LexANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 755 4 ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. A V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No.408 of 2007) APRIL 21, 2009 B [D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 154 - FIR - Reliability of - Death of two and injuries to c prosecution witnesses due to political rivalry - Plea that FIR concocted document - Held: Not sustainable - Prosecution witness fit to give statement even though seriously injured - Doctor endorsed fitness and statement recorded in his ..... presence by AS/ - Absence of specific overt act attributed to f accused not fatal to prosecution case - No delay in sending D FIR to magistrate. s.464 - Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge - Notice to all accused under charge 1 that E they were members of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons in prosecution of common object of murdering deceased, committed offence of rioting u/s. 149 - Charge 4 - ~ & 5 against accused that during course of same transaction committed murder by intentional causing death of deceased ~ and offence uls. 302 - Non-mentioning of s.149 in charge 4 F & 5 - Held: Would not vitiate the conviction as accused failed to show any prejudice - It is clear from charge 4 and 5 that transaction mentioned in charge 1 was made integral part thereof and ingredients of s.149 are implicit therein except ~ .}( mentioning s. 149 ·specifically - Particulars in charge 4 and 6 G ...... sufficient to give notice of s. 149 to accused - Offence u/s. 302 rlw s.149 implicit- Penal Code, 1860- s.302 rlw s. 149. Penal Code, 1860: ss.148, 302 and 149 - Unlawful 755 H 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R. • A assembly - Common object - Determination of - Political rivalry between two factions - Death of two and injuries to prosecution witnesses - Plea that common object was to cause injuries and not fatal injuries - Held: Accused armed with deadly weapons - Deceased inflicted number of injuries B - Assault was murderous - Thus, accused shared common object of committing murder - They were more than five and formed unlawful assembly to commit murder. Evidence: Injured witness - Testimony of - Absence of c specific injuries or specific overt act attributed to accused individually in FIR though detailed version given before court - Held: Testimony of witnesses credible - One of the witnesses seriously injured - Omissions and discrepancies minor in nature - Many accused were involved, thus not D possible to attribute specific injury and overt act individually ::- to each accused - Also, unlikely for witnesses who have lost .., their relatives to falsely implicate accused - More so, testimony of witnesses corroborated by medical evidence. There was a political rivalry between two factions. On E the fateful day accused persons armed with deadly weapons attacked the victims group. It resulted in death of 01 and 02 and injuries to PW 1 to 3. 15 persons were charged for offences under ss. 302,307, 307 rw 149, 148 and 341 IPC. Trial court convicted A1, A2, A4 to AS and • -- F A10 to A13 u/s. 302 IPC and imposed imprisonment for life and fine with default stipulation; and also convicted u/s. 148 with imprisonment for one year. AG, A7, A10 to A-13 were convicted u/s. 307 and sentenced to imprisonment for five years and fine with default G stipulation; A2, A4 and A5 u/s. 307 r/w 149 and sentenced 1 ~ to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine with f default stipulation. The sentences of each accused were to run concurrently. Two persons were acquitted and two of them died during the trial. Eleven accused persons H filed appeal. High Court upheld the order of conviction ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. v. 757 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ... and sentence. Hence the present appeal by ten accused A since A 5 died during pendency of appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It cannot be accepted that F.l.R. is a B concocted document. The trial court as well as the High Court rightly held that FIR was not fabricated. It is true ~ that injury no.1 received by PW-1 in front of left parietal area and the depressed fracture of frontal bone was extremely grave and serious but on the face of clear, categorical and unambiguous endorsement made by the c doctor-PW 10 that PW-1 was in a fit and proper condition to give a statement at that time and the fact that PW-11- ASI recorded the statement of P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.