and 17.2.80 being a Sunday, Public Witness I stayed in the house intending to go to Chennur on the next day, where he was studying. On that day the deceased gave Annadanam to the villagers in Mallikarjuna Swamy temple. He used to do it every year. Annadanam started at about 8 P.M. and ended by 10.30 P.M. and in the last batch P.Ws. 2 to 6 took food and thereafter they were carrying patromax lights, plates and glasses etc. alongwith the deceased to his house. Public Witness 1s mother also came there and she was going slowly and Public Witness I was accompanying her with a torch in his hand and they were at a distance of 20 to 22 yards from the deceased and others. He heard a big cry and he saw A-1 to A-12 having axes, knives and sticks in their hands coming opposite to him and then going into the lane in between the houses of A-l and one Prabhakar Reddy. Just nearby he saw his father lying dead with serious injuries. At that place he also saw P.Ws. 2 to 6 who told him that A-1 to A-12 killed his father with axes, knives and sticks. Public Witness I furtherdeposed that he got the report Ex.P.1 drafted and took the same to Nonnal Police Station, which is at a distance of 13 miles, and presented the same at about 9 A.M. on the next day. He was cross-examined at length on the aspect of motive. Thereafter with reference to the incident Public Witness I stated that he was not on talking terms with A-1 to A-12 as his father was not talking with him. He asserted that on that day he was present alongwith others and was attending to the supervision of that feast Annadanam. He also admitted that P.Ws. 3 to 6 do not belong to his own Village. It may be mentioned here that they belong to Harijanwada, a suburb of Zilleda. It is also elicited in his evidence that. his father had eight agricultural farm servants on the day of the incident. He further deposed in the cross-examination that he saw the faces of A-l to A-12 in the light of the patromax lights which were being carried by P.Ws. 4 and 6. It is also elicited in his evidence that. his father had eight agricultural farm servants on the day of the incident. He further deposed in the cross-examination that he saw the faces of A-l to A-12 in the light of the patromax lights which were being carried by P.Ws. 4 and 6. He further admitted that A-7 to A-9 are not the residents of Village Zilleda and belong to Village Rebbena which is about four miles away. He admitted that in Ex.P.1 he has not mentioned that P.Ws. 2 to 6 were carrying utensils and patromax lights etc. Some other omissions also are elicited which are not very material. It is also elicited in cross-examination that Police Patel came to the place of the incident and he wrote Ex.P.1 at his instance. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit any offence and that they were falsely implicated. (7) PUBLIC Witness 2 is a resident of Village Zilleda and he is the son-in-law of the deceased. He also referred to the enmity between A-l and A-3 and the deceased. In his chief-examination he deposed that he and P.Ws. 3 to 6 took their meals in the last batch and after the function was over they were all following the deceased carrying the vessels and patromax lights etc. and that when they reached near the house of A-l, 60 to 70 yards away from the temple, A-l to A-12 emerged and attacked the deceased with axes, knives and sticks. A-l gave an axe blow on the deceased on his neck. A-2 beat the deceased with axe on his head. A-3 beat the deceased with an axe on his face. A-5 beat the deceased with axe on his thighs. A-4 beat the deceased with a knife on his buttocks. A-7 beat the deceased with knife on his knee. A-10 stabbed the deceased on the fingers. A-8 poked the deceased with a stick on his back. A-6 and A-12 beat the deceased with sticks on the back. A-9 and A-11 were standing there with sticks instigating the other accused. He further deposed that Public Witness I came there and he was told about the occurrence by him. In the cross-examination he again stated that while the deceased was going from the temple towards his house at a distance of 4 or 5 cubits from him, he saw A-l to A-12 emerging. He further deposed that Public Witness I came there and he was told about the occurrence by him. In the cross-examination he again stated that while the deceased was going from the temple towards his house at a distance of 4 or 5 cubits from him, he saw A-l to A-12 emerging. He also gave the details as to on which side the accused were standing and attacked. He was confronted with his statement during the inquest wherein he is said to have stated that the accused surrounded the deceased and the contradiction is marked as Ex. D.3, which is a minor one. He admitted that in between the houses of the deceased and another Raghavareddy, as shown in the sketch, there were houses of two other persons. He also admitted that there is no electricity in the Village and that incident took place on the road in between the houses of A-l and one Prabhakar Reddy. Public Witness 3 deposed that he was following thedeceased alongwith other P.Ws. and that Public Witness I and his mother were coming behind. He also gave the same details about the attack by the respective accused. He admitted that he can not say whether each of the accused gave more than one blow. In the further cross-examination he stated that he saw the attack in the light of the patromax lights and if patromax lights were not there, it would not have been visible and that the patromax lights were there near the dead body till morning. He further admitted that he was a witness on behalf of the prosecution in the case filed by the deceased against A-3 and that A-3 filed a criminal case against the deceased, himself and others. He denied that he has not stated before the police that they were carrying the vessels and patromax lights etc. Public Witness 4 is another eye-witness and is a resident of Village Zilleda. He has given