AKULA VEERA VENKATA SURYA PRAKASH @BABI versus PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP.

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 05-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 543 
AKULA VEERA VENKATA SURYA PRAKASH @•81\BI 
V. 
PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP. 
Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2001 
MAY 5, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT ANO DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
A 
Penal Code, 1860 -
s.302 -
Prosecution u!ss. 120-B, 
148, 149, 324, 307 and 302 /PC -
Of nine accused -
Injured . 
eye-witnesses and eye-witnesses to the incident:....__. Trial court C 
acquitting all the accused -
High Court convicting Accused 
No.1.uls.302 relying on the ·evidence ofPW1 (injured eye-
witness) -- Acquittal of others affirmed holding that eye-
witnesses not reliable as they were planted by changing the 
. site of occurrence -
On appeal, held: Conviction of accused b 
No.1 not called for- Evidence of PW1 also norreliable a·s 
there are various.discrepancies in his evidence - There are 
various other discrepancies in prosecution case. 
. 
·~ 
. 
· Appellant "accused No. 1 alongwith accused Nos. 2 
to 9 u/ss. 1208, 148, 149, 324, 307 and 302. IPC. PW 1 (first E 
informant), PW 2 (driver of the car) who were 
accompanying the deceased at the relevant time, were 
injured eye-witnesses. Pws 3 to 6, the close relatives of 
the deceased were c;i1so the eye-witnesses. Trial court 
acquitted all the accused of all· the charges. High Court 
F 
confirmed the acquittal except of A-1 disbelieving the 
evidence of PWs 3 to 6 as eye-witnesses relying on the 
· evidence of PW 15(photographer) holding that scene of 
~ccurrence was purposely shifted in order to plant these 
eye-witnesses. A-1 was convicted u/s. 302 IPC holding that G 
PW1 has given his name in FIR and he being an injured 
witness was reliable . Hence the present appeal by A-1 . . 
Allowing the.appeal, the Court 
543 
H 
544 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R 
A 
HELD:1.1 Evidence of PW1 is not reliable. According 
to PW.1 both in the FIR and evidence, the car was stopped 
near to the house of deceased and then car glasses were 
broken and both deceased and P.W.1 were attacked inside 
the car and thereafter the deceased was dragged out of 
B the car, again attacked and pushed him on the ground. If 
P.W.15's evidence to the effect that scene of offence is 
different and dead body was found inside the car is 
accepted, the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect, the 
occurrence took place near to the deceased house and 
c deceased was dragged out of the car and again attacked 
and he fell down on the ground and thereafter the 
deceased was taken to hospital is false. As a matter of 
fact P.W.5 and PW-6 who are eye-witness to the 
occurrence had stated that the deceased died on the spot. 
D [Para ·10] [549-G-H; 550-A:B] 
1.2. PW.1, in Ex.P.1 had stated that when the car was 
reaching the house of deceased, A-1 was following the 
car in the scooter, but in evidence he had stated that Al 
was standing there and Al and others stopped the car. 
E Though in Ex.P.1, P.W.1 stated that all the eight accused 
attacked the deceased, in evidence P.W.1 had given 
special role to A-1 stating that A-1 first attacked the deceased 
and 5 other accused thereafter attacked the deceased. 
According to P.W.15, P.W.5 and P.W. 6 the deceased died 
F on the spot. In Ex.P.1 there is no reference about the death 
of deceased. In evidence P.W.1 and P.W.22 would state 
that the deceased was taken to hospital for treatment. This 
is false especially as P.W. 1 gave telephonic information 
about the murder of the deceased. [Para 11) [550-C-E] 
G 
1.3. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that he had given all 
the names of accused in Ex.P-1 Complaint. This is not 
correct because he had mentioned only A-1 and 8 others. 
P.W.22 also stated that P.W.1 did not give all the names. 
P.W.1 did not choose to give the statement immediately 
H when P.W.22 reached the scene. P.W.22 also did not care 
t 
• 
AKULA VEERA VENKATA SURYA PR(l.KASH @ BABI V. 545 
PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, . HIGH COURT OF AP. 
to take statement from P.W.1. Even though P.W.22 came A 
to the scene at 8.00 P.M, along with photographer (PW 
15), the complaint was registered at only 10.00 P,M. after 
shifting the deceased from the scene of offence. The 
reason appears to be that at that time Police was not able 
to fix the identity of person who had attacked. That is the B 
reason why no names have been given in Ex.P.1 except 
A-1. PW-1 gave'telephone information stating that the 
; 
deceased was murdered. PW-22 confirms the information. 
But PW-1 says he has not given any such i":f"?rmation. 
[Para 11] [550-E-H; 551-A] 
c 
2. T~ere
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.