LexMUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 172 A MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1206 of 2006) B JULY 23, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM ).., SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - I/legitimate re/a- c tion between parties - Accused suspecting chastity of victim, hatched a plan and murc!ered her by hitting her with pestle - Sons of victim as also shop keeper saw victim and accused together in night of occurrence, thereafter, dead body found in front of the house of accused - Murder weapon recovered at D the instance of accused - Conviction u/s. 302 and sentence of life imprisonment by courts below - Justification· of- Held: Justified -- Circumstances make complete chain of evidence - Evidence of witness being close relative and consequently a partisan witness cannot be discarded - Evidence. E According to the prosecution case, there was ille- gitimate relationship between the appellant-accused and his brother's widow-Y and they were living together. Sons of Y were living separately. The accused suspecting fi- delity of Y, hatched a plan to. murder Y. He killed Y by hit- F ting her with pestle and laid the body on the road in front of his house and cleaned the blood stains in the room to \,.. throw suspicion on other persons. Before the incident both the accused and Y had gone to the toddy shop of PW-2 and purchased the bottle of toddy. PW-1-son of de- G ceased, lodged FIR. Investigation was carried out. Trial court relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 10-sons of de- ceased as also PW 2 who deposed to have seen· the de- ceased last in the company of the appellant and PW5 with regard to certain recoveries. It convicted the accused u/s H 172 MUNIGADPPA MEENAIAH v. THE STATE 173 OF ANDHRA PRADESH 302 IPC and imposed life imprisonment. High Court up- A held the order. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Relationship is not a factor to affect cred- ibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation B would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. The ground c that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. [Para 7,9 & 10] [177-G, 178-F] Oalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR 1953 D SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 197 4 (3) SCC 698; Vadive/u Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2407; Lehna v. State of Haryana 2002 (3) SCC 76; State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1776 - relied on. E 2. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evi- dence. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial F evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when ..+ all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn G have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact A sought to be inferred from those circumstances. [Paras 14 and 19] [179-G 180-A,B,C 182-A] Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063; H 174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A Eradu and_Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State ·of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; f?alwinder Singh· v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P AIR 1989 SC 1890; B Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P 1996 (10) SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; State of U. P v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl.LJ 1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya C Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh 2003 (11) sec 261 - relie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.