GORLE S. NAIDU versus STTE OF A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 816 · Decided: 15-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GORLE S. NAIDU 
v. 
ST A TE OF A.P. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 15, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 109, J 20B, 147, 148, 149, 201, 302, 307, 
323, 326, 341, 342 and 397-Assault by accused persons leading to death 
of both the victims-Trial court convicting some of the accused for 
C different offences and acquitting rest of the accused-In appeal, High 
Court acquitting all the accused-Tenability of-Held, it cannot be said 
that view taken by the High Court is not a possible view-There are 
inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses and other factors which make 
prosecution version vulnerable-Order of acquittal of High Court, upheld-
D Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 164. 
Evidence: 
Witness claiming to have got injured by accused at the time of 
occurrence-Refusal to get medically examined being afraid of the accused 
E . persons after giving statement to the Police-Such examination got done 
after 2 days-Held, there was no reason for the witness to be apprehen-
sive-Such circumstance casting doubt on the evidence of witness-
Besides, his statement regarding his presence at the time of occurrence also 
creates doubts. 
F 
G. 
FIR-Delay in lodging of-Father of deceased, lodging FIR after 
considerable length of time despite police post being just in front of his 
house-Such delay not having been explained-Held, in the absence of any 
plausible explanation for the delay, it certainly was a suspicious circum-
stance making the prosecution version vulnerable. 
Witness stating that occurrence took place at I 0 AM-Such fact being 
at great variance with the prosecution version as unfolded during trial-
Further, :hae was inconsistency as regards the assailants of one of thf! 
deceased-Witnesses accepting that they did not specifically name any 
H . accused person during investigation-Dog squads being taken to the place 
816 
GORLE S. NAIDU v. STATE OF A.P. 
817 
of occurrence and various houses in the village-Witness's statement that A 
dogs are taken when assailants are not known, being significant-Held, 
such factors throwing considerable light on the vulnerability of the 
prosecution version-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 164. 
Practice and Procedure-Order of' acquittal-Inte1ference by Appel- B 
late Court-Principles governing, discussed. 
Criminal Law: 
Acquittal of co-accused persons-Held, it does not per se entitle 
others to acquittal-If after sieving the unacceptable portion of the C 
evidence residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, there is no 
legal bar in convicting a person on the evidence which has been primarily 
disbelieved vis-a-vis others-However, where such evidence is insepara-
ble, the Court would be within its legal limits to discard the evidence in 
to to. 
Rivalry between two groups-one headed by PW4 and the other 
by A-29-in a village was alleged to have led to assault on two persons 
belonging to complainant group, which caused their death. According 
D 
to the prosecution case, on the date of occurrence both .the deceased 
were coming back to their village, when they gave lift to PWl on their E 
motorcycle. On their way, they were accosted by A-1 who armed with 
a wooden plank beat deceased no. 1 on his head. Thereafter, the 
motorcycle proceeded further to a distance of 50 yards when A-4, A-
12 and A-25 placed a cart across the road forcing the motorcycle to 
stop. A-5 and A-6 beat deceased no. 1 and A-2 beat deceased no. 2 with F 
stout sticks. As a result of such assaults, deceased no. 2 fell down. 
Thereafter, A-4, A-7, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-13 and A-26 beat deceased 
no. 1 indiscriminately. When he fell down, A-3 poked on his throat with 
a spear. Then both the deceased were tied with a rope and carried to 
a short distance. When PW 1 tried to run away, some of the accused 
... beat him and tied him in cattle shed. Later on, PW-1 was released by G 
the accused who threatened to kill him if he revealed the incident to 
anyone. Thereafter PW-1 went to h~.:; house and informed about the 
incident to his elder brother. PW-1 's statement was noted by Sub-
Inspector of Police and on that basis a report was scribed and a case 
registered. When the Inspector of Police tried to send PW-1 to hospital, H 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A he refused and went for sue~ examination only 2 days later. On search 
by the police, the two dead bodies were. found the next morning. 
The police investigation culminated i

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