LexP. EKNATH versus Y. AMARANATHA REDDY @ BABU & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E [2017] 2 S.C.R. 394 P. EKNATH v. Y. AMARANATHA REDDY @ BABU & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1792 of2013) FEBRUARY 09, 2017 [PINAKI CHANDRA GROSE AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 324 - Double murder - Attempt to murder - Double murder of daughter aged 12 years and her father aged 50 years; double life attempts on two. inflicting severe injuries; and theft in the dwelling house by the sole accused - Conviction and sentence for offences punishable u!ss. 302, 307and 324 - However, acquittal by the High Court - On appeal, held: Material on record shows that the accused had the requisite motive for committing the offence - Weapon-sickle used can be convincingly linked to the injuries caused on the deceased - FSL report, credibility of witnesses, foot prints of the offender. narration of incident by the circumstantial witness, identification of the accused/weapon, presence of light in the murder scene, all leads to the guilt of the accused - High Court failed to appreciate the evidence brought before the Court and the facts of the case and set aside the order of the trial court by a non-reasoned order - Thus, the order passed by the High Court is perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law, and is set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court F Per Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.: HELD: 1.1 It appears that except motive, the High Court did not give any other plausible reasons for setting aside the well reasoned order of the trial court. After going through .the evidence placed before this Court, there is no reason to disbelieve the G evidence of PWs 1 and 2- injured eye witnesses. The High Court did not even take into account the evidence of PWs 20-22 who just after the incident came to the spot in question. On considering the sketch of the spot, there is no doubt that deceased No.2 died on the ground floor, lying in a pool of blood, and the daughter H 394 P. EKNATH v. Y. AMARANATHA REDDY@ BABU & ANR. aged 12 years old, was also lying dead in the middle of the staircase. It further appears that the reason behind this was that some loan was taken by the accused and was not returned to the deceased No.2 victim as a result whereof these ghastly murders took place. [Paras 15, 18) [399-E-H; 400-A) 1.2 The evidence which was put forward by the doctor P.W.14 who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased No.2, as well as the doctor P.W.13 who further conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.1 clearly shows that all injuries were of a sharp edged weapon. There is no discrepancy with regard to the ocular evidence or the evidence of the doctors who deposed before the Court. The weapon (sickle) used by the accused was recovered at the instance of the accused himself, and the sickk also contained human blood in terms of the FSL Report. [Para 19)(400-B-C] 1.3 It is found from the material available on record that the accused had the requisite motive for committing the offence and the weapon used i.e. the sickle, cau be convincingly linked to the injuries caused on the deceased. The FSL report, credibility of witnesses, foot prints of the offender, narration of incident by the circumstantial witness, identification of the accused/weapon, presence of light in the murder scene, all leads to the guilt of the accused. [Para 21) [400-E) 1.4 The High Court failed to appreciate the evidence brought before the Court and the facts which ought to have been taken into consideration at the time of deciding the matter and without giving any reasons, set aside the well reasoned order of the trial court. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is perverse aud not sustainable in the eyes of law and the order passed by the High court is set aside. [Paras 23, 24] [400-G-H] Per R. F. Nariman, J. (Concurring): 395 A B c D E F The High Court completely ignored the testimony of PW- G 13 who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased no.I, the young daughter, which testimony clearly showed that the daughter had been murdered by a sickle, all 9 injuries on her being incised injuries. The High Court erred in reading the H 396 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R. evidence of PW-14 as a whole to conclude that injuries found on deceased no. 2 are not possible with a sharp edged weapon like a sickle, and that it is distinctly possible that they could have been caused with two distinct
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.