LexGAMINI BALA KOTESWARA RAO & ORS. versus STATE OF AP. THR. SECRETARY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1 GAMINI BALA KOTESWARA RAO & ORS. A v. STATE OF AP. THR. SECRETARY (Criminal Appeal Nos. 634-635 of 2008) AUGUST 19, 2009 B [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860 ss.. 302 and 148 - Murder - Manda/ Parishad elections c r: - About 20 persons hurling stones and attacking one of the candidate and his nephew (PW-1) - Death of the candidate .. - Accused A-1 to A·3 attributed specific roles in causing stone and knife injuries to deceased - Trial court termed eye witnesses as an interested witness and a chance witness and D' held oral testimony to be in variance with medical evidence - Acquittal of all the accused - High Court setting aside acquittal of A-1 to A-3 - Held: Presence of both the eye- witnesses at the scene of occurrence was absolutely natural - As regards the injuries on the victim, out of eight injuries, 5 E were attributed to t~e three accused and three injuries remained unexplained - However, this circumstance alone would not destroy the flow of other evidence - It is clear that the incident had happened in the course of the Manda/ Parishad Elections with several people being involved and a F large group of spectators being present at the spot - In this scenario it would have been well nigh impossible for any witness to have given a mathematical or precise description of all the injuries that had been caused and that too in a melee - The fact remains that the injuries found on the dead body correspond fully with the weapons that had been used - Thus, G the medical evidence does not in any way contradict the ~ ocular evidence - So far as the so-called improvements/ ' inconsistencies, in the statements given by the two eye ,t- witnesses to the police vis-a-vis their statements in court are 1 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R j A concerned, it must be emphasized that the incident happened in the year 1995 whereas the evidence was recorded after · about 8 years - Some discrepancies are, therefore, bound to occur - It is clear from the FIR lodged by PW-1 and his statement in court that PW-5 was present at the time of the B incident - The other discrepancies that have been pointed out · are to no avail keeping in view the over all picture - High Court -t was fully justified in interfering in the matter and was well within its jurisdiction to do so - Evidence - Testimony of related witness - Minor variance in medical evidence and ocular c version - effect of. APPEAL: Appeal against acquittal - Held: It is open to High Court ,.-- " to re-appreciate the evidence and conclusions drawn by trial 0 court when the judgment under appeal is perverse - Word 'perverse' in terms as understood in law would mean 'against the weight of evidence'. r WORDS AND PHRASES: E Word 'perverse' - Connotation of. -f CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 634-635 of 2008. F From the Judgment & Order dated 02.11.2007 oi the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1280 of 2005 and Criminal Revision Case No. 1622 of 2004. L.N. Rao, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, S. Byrapaneni and Amar Pal for the Appellants. G 0. Ramakrishna Reddy, D. Bharathi Reddy and Anuradha for the Respondents. ,. The following Order of the Court was delivered H GAMINI BALA KOTESWARA RAO & ORS. v. STATE 3 OF AP. THR. SECRETARY ORDER A This appeal by way ·Of special leave arises out of the following facts: On 6th March, 1995 Mandal elections were to be held in village Gadiparthivaripalem. Two of the candidates contesting 8 the election were the deceased Soodidela Satyanarayana Reddy and Mandap Venkateswarlu, one of the accused (A.6); .. At about 7.00 a.m. the deceased was standing along with PW.1 his nephew, Soodidela Bapireddy, in front of the polling d station, when all the accused, 20 in number, armed with lethal weapons such as axes, knives, sticks and stones attacked him. A.1 Kotesswara caught hold of the deceased by his hair and gave two blows with a stone on his forehead and also stabbeC:t him with a knife on his chest, A.2 Hanumantha Rao and A.3 0 Krishniah who were both armed with axes c~used injuries on the back of the head of the deceased whereafter A.1 again stabbed the deceased on his shoulder. On receipt of the injuries the deceased fell to the ground. The accident was witnessed by Pw.1 and in addition by PW.5- ~ Pambha Soubhagyamma, a vegetable hawker. PW
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.