LexGOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. versus STATE OF A.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 503 ~ ;. GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. A v. STATE OF A.P. (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1321 OF 2006) . -\ JULY 26, 2011 B [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 -:- Scope of - HELD: The extra-ordinary c jurisdiction of the Court under Article 136 is not and cannot be a substitute for a regular appeal -Appellant cannot seek reversal of views taken by the courts below simply because I 1 another view was possible on the evidence adduced in the case - It must be demonstrated that the view taken by the trial court or the appellate court for that matter is affected by any D procedural or legal infirmity or is perverse or has caused miscarriage of justice - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, · 3021149 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3 and 5. Penal Code, 1860: E ss. 147, 148, 3021149 /PC and ss. 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act - Accused hurling bombs at the Jeep of complainants and hacking one of the victims to death - by hunting sickles - Conviction and life sentence by courts F below - HELD: It is evident from the depositions of the three eye-witnesses that the deceased had come to his factory accompanied by them and the driver of the Jeep and that the deceased was killed inside the factory by five accused ---- persons - The version of these eye-witnesses has been G _j accepted as truthful by the trial court as also the High Court in appeal - In the absence of any material contradiction in the version given by the eye-witnesses and in the absence of any other cogent reason rendering the depositions 503 H p 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R. A unacceptable, there is no reason why the said version should not be accepted as truthful - The depositions of two other witnesses who were also in the factory premises substantially support the prosecution case and prove the presence of deceased and the three other eye-witnesses apart from the 8 driver of the Jeep inside the compound of the factory at 5 p. m. when the incident took place - In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the view taken by the courts below. Criminal Law: C Motive - Relevance of - HELD: In a case based on eye witness account of the incident, proof or absence of the motive is not of any significant consequence - If the motive is proved it may support the prosecution version - In the instant case, the prosecution case that the accused appellants had a o motive for the commission of the offence alleged against them stood satisfactorily proved. Plea of alibi - HELD: In the instant case, the courts below have rejected the plea - A finding of fact concurrently recorded on the question of alibi is not disturbed by the E Supreme Court in an appeal by special leave - The plea of alibi has been rightly rejected by the courts below even on an appraisal of the evidence on record - Though the defence witnesses stated that they had gone to the district • > • • headquarters on the day of occurrence and A-1 and A-3 were - F with them there was no evidence to corroborate their version - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. Delay/Laches: Delay of 1 hour in lodging FIR - Delay in sending copy G of FIR to jurisdictional Magistrate - HELD: The credibility of the report was not affected on account of the so called delay of one hour in lodging of the complaint - So also, the receipt of the report by the Magistrate at 1.05 a.m. was not so inordinately delayed as to render suspect the entire H j ., GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF AP. 505 prosecution case especially when no question regarding the A cause of delay was put to the Investigating Officer. Evidence: Eye-witness account and medical evidence - Discrepancy - Witness stating that injury was inflicted on the 8 neck of the cleceased - In the post-mortem report, injury noted on right clavicle - HELD: It is a case where the witness describes the infliction of the injury in a region which may not be accurate from the point of view of human anatomy but which is capable of being understood in a layman's language C to be an injury in an area that is proximate. Non~examination of some of the witnesses of incident - HELD: It is entirely in the discretion of the Public Prosecutor to decide which of the listed witnesses are essential for D unfolding the prosecution story - Simply because. more than one witnesses have been cited to establish the v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.