LexGANGABHAVANI versus RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 155 GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149, 148 - Explosive Substances Act, 1998 - ss. 3, 5 and 6 - Prosecution under - A B Of 13 accused - Trial court convicted A-1 to A-6 while c acquitting rest of the accused - High Court acquitted A-1 to A-6 - On appeal, held: High Court acquitted the accused on erroneous findings - Prosecution proved its case qua accused A-1 to A-6 - Order of trial court is restored. Appeal - Against acquittal - Interference with - Scope of - Held: There are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal - Interference in a routine manner, where the other view is possible, should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. Evidence: Medical evidence or evidence of ballistic expert vis-a-vis ocular evidence - If ocular evidence is totally inconsistent with medical evidence or evidence of ballistic expert, may discredit the entire case, if not explained - Where eye-witness account credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclsuive. D E F Medical evidence - Evidentiary value - Medical evidence, if not consistent or probable, the Court has no G liability to go by that opinion. Criminal Trial - Contradiction in evidence - Affect of - Held: Minor contradictions are bound to be ignored - But if 155 H 156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 14 S.C.R. A the contradiction go to the root of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, Court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions inspire confidence. B c Witnesses: Related/interested witness - Evidentiary value of - If evidence of such witness is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can be relied upon - However, their evidence is required to be carefully scrutinised. Natural witness vis-a-vis interested witness - Held: Natural witness should not be labelled as interested witness - Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation. D FIR - Evidentiary value - Failure to mention all the names and details in the FIR - Affect of. The 6 respondents-accused alongwith 7 other accused were prosecuted ulss. 148, 3021149 IPC, and ss. E 3, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The prosecution case was that the 13 accused persons came to the field where PWs 1, 2 and 3 and the deceased were working. They came armed with deadly weapons like sticks, knives, bombs and sickles and assaulted the F deceased and PWs 1, 2 and 3. Trial court convicted the respondent-accused (A1to A6) and acquitted rest of the accused (A7 to A-13). Respondents-accused filed appeal, which was allowed by High Court, aquitting them. Hence the present appeals by the complainant and the State. G Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. There are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment · H under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY 157 can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate A court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower Court bolsters the presumption of his ·innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good B reasons for interference. [Para 6] [169-E-G] 2.1. It is a settled legal proposition that where the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence C of the ballistics expert, it amounts to a fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless it is reasonably explained, may discredit the entire case· of the prosecution. However, the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion is required to be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts, it is open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly, if the opinion given by one doc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.