The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna opined that merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the aforesaid ground.
Facts
On 18.01.2007 at about 8:30 p.m., all accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with hunting sickles and surrounded a sumo vehicle in which the deceased and his brother (PW1) and other supporters (PW3, PW7, PW8) were travelling, and PW6 was the driver. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 forcibly dragged out the deceased and immediately hacked him with hunting sickles indiscriminately while Accused Nos. 8 to 11 hit the glass windows of the vehicle and broke the glasses. Accused Nos. 9 & 11 hacked PW6 and he sustained bleeding injuries while Accused Nos. 4 to 7 chased PW1, PW3, PW7 & PW8 and when they were fleeing injuries were caused to PW7 and later all they fled away. The deceased died on the spot whereas PW6 & PW7 were taken to Government General Hospital, Kurnool. On the report of LW1 (Nageswara Reddy) a case was registered against the accused for the abovesaid offences. The investigating officer filed a chargesheet against all the eleven accused for the offences u/s 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 427 and 302 read with 149 IPC.
Procedural History
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the High Court by which it allowed Criminal Appeal filed by original accused Nos. 1 to 3 (respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein), acquitted original accused Nos. 1 to 3 and dismissed Criminal Appeal filed by the original complainant – appellant challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the rest of the accused, i.e., accused Nos. 4 to 11, the original complainant has preferred the present appeals.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The High Court doubted the FIR given by PW1 mainly on the ground of alleged interpolation of time of lodging the FIR and on the ground that there was a delay of seven hours in lodging the FIR and that the FIR was sent to the learned Magistrate at 4:30 a.m. on the next morning. It has not properly appreciated and considered the fact that the FIR was sent to the learned Magistrate within a period of 24 hours as required under the law. It disbelieved PW1 & PW3 who were the eyewitnesses on some minor contradictions between the two versions of PW1 & PW3. It also doubted the credibility and trustworthiness of PW1 & PW3 on the ground that they are interested witnesses It did not consider the fact that PW6 & PW7 are the injured eyewitnesses. It was prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court insofar as acquitting accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned.
Respondent: High Court has rightly disbelieved the FIR given by PW1 and has rightly observed that there are all possibilities of implicating the accused falsely. On reappreciation of the evidence and by giving cogent reasons, it has disbelieved PW1 & PW3 (so called eyewitnesses) and PW6 & PW7 (so called injured eyewitnesses). It has not committed any error in acquitting Accused Nos.1 to 3 and confirming the acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11. It was prayed to dismiss all the appeals.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“The findings recorded in respect of acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 are on appreciation of evidence on record and the view taken by th learned trial Court acquitting Accused Nos. 4 to 11, which has been affirmed/confirmed by the High Court, is a plausible view and therefore the same are not required to be interfered with by this Court... the High Court has not at all discussed and/or re-appreciated the evidence/deposition of PW5, which as a first appellate Court, the High Court was required to… we are of the opinion that there are no major/material contradictions in the deposition of the eye-witnesses and injured eye-witnesses… Merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the aforesaid ground… the delay of seven hours cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case… we are of the opinion that the High Court has unnecessarily given weightage to some minor contradictions… Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are the main assailants. identified by the eyewitnesses/injured eye-witnesses. The overt acts of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are different than that of Accused Nos. 4 to 11. Therefore, the case of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 is not comparable with the case of Accused Nos. 1 to 3.”
Judgment
Criminal Appeal filed by the original complainant and Criminal Appeal filed by the State, challenging the impugned order acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were allowed and the impugned order insofar as acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 was set aside. The order convicting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 was restored. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to surrender to undergo the remaining sentence. Insofar as Criminal Appeal challenging the acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 was concerned, the same stood dismissed for the reasons stated hereinabove.
Case Name: M. Nageswara Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 72-73 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Decided on: 7th March 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
