LexBODDELLA BABUL REDDY versus PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 149 BODDELLA BABUL REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP. (Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2007) JANUARY 06, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 3021149 - Rivalry between two political factions - Accused C armed with dangerous weapons- and bombs, attacked deceased and prosecution witnesses - A/legation that appellant hurled bomb on deceased, resulting in his death on the spot and four accused hurled bombs resulting in splinter injuries to prosecution witnesses - Trial of accused D persons for various. offences - Acquittal by trial court - High Court upholding acquittal of all the accused except appellant - Conviction of appellant uls. 302 - On appeal, held: High Court not justified in interfering with the judgment of trial court - It did not exercise the caution while dealing with the E judgment of acquittal by trial court - Evidence of witnesses full of contradictions and omissions - Discrepancies regarding filing of FIR - Thus, judgment of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3 and 5 -Arms Act, 1959- ss. 25(1)(b) and F 27 - Appeal against acquittal. According to the prosecution case, there was a fierce enmity between the accused party and the complainant party. On the fateful day, accused persons armed with dangerous weapons and bombs attacked the deceased G and the prosecution witnesses. Appellant hurled bomb on deceased and he died on the spot and others also hurled bombs and prosecution witnesses suffered splinter injuries. Accused persons were tried for various 149 H 150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R. A offences u/ss. 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302/149 IPC, ss. 3, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and ss. 25(1)(b), 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Trial court acquitted all the accused persons. The High Court upheld the acquittal of all the accused except the appellant and B convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court has not exercised the caution that was expected to while dealing with the C judgment of acquittal by the trial court. High Court was not justified in interfering with the well considered judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. [Paras 13 and 17] [170-C-D; 170-E-F] D 2.1. The well considered judgment of the trial court has been upset by the High Court and in its judgment, the High Court relied on the complaint given by PW-1. Barring the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW- E 5, there is hardly any consideration in the High Court's judgment, more particularly of the mix up of timings as regards the complaint. In the complaint it is specifically alleged that the Telugu Desam Party was led by the appellant. Both the parties, on 13.12.1998, had fought in F connection with using the road and the witness PW-1 himself and his party people were accused in that case and were absconding. It is then suggested on 16.12.1998, in the morning at 7.30, PW-1 and the other persons went to cart the paddy hay of RR and while they were bundling the hay, the 16 accused persons came there G and the appellant, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 were holding bombs in their hands, A-6 was holding a gun and other persons were holding hunting sickles and spears and the appellant raised loud cries shouting not to leave anybody there and kill all of them. It was the appellant H who hurled a bomb on deceased. The said bomb BODDELLA BABUL REDDY v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 151 HIGH COURT OF A.P. exploded and deceased fell down and died on the spot; A then the others also started hurling the bombs. PW-1 then refers to his being hacked by other accused persons with a hunting sickle and on the right knee with the spear. He then refers to an injury caused on his little finger because of the spear. He then refers to the police firing a gun. After B that he refers that all the injured came to the Government Hospital and were being treated. There is an endorsement that this statement has been given at 10.35 A.M., while it was dispatched to the Court at 1.04 P.M. Also report is given by A-14 on the same day at 7.45 A.M., c wherein the hurling of the bomb is attributed to complainant party. [Para 13] [165-G-H; 166-A-G] 2.2. On seeing the evidence of PW-1 in the light of evidence of PW-14,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.