LexANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. versus PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 1078 A ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. B v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2006) MARCH 5, 2008 (S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ) Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rlw 149 - Two persons assaulted by a number of C accused in a bus in the night - One of victims died - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court of nine accused and acquittal of others giving them benefit of doubt- HELD: Maxim · 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' not applicable in India - Giving benefit of doubt to some accused itself would not be D sufficient to extend same benefit to main accused who took part iri a brutal murder of their arch enemy - Trial court has r-- not believed injured witness at all - He may be an interested · witness, but there is no reason as to why he would falsely implicate the accused, motive of crime being unrebutted - E Without taking recourse to right methodology of appreciation of evidence no court should infer that a prosecution witness is wholly untrustworthy only because his evidence has not been corroborated - Evidence - Testimony of injured and interested witness. F Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378 - High Court recording conviction in appeal against acquittal..:.. HELD: Whether a matter deserves interference by appellate court depends upon fact situation of each case - G Non-consideration of material facts and consideration of irrelevant facts would invite interference with judgment of trial court - On facts, very serious infirmities both in regard to legal propositions as also appreciation of evidence were noticed in judgment of trial court - There is no reason to take any , f H 1078 ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1079 PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF AP. exception to finding of conviction· recorded by High Court. A s. 162 - Telephonic intimation of offence of murder - Police rushing to scene of occurrence - FIR recorded later - General Diary not produced in Court - HELD: When an information is received by an officer-in-charge of a police station, he is expected to reach place of occurrence as early B as possible - On facts, it cannot be said that information received by police on telephone was of such a nature and contained such details which would amount to an FIR so as to attract provisions of s. 162 - Non-production of General Diary in such a case cannot be a ground for disbelieving entire C prosecution case. Criminal Trial: Conduct of accused - Accused persons absconding for long time - On their arrest some of them making confessions D leading to recoveries and also producing their clothes containing blood stains - Effect of - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27. Legal Maxim - 'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' - HELD: E Not applicable in India. The appellants alongwith others were prosecuted for causing injuries to PW-1 and death of his father. The prosecution case was that due to a land dispute, a few criminal cases, Gram Panchayat elections and collection F of money for fire victims, there was enmity between the complainant side and the accused persons. On 23.06.1998, PWs 1 and 2, their father and other family members went to the town to attend a court case. The accused were also present in the court. While other family G members returned to the village after attending the court, PW-1 and his father stayed back. They boarded a bus at 9.30 p.m. for their village. When the bus reached a road junction at about 10.30 p.m., A-1 exhorted other accused sitting in the bus to kill the father of PW-1. All the accused- H 1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. A appellants and A-10 inflicted several injuries to PW-1 and his father. The latter died in the bus. PWs 3 and 4, the conductor and the driver, respectively, of the bus and other passengers fled away. PW-1 cried for help, whereupon PWs 3 and 4 returned back and took the bus B to the village of PW-1, which was dest!nation of the bus. PW-3 informed the Depot Manager. The officers of the Transport Department reached the village at 1 a.m. by another bus. PW-1 was taken to the hospital in the town in the said bus leaving the dead body of his father in the C village. The trial court did not rely upon the testimony of eye-witnesses and acquitted all the accused of the charges. It also held that the First Information Report was hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. On appeal by the State, the High Court convicted the nine appellants as also A-1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.