KOVVURI SURYA BHASKARA REDDY ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 44 · Decided: 03-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KOVVURI SURYA BHASKARA REDDY ETC. 
v. 
ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC. 
MARCH 3, I 998 
B 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 302 read with 34-Common intention-PW I, an injured eye 
C witness stating that Al to A6 with deadly weapons in their arms and assaulted 
the deceased, his father, resulting in his death on the spot-Al then assaulted 
PW I with his knife aimed at his head landed on his left palm-A2 assaulted 
PW I with a spear aimed at his neck landed on his thumb in his effort to word 
it off-A3, then hacked PW I with an axe on his thigh-Testimony of doctor 
who had examined PW! at the hospital stating that all the injuries were fresh 
D and one of them was grievous as a result of assault by knife and axe-
Medical evidence and the prompt lodging of FIR corroborating the evidence 
of the eye-witness-Evidence of other witnesses also supporting the testimony 
of PWJ-Held, the murder was committed by all the accused persons in 
furtherance of their common intentio~Hence, all the accused persons liable 
E to conviction under Section 302134 IPC. 
Section 302-lncident of murder-Time of the incident-Eyewitness, 
son of the deceased, seriously injured in thq incident deposing the time of 
murder. of his father, the deceased, was 5.00 or .5.30 p.m.-On the basis of his 
evidence, High Court affirmed the conviction of some of the accused for 
F assaulting the said eyewitness-Held, High Court could not have held that 
incident of murder took place between 6.30 and 7.00 p.m.-More so the case 
of the prosecution was corroborated by the evidence of other witliesses-
Even if there was an unexplained gap of one-and-hours, the High Court 
could not refix the time of incident which was not even the case of defence 
G at the trial-Criminal trial-Time of incident. 
Criminal Trial--Eye witness-Testimony of-Non-disclosure of manner 
of assault in the FIR-Effect of-Eye witness himself injured-High Court 
found that he might not have been in a mood to narrate the incident in great 
detail because of his injury-However, FIR containing all relevant facts 
H relating to the incident of murder-Held, in such circumstances, High Court 
44 
_A 
.---:: 
KOVVURISURYABHASKARAREDDYv. STATE OF A.P. 
45 
should not have brushed aside the evidence of the eye witness exclusively on A 
the ground that manner of assault had not been mentioned in the FIR-Penal 
Code, 1860, Section 302134--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 154-
FIR-Lack of details-Effect of Appreciation of evidence. 
A-1 to A-6 were related to each other as also to PW 1 and PW 6, the 
two sons of the deceased. There were land disputes between the two families B 
and a civil suit had been filed by A-4 against deceased over the right of 
passage of water through their land. A-1 to A-6 also entertained a grudge 
against PW 1 as, according to them, father of deceased gave him more 
properties then was due to his share. On the day of incident, PW 1 accompanied 
by PW 3 and PW 4 went to his garden for weeding and at about 4.30 p.m. C 
deceased .came there to tend the cattle. A little later, A-1.to A-6 came there 
armed with weapons like knife, spear and axe. After reaching there, A-1 
hacked he deceased followed by an assault on him by A2 to A6 with their 
respective weapons resulting in his instantaneous death. Seeing the assault, 
PW 2 who was standing at a little distance started shouting. In the meantime, 
when PW 1 had attempted to runway from the place out of fear, Al aimed D 
a below on his head with a knife and when he tried to ward off the blow it 
landed on his left palm. A2 made a similar attempt with a spear on the neck 
of PW 1 which also he warded off thus resulting injuries on his thumb and 
index finger. A3 also hacked him with a battle-axe on. his left thigh and on 
being so assaulted he fell down on the adjacent sugar filed. Then PWs 3 and E 
4 (labourers) ran away from the filed as also Al to A6. On these facts the 
trial court held the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 trustworthy as the medical 
evidence fully corroborated their ocular version and convicted all tire accused 
persons under Section 148 and 302 IPC Al to A4 were convicted under 
Section 307 IPC and A 5 and A 6 under Section 307/149 IPC. On appeal, 
the High Court set aside their conviction of A4 to A6 and acquitted them. F 
As regards others, High Court. set aside their conviction under Section 148 
IPC and altered the conviction of Al and A2 under Section 302 IPC 
(simpl

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