NAYUDU SRIHARI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 23-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

NAYUDU SRIHARI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
AUGUST 23, 1996 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
B 
CRIMINAL LAW: 
Indian Penal Code, 186(}-Section 302-Appellant alongwith 14 others 
accused of murder of a pawn belonging to 1ival faction-Appellant alleged C 
to have attacked deceased on his neck repeatedly-FIR by PW 1 admittedly 
after consultation with his leader-Giving names of 15 pe1:w11s belonging to 
1ival faction with names of theirfathers-Duri11g tlial PW 1 could identify and 
name only a few of them-Held : FIR f ab1icated. 
Stateme11t of PW 1 as to his presence--Contra1y to evidence of his D 
parents-No reason to discard their evidence. Presence of PW I at the 
scene-lmpmbable. Conviction based on sole testimony of PW I--<:a1111ot be 
sustained. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : A1ticle l36--Jwisdictio11--<:011cwm11t 
findings off act-Held, ordi11a1ily not disturbed-However finding based on E 
evidence of sole witness, ig1101i11g or overlooking relevant facts havi11g bearing 
on credibility of witness-Reversed. 
Appellant an·d fourteen others were tried for offences punishable 
under Section 148, 302, 302/149 and 302/114 IPC. Prosecution case was that 
there were two rival groups in the village, one headed by V and the other by F 
A-13. Six months prior to the incident, C, belonging to the faction of A-13 
was murdered and in that case the deceased in the instant case was an 
accused. On the date of the incident, the deceased and his co-brother, PW-
1 were in the house of the deceased. At about 2 a.m. Al, belonging to rival 
party of A13, came there and asked the deceased to help him in some field G 
work. He agreed and left with Al for the field work, and PW 1 also accom-
panied them as he intended to return to his village. When they reached the 
place of occurrence, PW 1 saw A3, A4, A7 and A13 of rival party sitting 
there. On seeing the deceased, the Appellant asked his associates to attack 
him. A3 and A4 gave him a blow each with their knives. When he fell down, 
the appellant hacked him on his neck with a knife and other accused started H 
117 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
assaulting him indiscriminately with weapons. PW 1 ran away and after 
sometime reported the incident to the parents of the deceased. PW 1 then 
went to meet the leader of his faction, V, got the FIR drafted from V and 
then lodged an FIR with the Police. In the FIR PW 1 mentioned the names 
of all the 15 accused from the rival faction as also the names of their 
B 
fathers. 
Trial Court did not accept the defence version that since the accused 
party belonged to the rival group, they were falsely implicated. It found the 
testimony of PW 1 trustworthy and convicted the appellant, arrayed, as A2, 
and three others, namely, Al, A3 and A4, under Section 302 IPC. Others 
C were acquitted. 
D 
E 
F 
On appeal, the High Court also relied upon the evidence of the PW 
l. It however, altered conviction of A3 and A4 to Section 304 (Part II) IPC 
and acquitted Al. The conviction of Appellant under Section 302 IPC was 
confirmed. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Ordinarily this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction 
Under Article 136 of the Constitution, does not disturb concurrent finding 
of fact or re·appreciate and i·eassess evidence, unless the finding of the 
Courts below has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. But where 
concurrent findings have been recorded by the Courts below on testimony 
of a witness, ignoring or overlooking other relevant facts and circumstan· 
ces which have a bearing on the credibility of such witness, it is the duty 
of this Court to re-appraise the evidence and interfere with the finding, as 
in the present case. [121-G-H; 122-A] 
2.1. Tht~ FIR lodged by PW-1 was fabricated. The fact that PW 1 had 
met V, the leader of his faction prior to lodging_ the FIR, and the fact that 
PW-1 had given the names of 15 accused belonging to the rival faction, as 
also the names of their fathers in FIR but named only a few during trial 
G trial leads to the conclusion that the FIR was at the instance ofV. [122-B-E] 
2.2. Since the accused belonged to the rival group headed by A-13 
while PW-1 belonged to the group lead by V, the names of the accused were 
falsely includ1!d in the FIR. [122-E-F; HJ 
H 
2.3. The evidence of PW-1 that the deceased Iert his house on the 
(
-~ 
}. 
' 
NAYUDU SRIHARiv. STATE[M.KMUKHEIUEE,J.] 
119 
request of Al cannot be accepted, 

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