KOMMA NEELAKANTHA REDDY & ORS. versus STTE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 16-02-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
-
' 
KOMMA NEELAKANTHA REDDY & ORS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
February 16, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHJNGHAL, JJ.] 
75 
Eye witness-Reliability of witness-Eye witnesses who 
lyere 
Poli~e-nien 
:Jpecially posted due to strained relations between the two facflons, niak1ng the 
F.l.R. Ex. P 2 -v.·hen the party of the deceased refused to tnake a report, but 
making a slate1ne11t in a departn1e11tal enquiry against then1 for dereliction of 
d111y, that they arri1·ed at the place of incident after e1'erythi11J.{ wa.)· 01·er. 
Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), 1860 Sections 141, 149, 151-Scope of. 
Twenty five persons were charged with offences under variou5 sections of 
-1.P.C. on the basis of first information report No. Ex. P 2 filed by P\Vs. 1. an:d 
2. PWs. 1, 2 and 3, the· eye witnesses, were members· of Poiice Party specially 
posted at the place of incident due to the strained relations bet\N·een th_e party 
·of the accused and the party of the· deceased. The F.I.R. was drawn up and 
filed by them as the party of the deceased refused to make a report. The first 
information report stated, (a) that the party of the deceased went upto the 
terrace of the house of SL1bbi Reddy and challenged the party of the accused 
·to a fight, \\'hereupon the party of the accused came to the terrace of the house 
·of one Somi Reddy which \Vas at son1e distance from the house. of Subbi Reddy, 
(b) that A2, A4, A6 and A9 v.rere armed with guns and as a result of their 
firing at the party of the deceased several persons received gun.shot injuries of 
whom R:1makrishna Reddy succumbed to his. injury and (c) that the policen1en 
tried to apprehend the accused but they ran away. 
The Additional Sessions 
Judge, Cuddapah. who did not find it possible to place reliance on the evidence 
of the prosecution witnesses, acquitted the accused by his judgment dt. April 21, 
197 l. 1\n ap-peal was filed against the acquittal. Al and A2 died during the 
appeal. The High Court relied on the testimony of PWs. 1 to 3 set aside the 
judgment in respect of the acquittnl of A 3 to A 9, A 11, A 12, A 13 and 
A 19 but confirmed the acquittal of the rest. 
Hence this appeal. 
It \Vas con-
tended that in view of the contrary staten1ents made by PVVs. 1 to 3 in the 
<lepartmental enquiry against them for dereliction of duty, they falsely claimed 
10 be the eye \\'itnesses and therefore the conviction\ could not be sustained. 
Dismissing thr appeals of A 4, A 6, A 9 and allowing the appeals of the 
Test the Court, 
HELD : 1. The High Court rightly took the view I hat '111 the three· policemen 
were present at the time of the incident and v.'itnessed it, and that the statements 
given by them in the departmental inquiry against them for d>!rcliction of duty 
v.1ere for the purpose of avoiding an adverse finding in the inquiry. 
One tell.tale 
fact which was taken into consideration was the· injury received by PW 3 v-.1hen 
both sides were throwing stones ~1t each other. 
[78E·Fl 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
2. The High Court did not misread the evidence inasmuch as it has taken 
G 
note of the fact that PW 1 \vas a local constable who was stationed in village 
Kasanur not only for the occnsion which led to the pre.'ient incident. but also 
Cn earlier occasions including service of summonses, and therefore had oppor-
tunity of knowing the nan1es of the accused. It was therefore rightly held that 
A. 2. A 4. A 6 and A 9 had fired their guns resulting in the death of Ramakrishna 
Reddy and injuries to several prosecution witnesses. 
f78D. E, H] 
3. Section 149 I.P.C. provides that if an offence is committed by any memh"'r H 
of an unlnwful assembly in prosecution of the common object uf that assembly or 
~nch as the members of that nssembly kne\V to be· likely to be committed in 
prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time· of the committing of 
·that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 3 s.c.R. 
A 
"Unlawful assembly" has been definded in section 141 I.P.C., while s. 142 states 
who can be said to be· its member. An unlawful assembly is thus an assembly 
of five or more persons if the common object of the persons composing it is 
of the nature specified in items first to fifth of th~ section. It cannot be urged 
that any item other than that part of the third item which relates to "other 
offence" could possibly be attracted to the present case. 
[79B·D] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(b)

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