M. NAGESWARA REDDY versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 501 · Decided: 07-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
501
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 501
501
M. NAGESWARA REDDY
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 72-73 of 2022)
MARCH 07, 2022
[M. R SHAH AND B. V NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Appeal: Appeal against acquittal – In the instant case, eleven
accused were tried together for the offences under ss.147,148, 324,
326, 307, 427 and 302 r/ws.149 IPC– Trial Court convicted accused
no.1 to 3 u/ss. 148 and 302 of IPC and acquitted accused no.4 to
11 – High Court reversed conviction of accused no.1 to 3 and
confirmed the acquittal of accused no.4 to 11 – State and
complainant filed appeal against acquittal – Held: With respect to
accused no.1 to 3, they were identified by PW1, PW3 & PW6 – They
were main assailants – The depositions of the eye-witnesses and
injured eye-witnesses showed no major/material contradictions –
Merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their
evidence cannot be discarded – Delay of 7 hours in filing FIR was
not fatal to the prosecution case – Even FIR was sent to magistrate
within 24 hours as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. – PW6 was an injured
eye-witness and his presence cannot be doubted and being an injured
eye-witness, his deposition was reliable – High Court committed error
in reversing the conviction of accused no.1 to 3 – In respect of accused
no.4 to 11, the findings recorded in respect of their acquittal were on
appreciation of evidence on record and the view taken by the trial
Court acquitting Accused Nos. 4 to 11, which was affirmed/confirmed
by the High Court, was a plausible view – Roles attributed to Accused
Nos. 1 to 3 and Accused Nos. 4 to 11 were different – Therefore, case
of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 was not comparable with the case of Accused
Nos. 1 to 3 – No interference called for with concurrent findings of
acquittal against accused no.44 to 11.
Allowing the appeals against the acquittal of accused nos.
1 to 3 and dismissing the appeals against the acquittal of accused
nos.4 to 11, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case the prosecution examined
five important and relevant witnesses – PW1, PW3, PW5, PW6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
& PW7, out of which PW1, PW3 & PW5 were the eyewitnesses
and PW6 & PW7 were the injured eye-witnesses. Accused Nos.
1 to 3 were identified by PW1, PW3 & PW6. Though, the learned
trial Court has disbelieved PW5, the High Court has not at all
discussed and/or re-appreciated the evidence/deposition of PW5,
which as a first appellate Court, the High Court was required to.
Having gone through the deposition of the relevant witnesses –
eye witnesses/injured eye-witnesses, this Court is of the opinion
that there are no major/material contradictions in the deposition
of the eye-witnesses and injured eye-witnesses. All are consistent
insofar as accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned. The High Court
has observed that PW1, PW3 & PW5 were planted witnesses
merely on the ground that they were all interested witnesses
being relatives of the deceased. Merely because the witnesses
were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be
discarded solely on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially
erred in discarding the deposition/evidence of PW1, PW3, PW5
& PW6 and even PW7. [Paras 9, 10][510-D-H]
2. One another reason given by the High Court is that the
FIR was not registered at the time as claimed by the prosecution,
but it was registered many hours after the occurrence and sent
to the Magistrate with unexplained delay and according to the
High Court, this facilitated the police to falsely implicate the
accused after PW1 arrived at the police station. However, the
FIR was lodged within seven hours. As per the prosecution, it
was lodged immediately. The interpolation of the time of the
incident, 0.30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., could not be explained as the
same was not raised before the trial Court. No question on the
same was asked to the concerned witnesses. Even otherwise, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of seven hours
cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. Even the FIR
was sent to the Magistrate within 24 hours, as required under
the provisions of the Cr.P.C. [Para 11][511-B-D]
3. The High Court has unnecessarily given weightage to
some minor contradictions. The contradictions, if any, are not
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
503
material contradictions which can affect the case of the prosecution
as a whole. PW6 was an injured eye

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