LexKUSTI MALLAIAH versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 3 S.C.R. 815 KUSTI MALLAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 642 of 2008) A MAY 28, 2013 B [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.302134 and 404134 - Two accused-appellants k#led C a woman and took away her ornaments - The witness accompanying them revealed the incident to 1.0. during investigation - Conviction by trial court and sentence of life imprisonment - Affirmed by High Court - Held: Evidence of sole eye-witness is cogent and trust worthy and has been o corroborated by medical evidence and proven by recoveries - Minor discrepancies in the evidence of other witnesses cannot be termed even as minor contradictions - Conviction and sentence upheld - Evidence. Evidence: Deposition of sole eye-witness - Held: Conviction can be recorded on the testimony of a single witness if his version is clear and reliable, for the principle is that the evidence has E to be weighed and not counted - Process to evaluate the F evidence of single witness, explained. FIR Delay in registration of FIR - Held: In the instant case process u/s 17 4 CrPC was followed after the dead body was G located - Relatives of deceased were searching for it - They subsequently identified her photograph and her belongings - In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been 815 H 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A delay in lodging the FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 17 4 - Delay!Laches. The appellant was prosecuted along with A-1 for committing murder of a woman and taking away her 8 · ornaments. The prosecution case was that A-1 and the appellant took the deceased to a hillock. PW-6 also accompanied them. A-1 and the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the deceased. Thereafter they brutally assaulted her with stones, which resulted in her death, and took away her ornaments. The body of the C deceased was found on the following day and the police sent it for post-mortem complying with the procedure provided uls 174 CrPC. Subsequently, when the husband and the daughter of the deceased identified her photograph and belongings, their statements were D recorded. The accused were arrested with the ornaments of the deceased. The trial court convicted them ulss 302 and 404 read with s.34 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal of A-1 was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter the appellant filed E his appeal which was also dismissed -by the High Court by the judgment impugned in the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. As regards the delay in lodging of the FIR, F it is evident that the occurrence took place on 10.2.1997; the FIR was lodged by PW-1 stating that dead body of a woman was lying in the forest and on its basis, a report uls 174 CrPC was registered and the body was sent for post-mortem. The evidence on record shows that when G the deceased did not return from her parental home as per schedule, her husband (PW-4) sent a man to his father-in-law's house and on coming to know that the deceased had not reached there, they searched for her and in the process, on 18.2.1997, PW-4 and his daughter H KUSTI MALLAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 817 (PW-5) went to the police station where they were shown · A the photograph of the deceased and a small cloth purse which they identified to be that of the deceased and, thereafter, the investigation commenced for offences punishable u/ss 302 and 404 read with 34 IPC. Regard being had to the totality of the circumstances, it cannot B be said that there has been delay in lodging of the FIR. [para 9-10] [822-G-H; 823-G-H; 824-A-C, D-E] 1.2. With regard to contradictions in the statements recorded u/s 161 of CrPC and the depositions in court and further in the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5, true it is, C there are certain minor discrepancies but they are absolutely minor, and even cannot earn the status of minor contradictions. Neither PW 4 nor has PW 5 made any endeavor to make any attempt to materially improve D their earlier statement in their deposition before the court to make their evidence acceptable. It is also not a case where it can be said that they had withheld something material during investigation and embellished certain aspects during their deposition in court. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are such material contradictions E which discredit the testimony of said wi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.