the same details about the occurrence. In the cross-examination he admitted that he was a witness on behalf of the prosecution in the case filed by the deceased against A-3. He further admitted that he had to give some paddy to A and executed a document for the same. He asserted that he and Public Witness 6 were carrying the patromax lights. In the cross-examination he admitted that he was a witness on behalf of the prosecution in the case filed by the deceased against A-3. He further admitted that he had to give some paddy to A and executed a document for the same. He asserted that he and Public Witness 6 were carrying the patromax lights. He also deposed that he told Public Witness I about the details of the occurrence. Public Witness 5 stated that he is a resident of Village Zilleda and that he attended the Annadanam function and was following the deceased alongwith the other witnesses and has given all the details of the occurrence. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he gave evidence on behalf of the deceased in the case against A-3. He further admitted that he was an accused in the case filed by A-3 against the deceased and others. A minor contradiction Ex. D.9 was elicited namely whether P.Ws. 4 and 6 were carrying each one patromax light. The last eye-witness Public Witness 6, another resident of Village Zilleda also deposed that he attended the function and was following the deceased alongwith the other witnesses carrying the vessels etc. He and Public Witness 4 were carrying each one patromax light. He has also given all the details of the occurrence. He admitted that he was one of the accused in the theft case filed by A-3 against the deceased and others. (8) AS noted above, the occurrence took place some time after 11 P.M. and that the very next day morning, Public Witness I went and gave the report Ex.P.1. In Ex.P.1, Public Witness I has mentioned all the names of the accused. It is also clearly mentioned that after feeding of the people (Annadanam) the deceased was returning to his house when he was attacked by all the accused. He has also mentioned the names of all the six eyewitnesses. The post-mortem certificates shows that there were as many as 21 injuries. Injuries nos. 1 to 5 are described as lacerated injuries on the head, neck and the thigh. Injury no.6 is described as an abrasion near injury no.5. Injury no.7 is described as a penetrating lacerated wound on the right buttock and injuries nos. 8 and 9 are described as incised injuries on the thigh. Injuries nos. 1 to 5 are described as lacerated injuries on the head, neck and the thigh. Injury no.6 is described as an abrasion near injury no.5. Injury no.7 is described as a penetrating lacerated wound on the right buttock and injuries nos. 8 and 9 are described as incised injuries on the thigh. Injury no.10 is described as a contusion on the anterior axillary line with fracture of 9th rib on the right side. Injury no.11 is described as a lacerated wound on the leftleg. Injuries nos. 12 to 16 are described as incised injuries on the left knee joint and gingers of the right hand. The other injuries are described as abrasions. As per the details of the attack given by the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 2 to 6, A-l to A-3 inflicted injuries with axes on the head and the neck, Since the injuries found on the head and the neck are described as lacerated injuries, the learned Sessions Judge held that if axes were used only incised injurises could have been caused and not lacerated injuries. As a matter of fact, Public Witness 10 who proved the post-mortem certificate, was not asked anything about the same. However, even in the post-mortem certificate injury no.3 though described as lacerated wound, it is shown that there was a corresponding incised wound. The further description of injury no.4 shows that muzzles were severed and the arteries were cut. At any rate it can not be concluded that axes which are generally used in the villages for cutting twigs and branches would be so sharp like a sword or a knife and when such weapons are used on the head, they are likely to cause lacerated injuries also. However, the fact remains that the injuries on the head and the neck were not caused by blunt weapons like sticks because of the fact that there were cut injuries on the arteries etc. underneath. Therefore the finding of the learned trial Judge that the medical evidence is in conflict with the evidence of the eye-witnesses is devoid of any merit. (9) THE learned Sessions Judge commented that the deceased was having his own private farm servants and that he had no need to utilise the services of P.Ws. 3 to 6 to carry back utensils etc. used at the Annadanam function. (9) THE learned Sessions Judge commented that the deceased was having his own private farm servants and that he had no need to utilise the services of P.Ws. 3 to 6 to carry back utensils etc. used at the Annadanam function. He also observed that there was no reference to the patromax lights in Ex.P.1 and therefore the incident must have happened in the darkness and it would not have been possible for P.Ws. 2 to 6 to identify the assailants assuming they were present. He also commented that P.Ws. 2 to 6 are interested witnesses and for these reasons his acquitted the accused. (10) MUCH of the criticism, as can be seen from the judgment of the trial court, is about the presence of the patromax lights. Admittedly there was no electric ity, therefore it is a matter of common knowledge that in the villages the people use patromax lights and it is is is evidence that one of the patromax lights belongs to the deceased and another was borrowed from another villager and naturally they had to be taken back alongwith the vessels etc. after the function was over. The function could not have been conducted without the help of the patromax lights. If such a detail is not mentioned in Ex.P.1 that would not necessarily