ALLA CHINA APPARAO AND ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 175 · Decided: 10-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ALLA CHINA APPARAO AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
OCTOBER 10, 2002 
[U.C. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Testimony of interested eye-witnesses-Credibility of-Held, in the 
absence of any infirmity in their evidence, their sworn testimony cannot be C 
discarded -Penal Code, 1860; Sections 148, 3021149 and 506. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 157(1): 
Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate-Effect of-Held, Ipso facio it can 
not be a ground for throwing out the prosecution case if the same is found D 
trustworthy on appreCiation of evidence. 
According to prosecution, accused persons, members of prosecution 
, party and the deceased, were residents of same village. There were two 
groups in the village, one led by Appellant No. I and another by the 
deceased. In an election for a co-operative society, candidate supported 
by the deceased got elected. Accused group bore grudge against the 
deceased, and on the fateful day, they attacked the deceased with weapons. 
When PWs. 1 to 4, eyewitnesses, raised alarm, accused fled away. FIR was 
lodged, and nine accused persons were charge-sheeted by the police. Trial 
Court convicted them under Sections 302/149, 145 IPC and sentenced to F 
life imprisonment. On appeal, High Court confirmed the conviction and 
sentence against the appellants but acquitted 3 accused persons. Hence 
this appeal by six convicted accused persons. 
It was contended for the appellants that since High Court acquitted 
three accused persons having doubted the evidence of prosecution in G 
relation to their complicity with the crime, conviction of other accused 
persons/appellants, relying upon the same evidence, was not justified; that 
PWs. were partisan witnesses and no independent witness was examined; 
that PWs stated that the deceased was dragged but no injury was found 
on the person of the deceased; that since inordinate delay was caused in H 
175 
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A forwarding of FIR to the Magistrate, accused-·appellants were entitled to 
acquittal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Testimony of witnesses in relation to complicity of the 
B acquitted accused persons has been doubted by the High Court on the 
ground that their evidence in relation to them is not corroborated by 
medical evidence, which cannot be taken to be a ground while considering 
cases of the appellants against whom the evidence of the eyewitnesses has 
been found to be credible and corroborated by medical evidence as well 
as objective findings of the investigating Officer. [179-F-GJ 
c 
L2. Trial Court observed that non-examination of independent 
witnesses would not be fatal. All the four eyewitnesses have consistently 
supported the prosecution case unfolded in the first information report 
and their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence as well as objective 
1, 
D findings of the police and the same has been found to be credible by trial 
Court as well as the High Court. Witnesses being partisan alone cannot 
be a ground to discard their sworn testimonies. Trial Court was quite 
justified in observing that non-examination of the other witnesses by the 
prosecution would not be fatal to the prosecution case in view of the 
reasons enumerated l>y it and the High Court rightly did not consider this 
E to be a ground against the prosecution. [ 1791-H; 180-B-CJ 
1.3. The view taken by the trial Court on the basis of evidence on 
record that when a person is dragged on a metal road there is no possibility 
to form dragging marks or dragging injuries as deceased was dragged only 
to a maximum distance of 4 or 5 yards and when the person was dragged 
F to such a distance, there may not be any in.iuries was reasonable one, as 
such the High Court was quite justified in not taking this to be a ground 
for doubting the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case. 
• 
[180-E-Fl 
1.4. The expression 'forthwith' used in Section 157(1) Cr.P.C would 
G undoubtedly mean within a reasonable time and without any unreasonable 
delay. It is a matter of common experience that there has been tremendous 
rise in the crime resulting into enormous volume of work, but increase in 
the police force has not been made in the same proportion. In view of the 
aforesaid factors, the expression 'forthwith' within the meaning of Section 
H 157(1) Cr.P.C. obviously cannot mean that the prosecution is required to 
ALLACHINAAPPARAOv.STATEOF A.P.[AGRAWAL, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.