NALLABOTHU VENKAIAH versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 20-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NALLABOTHU VENKAIAH 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
AUGUST 20, 2002 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860.'. Section 3021149: 
Murder~harges under SeCtion 3021149-Acquittal of s~me of ihe 
C accused-Number of convicted accused less than five-Conviction under Section 
302 simplicitor-Permissibility of-Held, permissible, if overt act attributed 
to accused resulting in injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to 
cause death and supported by medical evidence-Charges could also be 
converted into one under Section 302134 if criminal act done by accused in 
D furtherance of common intention is proved 
Criminal Trial: 
Testimony of interested witnesses-Reliance thereon-Held, evidence of 
such witnesses must be scrutinized with due care and caution in the light of 
E medical evidence and surrounding circumstances-Witnesses are inimically 
disposed to accused is no ground to throw away their otherwise reliable, 
natural and credit worthy statement. Evidence Act, 1872-lnterested witnesses. 
F 
G 
H 
According to the prosecution, accused Nos. 1-16 formed an unlawful 
assembly and committed inurder of one 'R'. Trial Court convicted accused 
Nos. I, 3, 4, S, 7, 8 and 10 under Seetion 302 read with Section 149 and 
Section 148 IPC but acquitted the remaining accused since they were not 
found guilty of the offences charged. On appeal, High Court re-appreciated 
the evidence and reversed the order of conviction against all the accused 
except accused No.I. Hence this appeal by accused No.I. 
It was contended for the appellant that since no separate substantive 
charge has been framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, his 
conviction is bad; and that since other accused have been acquitted, 
appellant could not have iJeen convicted relying upon the same evidence. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
606 
NALLABOTHU VENKAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. 
607 
HELD: 1.1. Trial Court has accepted the evidence of PWs. I to 3 as A 
natural, reliable and truthful. After scanning their deposition with care 
and caution, the trial judge has held that admittedly all the accused and 
the prosecution witnesses are from the same village and there is a faction 
in the village between the parties. PWs I, 2 and 3 also admitted that there 
were criminal cases involving both the parties. In such a situation, it will B 
be difficult to get unbiased and independent witnesses and, therefore, the 
eye-witness account of PWs I to 3 cannot be thrown out on account of 
they being interested witnesses, if otherwise there is no infirmity in the 
depositions of PWs I to 3 and their statements are reliable and 
creditworthy. (615-B-El 
1.2. The consistent evidence of PWs.I to 3 is that after the bomb was 
hurled at the deceased, the deceased was driving his motor-cycle slowly. 
PWJ, who was a pillion rider, jumped out of the motor-cycle, rushed to 
the bush and watched the whole incident. He specifically stated that after 
c 
the deceased fell down accused No.I hacked axe blows on the neck of the 
deceased. The same is the statement of PWs. I and 2. There cannot be D 
any scope of mistaken identity of the accused. [620-C, DI 
1.3. The factum of PWI driving a scooter on the day of incident has 
been proved by PWs. 2 and J. It is immaterial which registration number 
the scooter bears. In his cross-examination, PWI stated that he did not E 
get the scooter registered in his name. He also denied the suggestion that 
he h.ad no scooter. The witness was examined after a gap of almost five 
years of the happening of the incident. It must be remembered that human 
memories are apt to blur with the passage of time, more so, when PW2 
stated that the scooter was not registered in his name at that time. 
(615-G, H; 616-Al 
1.4. The witnesses are inimically disposed to the accused alone would 
F 
be no ground to throw away their otherwise reliable, natural and 
creditworthy statement. The test, in such circumstances, as correctly 
adopted by the Trial Court, is that if the witnesses are interested, the same 
must be scrutinized with due care and caution in the light of the medical G 
evidence and other surrounding circumstances. Animosity is double edged 
sword and it can cut both sides. It can be a ground for false implication. 
It can also be a ground for assault. However, High Court threw away the 
eye-witness account of PWs.I to 3 on ground of animosity albeit without 
any discussion. (616-B, CJ 
H 
608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. I S.C

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