KOTHAKALAVA NAGA SUBBA REDDI AND ORS. versus THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 28-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
.. 
KOTHAKALAVA NAGA SUBBA REDDI AND ORS. 
v. 
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
MARCH 28, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : 
Ss.148 and 3021149-Murder-Attack on victim by 6 persons armed 
with deadly weapons-Death o,f victim-Trial Court not believing the evidence 
of eyewitnesses-Ordered acquittal of all accused-High Court re-appreciat-
ing the evidence and convicting 4 of the accused and sentencing them to 
imprisonment for life-Held, High Court fully justified in reversing acquittal 
order passed by Sessions Judge whose approach in appreciating evidence of 
material witnesses was absolutely unreasonable and unjustified-Code of 
A 
B 
c 
Criminal Procedure, 1973-Appeal before High Court against acquittal. 
D 
The four accused-appellants alongwith two others were prosecuted 
for committing murder of the husband of PW 2. The prosecution case was 
\that in the evening of 26.9.1990 the deceased alongwith PW 1 and PW 2 
was returning from town. He was walking about 5 yards ahead of the two 
~itnesses. At about 10.30 P.M. when all the three reached outskirts of the 
E 
village of the deceased, accused No. 1 armed with a spear, accused Nos. 2 
and 3 armed with sickles, accused Nos. 4 and 5 armed with daggers and 
accused No. 6 armed with a metalic stick, attacked the deceased with their 
respective weapons. When the two witnesses tried to intervene, the ac-
cused tried to attack them also and chased them. The witnesses ran away 
and reached the house of the victim and informed his wife and children 
about the assault on him. All of them reached the spot and found the victim 
dead having multiple bleeding injuries. It was the case of the prosecution 
that accused No. 1 was dealer of a Fair Price Shop. He committed irregu-
larities in distribution of essential commodities. The villagers including the 
deceased lodged a complaint against him whereupon his dealership was 
suspended and PW 5 was temporarily given the dealership of the Fair 
Price Shop. On account of this Accused No. 1 bore a grudge against the 
deceased and had threatened to kill him. The trial court acquitted all the 
accused. But the High Court reversed the acquittal, and convicted accused 
Nos. 1 to 3 and accused No. 5. Since out of the two eye-witnesses PW 10 
583 
F 
G 
H 
584 
. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
could not identify accused Nos. 4 and 6 as amongst the assailants, the High 
Court gave them benefit of doubt. Aggrieved, the convicted accused filed 
the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that the High Court materially 
erred in interfering with the order of acquittal and it should not have 
B 
relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 and 10. It was submitted that PW 1 was 
a resident of a village which was about 70 Kms away from the village of the 
victim, and PW 10 was treated by the trial court as a hostile witness. It was 
also submitted that there was no sufficient light to identify the assailants. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. the High Court was fully justified in reversing the 
acquittal order passed by theSessions Judge whose approach in appreciat-
ing the evidence of the material witnesses was absolutely unreasonable 
and unjustified. (593-D-E] 
1.2. PW 1 is the brother of the wife of the deceased. His going to and 
residing at the house of the deceased is corroborated by PWs 2 and 3, the 
wife and daughter of the deceased. He had gone to the residence of the 
deceased prior to the date of occurrence in order' to help him in the 
harvest of sericulture. That he accompanied the deceased and PW 10 to 
the town and returned Vfith them, on the day of occurrence has been 
established
0 by the evidence of PWs.· 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10. PW 8 is a bus 
conductor. He has deposed that PWs. 1, 5 and 10 and the deceased 
boarded his bus while they were returning from the town on the date of 
occurrence and the following day PW 1 boarded his bus at 5.30 A.M. for 
going to police station, and during their talk PW 1 informed him about the 
murder of the deceased. He is an independent person not connected with 
either the accused or the witnesses and there is no reason to doubt his 
evidence. It cannot, th~refore, be said that PW 1 was not at all present at 
the time of occurrence. [592-B-D; 593-B-D] 
1.3. As regards PW 10, the trial court materially erred in treating 
this witness as a hostile witness only on the ground that the Public 
.Prosecution

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