DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANR versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 887 · Decided: 21-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
887
DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANR.
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2019)
APRIL 21, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 397, 450 – Case based on
circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution that appellants-
accused (A1 and A2) trespassed into house of PW-1, wherein he
also did his gold and silver business, concealing iron rods and
robbed gold ornaments and brutally killed his son and wife – Accused
held guilty of offences punishable u/ss.302, 397 and 450 and
sentenced accordingly – Legality of – Held: Though there were no
eye-witnesses to the actual killings, there were three separate
witnesses PWs 4, 6, and 10, who were independent of each other
and had no animosity with the accused and spoke in unison about
seeing one or both of the accused running away from the house of
PW-1 on the fateful night with bags in their possession – No
explanation given as to why three separate witnesses would choose
to implicate the accused falsely – Sequence of events unfolded in
quick succession on the fateful night, leading to not only
identification of the accused by the witnesses present but also their
apprehension and arrest, apart from seizure of the stolen gold
ornaments and cash from their possession, there was no time or
possibility for the police to hoist a false case upon them – Minor
discrepancies and shortcomings in the statements made by witnesses
after passage of a few years would necessarily have to be discounted
in such a scenario – No patent illegality or manifest injustice
committed by the Trial Court and the High Court, warranting exercise
of discretionary jurisdiction u/Article 136 –Evidence Act, 1872 –
ss.27, 106, 114(a) – Constitution of India – Article 136 – Evidence
– Circumstantial evidence.
Constitution of India – Article 136 – Scope of jurisdiction –
Concurrent findings of guilt against the accused, interference with
u/Article 136 – Discussed.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 887
887
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
Pappu vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 10 SCC
321; Sambhu Das alias Bijoy Das and another Vs. State
of Assam (2010) 10 SCC 374 : [2010] 11 SCR 493
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P. AIR
1952 SC 343 : [1952] SCR 1091; Karnel Singh Vs.
State of M.P. (1995) 5 SCC 518 : [1995] 2 Suppl. SCR
629 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2022) 10 SCC 321
relied on
Para 6
[2010] 11 SCR 493
relied on
Para 7
[1952] SCR 1091
relied on
Para 8
[1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 629
relied on
Para 21
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1295 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh in CRLA No. 915 of 2016.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., G. N. Reddy, Manu Krishnan, V. Vishnoo C.
Kashyap, Ravi Shankar, Advs. for the Appellants.
Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, K V Girish Chowdary,
Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Ms. Niti Richhariya,
Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, Y.
Ramesh, Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. By judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 81
of 2012, the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta,
held the accused therein, viz., Dakkata Balaram Reddy (A1) and
Chinapana Gopi (A2), guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302,
397 and 450 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Their conviction and
sentence stood confirmed when the High Court for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 915 of
2016 filed by the two accused, vide judgment dated 03.10.2018.
Aggrieved thereby, both the accused are before this Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
889
2. Heard Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel, appearing for
the appellants/accused; Shri Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, learned counsel,
appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh; and Shri Y. Raja Gopala
Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent, viz., the complainant.
3. The case of the prosecution: The complainant, Vetcha Kesava
Rao (PW-1), is a resident of Ichapuram and his house is situated on
Chinnamedaraveedhi, wherein he also did his gold and silver business.
A1 is a civil contractor while A2, his brother-in-law, is an ex-serviceman.
On 21.08.2008 at about 9.00 pm, in PW-1’s absence, A1 and A2
trespassed into his house concealing iron rods under their shirts and
bru
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.