GENTELA VIJAYAVARDHAN RAO AND ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 273 · Decided: 28-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

GENTELA VIJAYAVARDHAN RAOAND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
AUGUST 28, 1996 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND KT. THOMAS, JJ.) 
B 
Criminal Law : 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 303, 341, 440 and 120-B. 
c 
Death sentenc~'Rarest of rare case'-Murder and robbe!flarge 
number of Victims--Effect of-Accused set a bus on fire in order to rob the 
passengers in which 23 passengers were killed and many sustai11ed severe 
bums-Held: In the circumstances of the case, accused deserved the extreme 
pe11alty of death sentence-Number of victims not altogether outside the 
consideration in awarding death sentence. 
D 
Evidence Act, 1872 : Sections 6, 32 and 157. 
Res gestae-Nature and scope of-Dying declaration--R.:corded by 
Magistrat~Maker thereof did not die-Held : Such dying declaration ceases E 
to have evidentiary value under S. 32--lt can be used to corroborate or 
contradict the testimony of its maker under S. 157--Rule of res gestae is an 
exception to the general 1Ule that hearsay evide11ce is not admissible-How-
ever, fact or stateme11t must fonn part of same transactio1r-!nterval between 
commission of off e11ce and recordi11g of stateme11t makes such stateme11t 
inadmissible i11 evidence. 
F 
Criminal tria~ircumstantial evide11c~rime articles-Recovery 
of-Wrist watch belongi11g to victim recovered from pawn broke~Witness 
produced counteif oil of pledge receipt in suppo11 of his statement that accused 
pledged wrist watch with him-Held : 17iis is a circumsta11ce which e11sures G 
that the victim was absolutely t1Uthful-£qually effective is the evidence of the 
witness that the accused produced pants after arrest which was identified by 
the victim as his pants which the accused had grabbed from him on the date 
of occurrence. 
Words and Phrases : 
H 
273 
A 
B 
274 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
"Investigate" and "legally competent"--Meaning of-In the context 
of~vidence Act, 1872, S. 157. 
The appellants-accused w1~re convicted for offences under Sections 
302, 307, 39.2, 341, 440 and 12()-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The 
Sessions Court sentenced both the appellants to death penalty for the 
offence of murder and criminal conspiracy. For the offences under Sec-
tions 307 and 392, the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life 
and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years respe<:tively. The High Court 
confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal. 
C 
According to the prosecution, the appellants set a bus on fire in 
which 23 passengers were killed, and a number other passengers sustained 
serious burns. The appellants were motivated by lust for wealth by robbing 
the passengers. A handful of passengers could wriggle out of the blazing 
vehicle in their thirst to live by 1~scaping from the talons of fire. One of 
D them (PW-5) was chased by the first appellant and was caught. The first 
appellant forcibly grabbed his trousers (pants) containing some cash in 
the pocket but in turn he suppliedl his half burnt pants to PW-5 obviously 
to cover up nudity. Dudng the same time second appellant chased another 
passenger (PW-1) and succeeded in intercepting him after covering some 
distance, and he robbed the wrist watch and cash of Rs. 700 from the 
E victim. The culprits then escaped lfrom the scene with the booty. 
The police also recovered tht! wristwatch belonging to PW- 1 from a 
pawnbroker. The counterfoil of the pledge receipt was produced by him. 
The Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-63) had deposed that the first 
p 
appellant prod1Jced pants after arrest and the same was identified by PW-5 
as his pants which first appellant had grabbed from him on the date of 
occurrence. 
In the appeal before this Couirt on behalf of the accused persons it 
was contended that there were three circumstances, as mitigating features; 
G first, the appellants were of young age (one of them must be 26 years. now 
and the other man is around 23); sec:ond the prime motive of the appellants 
was not murder but only robbery and the act of incendiarism might have 
been committed in the weak moment; third, appellants did not prevent at 
least some of the passengers, who tried to get out of the bus from escaping 
H out of the scene. 
GENTEIA VUAYAVARDHANRAOv.STATE 
275 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
A 
HELD : 1.1. The three circumstances advanced by the appellant are 
too slender for treating them as mitigating circumstances. Even assuming 
that such circumstances have any mitigative overtone they have 

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