GUNNANA PENTAYYA @ PENTADU & ORS. versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 20-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 342 
i: ,...,. 
A 
GUNNANA PENTAYYA @ PENTADU & ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No.292 of 2006) 
B 
AUGUST 20, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
4:-
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
s:302 r.w. s.149 -
Conviction under -
High Court 
confirmed conviction under s. 302 however held that s. 149 
not attracted - On appeal, Held: No infirmity in High Court.s 
order - Conviction was based on evidence of wife and son 
of deceased - They were natural witnesses and their presence 
D in the house in the morning when incident took place cannot 
be doubted. 
f 
s. 149 -
Common object -
Connotation of 
+ 
Common object and common intention -
Distinction 
E between. 
Witness Eye-witnesses - Presence of Incident of murder 
took place in morning - Presence of wife/son of deceased 
.._ 
r-
in the house - Held: Is natural and cannot be doubted. 
F 
FIR : Non-mention of details in - Effect of - Held: Not 
' 
fatal on prosecution case. 
-~-
Non-mention of name of eye-witness in -
Effect on 
prosecution case· - Held: Not fatal. 
G 
Criminal trial: 
Delay in examination of eye-witnesses - No question 
4-
put to Investigating Officer regarding reason for delay-; Held: 
Defence cannot take advantage therefrom - Delayllaches. 
H 
342 
GUNNANA PENTAYYA@ PENTADU & ORS. v. 
343 
STATE OF A.P. 
~ t 
Non-explanation of injuries on accused -
Effect on 
A 
prosecution case - Held: Not fatal when injuries sustained 
by accused were minor or superficial. 
Doctrines/Principle: "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" -
Applicability of 
B 
~ 
Prosecution case was that on the day of incident at 
~ 
6.30 A.M., all the accused persons A1 to A57 belonging 
to a political party came in a mob to the house of D-2 
and attacked him with dangerous weapons. Thereafter 
they went to the house of D-1 and attacked him. c 
Thereupon they went round the village and attacked the 
Congress supporters P.W.4 to P.W.33. 
P.W.1, wife and P.W.2 son of D-2, were eyewitnesses 
for the attack on 0-2. P.W.3 wife of D-1, was the 
eyewitness to the death of D-1. All the injured persons 0 
were taken to hospital where Police recorded statement 
"" 
of P.W.1. Charge-sheet was filed against A-1 to A-57 for 
various offences including s.302 IPC. Trial Court 
--' 
acquitted some of the accused persons and convicted 
A-1 to A-7 under s.302 IPC and some other under s.302 
E 
r.w. s.149 IPC. On appeal, High Court acquitted the 
accused persons in respect of s.302 read with s.149 IPC 
holding that there was no common object, and 
confirmed conviction under s.302 IPC as against Al to 
A7 for causing death of D-2 and as against Al, AS, A12, 
F 
.... 
A21 and A24 in respect of death of D-1. Hence the 
present appeal by these 11 appellants. 
Appellants contended that evidence of PW-1 was 
unreliable because the complaint Ex.P1 was contrary to 
what she deposed in Court and that details were not G 
mentioned in the Ex.P-1; that the presence of PW 1 at 
.-;. the place of incident was doubtful; that the statement of 
PW1 that the accused persons told her that they will not 
harm her is not believable; that the presence of PW 2 
was not stated in Ex.P1 by. PW1 and also not stated in H 
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 12 S.C.R. 
A statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; that the 
evidence of PW2 was unreliable as his presence was 
impossible and PW3 is also unreliable; that section 149 
IPC was not attracted and that it was obligatory on the 
part of High Court to convict the appellants according 
B to their role and the injuries inflicted by them individually; 
that evidence tendered by PW1 to a large extent was 
not accepted and that would throw out entire 
prosecution case and thus principle of "falsus in uno 
falsus in omnibus" was applicable; and that there was 
c a counter case and the injuries on the accused h~d not 
been explained. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. So far as the non-mention of details in 
0 
Ex;P-1 is concerned, the first information report is not 
encyclopedia of all details. In the instant case, all relevant 
details have been indicated in the first information 
report. High Court categorically held that the presence 
of PW4 to 33 because of receipt of injuries by them was 
established beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, 
E there was no serious doubt about the evidence of PWs. 
4 to 33. [Para 6] [353-CD] 
F 
Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of UP AIR (1990) SC 
709 - relied on. 
1.2. The incident in question took pl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.