LexMALOTH SOMARAJU versus STATE OF AP.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 10 S.C.R. 349 MALOTH SOMARAJU v. STATE OF AP. (Criminal Appeal No. 1849 of 2008) AUGUST 17, 2011 [V.5. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Accused alleged to have committed murder of his elder brother by inflicting fatal injuries by axe at night - Acquittal by trial court - However, C · conviction and sentence u/s. 302 by High Court - On appeal, held: Trial court got swayed away by the so-called irrelevant suspicious circumstances which resulted into the acquittal of the accusec - High Court dealt with all the other aspects in detail and also considered the evidence without being D influenced by all the irrelevant and imaginary suspicious circumstances - PW 1 (wife of deceased) was a truthful and reliable eye-witness - She had a close relation with the accused who was her real brother-in-law and was not expected to commit any mistake in identifying him and she would E certainly be interested in naming the culprit since she had lost her husband - She was a natural witness and her presence in her own household was also absolutely natural - PW-1 lodged the FIR barely within 4-4112 hours of the accident which is complete in all the details - FIR completely corroborates F her evidence - She stood her cross examination extremely well -Other prosecution witnesses who had rushed to the scene of incident hearing the shrieks of PW-1 and had allegedly seen the accused, turned hostile, cannot be viewed as a suspicious circumstance - Quality of the evidence of G PW-1 is very high and her evidence alone is sufficient_for the conviction of the accused - Thus, order passed by the High Court is upheld. Criminal law - Judgment of acquittal - Sustainability of 349 H 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R A - Held: Merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. According to the prosecution, appellant-accused 8 committed murder of his elder brother 'K' by inflicting fatal injuries by an axe, to his temporal region, nose and face. At the time of the incident around 2.00 a.m., 'K' was sleeping on his cot along with one son and his wife PW 1 was sleeping on the other cot along with the another C son. PW-9 (cousin of PW 1) also slept there on another cot. At that time suddenly, the appellant came and assaulted 'K'. PW 1 raised cry and on hearing her, relatives of her husband, her father-in-law (PW-4), her mother-in-law (PW-3), elder brother-in-law (PW-6) and his wife (PW-5), her second brother-in-law (PW-6) and his wife D (PW-7) came there. On seeing them the accused fled away. 'K' was immediately taken to the hospital where he was declared as brought dead. PW-1 lodged a report. Being illiterate, she got scribed the report by PW-14 and submitted it to the police station at 6.30 a.m. in the E morning. PW 1 stated in the complaint that the appellant- accused bore a grudge against her husband. On that day her husband did not go for the duty and on that night she and her husband and her cousin were sleeping and she woke up her husband to attend the call of nature. F Thereafter, she and her husband slept and while they were talking to each other. The accused came from behind and assaulted him. The Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant-accused. However, the High Court convicted the accused of the offence u/s. 302 IPC and G awarded sentence of life imprisonment. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 There can be no two opinions that merely H because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another MALOTH SQMARAJU v. STATE OF AP. 351 v,iew can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be A upset. The appellate court has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the judgment of acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and where the appellate court coines to the conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of B acquittal cannot be upset. It is quite clear from the High Court's judgment that the High Court has certainly taken that care while upsetting the acquittal. [Para 5) (361-E-G] 1.2 The High Court wholly relied on the direct testimony of PW-1 and carefully examined her evidence C threadbare. The High Court correctly found that she had a close relation with the accused who was her real brother-in-law and she was not expected to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.