BUSI KOTESWARA RAO & ORS. versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 1046 · Decided: 22-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 1046 
BUSI KOTESWARA RAO & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 22, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 148 and s. 436 rlw s. 149- Arson and 
violence between two rival groups of the same village -
C Conviction of accused-appellants - Justification - Held: 
Justified - At least two PWs spoke about the involvement and 
the role played by the appellants - It is clear from the 
statements made by the PWs that the appellants came in a 
mob and set ablaze around 50 dwelling houses and reduced 
o them into ashes and the same were identified and the 
involvement of the appellants was established beyond 
reasonable doubt. 
Sentence I Sentencing - Reduction of sentence -
E Conviction u/s.436 and sentence of 7 years by trial court -
High Court reducing sentence of 3 years - Correctness of -
Held: s. 436 enables the court to award punishment with 
imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either 
description for a term which may extend to 10 years in 
addition to fine - In view of the sentence prescribed u/s. 436 
F of /PC, the reduction of sentence by the High Court was not 
warranted, however, in absence of appeal by the State, such 
reduction in sentence not disturbed. 
Evidence - Clash between rival groups - Large number 
G C?f offenders and large number of victims - Testimony of 
witness - Appreciation of - Duty of criminal courts - Held: 
When a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining 
to the commission of an offence involving a large number of 
offenders and a large number of victims, the normal test is 
H 
1046 
BUSI KOTESWARA RAO & ORS. v. STATE OF A.P. 1047 
that the conviction can be sustained only if it is supported by A 
two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the 
incident in question - Administration of Criminal Justice. 
There was arson and violence between two rival 
groups of the same village. It was alleged that the 
accused-appellants formed an unlawful assembly, and 
armed with deadly weapons raided a Harijan colony and 
B 
set ablaze around 50 dwelling houses of the prosecution 
party and abused them in the name of their caste. Charge 
sheet was filed against the accused persons for offences 
C 
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 435, 436 read with 
Section 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) and 
3(2)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled 
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 
The trial court found the appellants and the other D 
accused guilty and convicted and sentenced each of 
them to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ 
- each, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment 
(SI) for one month for the offence punishable under 
Section 148 IPC and further sentenced each of them to 
E 
suffer RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in 
default, to further undergo SI for two months for the 
offence punishable under Section 436 IPC read with 
Section 149 IPC. 
In appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction 
and sentence of other accused, but upheld the conviction 
of the appellants under Sections 148 and 436 IPC though 
F 
it reduced their sentence under Section 436 IPC from 7 
years to 3 years while maintaining the amount of fine. 
Hence the instant appeals. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the case on hand, total 79 persons were 
charge-sheeted for various offences under IPC including 
H 
1048 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A Sections 147, 148 and Section 436. Though the 
prosecution examined 52 witnesses, among those 
witnesses, PWs 1-42 alone were cited as the eye-
witnesses to the occurrence. PWs 2, 4-15, 18, 20, 22, 23 
and 26-41 did not support the case of the prosecution 
B and were declared hostile witnesses. On the other hand, 
PWs 1, 3, 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 25 and 42 supported the 
version of the prosecution. [Para 4] [1052-G-H; 1053-A] 
2.1. The incident in question was a group clash 
between two rivalries. In such type of incidents, an 
C onerous duty is cast upon the criminal courts to ensure 
that no innocent is convicted and deprived of his 
liberties. At the same time, in the case of group clashes 
and organized crimes, persons behind the scene 
executing the crime should not be allowed to go scot-free. 
D In other words, in cases involving a number of accused 
persons, a balanced approach by the court is required 
to be insisted upon. In cases of arson and murder where 
large number of

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