PANTANGI BALARAMA VENKATA GANESH versus STATE OF AP.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 636 · Decided: 23-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 636 
A 
PANTANGI BALARAMA VENKATA GANESH 
r 
" •
... 
v. 
STATE OF AP. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2004) 
8 
JULY 23, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 1208, 449, 307, 149, 147, 
• 
148, 506, 397 - Fatal injuries to an MP, his gunmen and 
• 
c injuries to two prosecution witnesses by armed accused -
Conviction of accused no. 1 u/ss. 302, 1208, 449, 3071149, 
147, 148, 506, 397 ands. 25(1-A) of Arms Act and accused 
no 2 ulss. 302, 1208, 3021149, 3071149, 397, 506, 147 and 
s. 25(1-A) of Arms Act and sentenced accordingly - High 
D 
Court upholding conviction of accused no 1 but setting aside 
that of accused no 2 - On appeal-held: Presence of accused · 
no 1 as also his participation admitted - Identification of 
accused with reference to pink colour shirt proved - He was 
arrested immediately after the occurrence in an injured 
E condition - Pistol and two cartridges recovered from him -
Evidence of DNA expert and ballistic expert sufficient to prove 
his participation in the commission of the offence - As regard 
accused no. 2 prosecution case suffers from infirmity - Thus, 
order of High Court upheld. 
F 
According to the prosecution case, accused persons 
1o 
armed with weapons caused fatal injuries to a member 
of Parliament and his gunmen and injures to prosecution 
witness 1 and 2. At the time of incident PW 1 to 3 and 13 
were present. The gunmen allegedly fired shot and 
G appellant sustained bullet injuries. Accused escaped in 
a car bearing no. AAK-7041. A 1 was identified as a 
person wearing pink shirt A 1 was arrested on the same 
1-.., 
day with a gunshot injury and was sent to the hospital. 
Fifteen days later, A-2 was also arrested. FIR was lodged. 
H 
636 
PANTANGI BALARAMA VENKATA GANESH v. 
637 
STATE OF A.P. 
Bullets, cartridges of various caliber, blood etc. was 
A 
recovered from the place of occurrence and were sent for 
scientific examination. DNA test was conducted. Pink 
shirt was recovered from the abandoned car. The blood 
stains on the shirt was found matching with the blood 
group of accused. Prosecution witnesses were 
B 
examined. Trial court convicted A1 u/ss.302, 1208, 449, 
.307/149, 147, 148, 506, 397 IPC ands. 25(1-A) of Arms Act 
and A 2 u/ss. 302, 1208, 302/149, 307/149, 397, 506, 147 
IPC and s. 25(1-A) of Arms Act and sentenced them 
accordingly. High Court upheld the conviction of c 
accused no. 1, however, acquitted accused no 2. Hence 
the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There are four eye witnesses to the 
D 
incident-PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 13. PW-1 stated about the travels 
undertaken by the deceased. He categorically stated that 
when they were just coming out from the bed room of MP, 
he and the deceased saw 4-5 persons of the age of 25 
years; one of them had fired at him and others. He could 
E 
not identify the person fired at him but had stated that the 
person who had fired at the MP was wearing pink 
coloured shirt. He could not identify the pink c_oloured 
shirt worn by one of the assailants. It is true that he did 
not make any statement that pink coloured shirt was 
F 
worn by the appellant in the FIR as also in his statement 
recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C., but the same is not of much 
significance. FIR was lodged immediately after the 
occurrence took place. PW 1 was grievously injured. At 
that point of time it was not expected of him that he would 
G 
be in a position to make a statement containing minutest 
details. PW-2 was also examined on the same day. He 
also received -injury and was taken to the Hospital. He 
· was admittedly operated upon and a bullet was removed 
H 
638 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 
. 
" 
A from his body. In the said situation it was not expected 
~ 
.... 
of him that he would make a statement before the police 
that accused no.1, who had fired at him, was wearing a 
pink coloured shirt. He made such a statement before the 
C.8.1. Officers. PW-3 was declared hostile as he went back 
B from his earlier statement made before the Investigating 
Officer. No reliance can be placed on his evidence. PW-
13 was also an eye witness. Although he could not 
identify the accused, he categorically stated that the 
, 
assailant was wearing pink coloured shirt, marked as MO 
) 
c 10. [Paras 15 to 30] [652-C-H; 653-A-F] 
1.2. As regard the commission of snatching of the 
car, PW 10-Police Constable was examined. He was a 
witness to the attempt on the part of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.