lead to the inference under the circumstances that there were no patromax lights at all. The learned trial Judge also commented that the deceased had 6 to 8 farm servants to help him in his domestic job of carrying the utensils etc. and it is more probable that their services would have been utilised to carry the utensils etc. after the function and that version that. P.Ws. 3 to 6 were asked to carry the patromax lights and the utensils appears to be artificial. From the evidence it is clear that there was standing Jawar crop ready for harvest and according to the prosecution farm servants were fed earlier and thereafter they must have gone to the fields. In any event there would have been some comment even if farm servants had been put forward as witnesses, firstly that they were also interested and secondly that it was dark. There is noreason why the prosecution version that P.Ws. 3 to 6 rendered the services of carrying the patromax lights and utensils should be held to be improbable. In any event there would have been some comment even if farm servants had been put forward as witnesses, firstly that they were also interested and secondly that it was dark. There is noreason why the prosecution version that P.Ws. 3 to 6 rendered the services of carrying the patromax lights and utensils should be held to be improbable. For all above stated reasons the presence of patromax lights can not be doubted and there would have been no difficulty for P.Ws. 2 to 6 in identifying the assailants. Another comment made by the learned Sessions Judge is that there were houses about 100 yards away from the scene of occurrence and that adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for not examining them. As rightly observed by the High Court it would not have been possible for those persons to have witnessed the attack from a distance of 100 yards in the darkness in spite of the patromax lights being there. Yet another comment made by the learned Sessions-Judge is that in Ex.P.1 the attack is referred to as having taken place near the house of Prabhakar Reddy and therefore the scene of occurrence is changed. There is no scope for this comment at all. The evidence as well as the sketch show that the occurrence took place on the road and the distance between the houses of A-1 and Prabhakar Reddy is only 10 feet and if the evidence of the eye-witnesses is to the effect that the occurrence took place near the house of A-1 that makes no difference. The learned trial Judge likewise has commented that the injuries were not explained. We do not think that this by itself introduces any infirmity in the evidence of the eye-witnesses in view of the fact that a number of assailants attacked and inflicted as many as 21 injuries. Before the High Court it was argued on behalf of the accused that the report ought to have been sent through Police Patel and that there was no need for Public Witness I to take the report. We do not think that this makes any difference. Yet another submission was that in Ex.P.1 the overt acts attributed to individual accused have not been mentioned. We do not think that this makes any difference. Yet another submission was that in Ex.P.1 the overt acts attributed to individual accused have not been mentioned. We find that the names of the accused, the weapons, the place of occurrence have all been mentioned in Ex.P.1 and if details of some of the overt acts have not been mentioned that does not make any difference. (11) YET another submission is that the High Court having acquitted A-5 to 9 and A-11 ought not to have convicted the appellants on the self-same evidence. The High Court has clearly observed that since the witnesses were interested their evidence has to be scrutinised with great care and caution. Therefore it would not be safe to convict A-5 to A-9 and A-11 who belong to other villages since their presence can not readily be inferred and that judicial caution requires that they should be excluded. By this it can not be said that the High Court has in any manner doubted the veracity of the eye-witnesses. (12) FROM the above discussion it can be seen that the High Court has taken the specific overt acts attributed to the Accused nos. 1 to 4, 10 and 12 into consideration and convicted them. So far as A-l 2 is concerned, the evidence of the eye-witnesses is to the effect that he dealt a blow with a stick but from the evidence of the eye-witnesses it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the alone inflicted that single contusion on the axillary line resulting in the fracture of 9th rib. Public Witness 2 deposed that A-6 and A-12 beat the deceased with sticks on the back. Public Witness 3 did not attribute any overt act to A-12, Public Witness 4 deposed that A-6, A-8 and -12 beat the deceased with sticks. Public Witness 6 also deposed that A-6, A-8 and A-12 beat the deceased with sticks. But, according to postmortem certificate, there was only one contusion and further the High Court has acquitted A-6 and A-8 alongwith some others. It is therefore difficult to hold under these circumstances that A-12 alone can be held responsible for the single contusion particularly when the Public Witness 3 did not attribute any overt act at all to him. But, according to postmortem certificate, there was only one contusion and further the High Court has acquitted A-6 and A-8 alongwith some others. It is therefore difficult to hold under these circumstances that A-12 alone can be held responsible for the single contusion particularly when the Public Witness 3 did not attribute any overt act at all to him. Therefore on a further scrutiny we think it is not safe to convict him and he is entitled to benefit of doubt. (13) IN the result the convictions and sentences passed against A-1 to A-4 and A-10 are confirmed and Criminal Appeal No.673/82 is dismissed. The convictions and sentences passed against A-12 are set aside and Criminal Appeal No.674/82 is allowed.