LexCHAKALI MADDILETY & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 77 CHAKALI MADDILETY & ORS. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2007) AUGUST 16, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.) Penal Code 1860 - ss. 302 and 148 - Murder and rioting armed with deadly weapons - Conviction and sentence under, A B by courts below - Interference with - Held: Not called for - C FIR was lodged most promptly and all accused persons were named - Consistent evidence of eye witnesses that accused were armed with daggers and knives and they encircled the deceased and caused ·him injuries - Said version corroborated .by medical evidence -Depositions of close D relative relevant - It cannot be discarded merely because they are relatives - Also prosecution case cannot be discarded on the ground of non-examination of independent witnesses of the locality -Acquittal of two persons since there was no evidence of deceased being hit by stone or stick - E Evidence - Witnesses - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 13a ' According to the prosecution case, 'HN' and the accused were on inimical terms. On the fateful day, A1, A3, AS, AS and A7 armed with daggers and A2 armed with F stick surrounded 'HN' and his son 'HR'. A1 stabbed 'HN' with the dagger causing injuries. Thereafter, they took the deceased in the injured condition near the mosque and caused him serious injuries. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-S reached the place of occurrence after hearing the cries G of PW-1, the son, and PW-2, the wife, of the victim. The accused then fled away. 'HN' later succumbed to his injuries. The trial court convicted A1, A3, AS, AS and A7 77 H 78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 10 S.C.R. A of offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. They were also convicted u/s. 148 IPC and sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs.SOO/- each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. A2 and A4 were acquitted B of all the charges. The High Court upheld the order . . Hence, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The FIR was lodged promptly within a C period of 2 % hours, though, the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was about 1 S kms. All the appellants had been named in the FIR. As per the post mortem report, 13 ante-mortem injuries were founcl on the body of the dece;~sed. As per the medical D evidence, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. [Para _8] [83-C; 84-E] 1.2 An earlier incident had occurred on 4.11.1998 between the deceased and A1 and AS, thus the deceased E was inimical to them. PW-3, PW-4 and PWS came to the spot after hearing the hue and cry made by PW-1 and PW-2 thus, they could not be eye-witnesses of the actual incident. Therefore, the trial court brushed aside their depositions. PW-6 and PW-7 who were the witnesses of inquest on the dead body, were deCtared hostile and, F therefore, they did not support the case of the prosecution. The trial court came to the conclusion that in spite of the fact that PW-1 and PW-2 were family members of the deceased and a dispute had arisen on 4.11.1998, few days before the incident, between the G deceased and A1 and AS though there may be a possibility to enrope some persons falsely, the question of leaving the real culprits for causing the death of the deceased out of the FIR could not arise. All the persons involved in the case were from the same village. There H was no contradiction in the version in the FIR and the CHAKALI MADDILETY & ORS. v. STATE OF ANDHRA 79 PRADESH statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. 1973, of PW-1 and PW-2 and A the case also stood corroborated by the medical evidence. However, the trial court rightly acquitted A2 and A4 in view of the fact that there was no evidence of the deceased being hit by stone and stick. [Para 9] [84-F-H; 85-A-C] B 1.3 The depositions of close relatives cannot be discarded merely because they are relatives, but their evidence has to be considered with due care and caution. In a case like this, independent witnesses may not come C forward to depose, as out of fear, people prefer to run away from the place of occurrence and avoid witnessing the crime, but that does not mean that the case can be discarded only on the ground of non-examination of independent witnesses of the locality. [Para 9] [85-0-E] D 1.4 The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 had been consisten
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.