PEDDA NARAYANA & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1975] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 08-04-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

84 
A 
B 
c 
D 
PEDDA NARAYANA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
April 8, 1975 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND s. MURTAZA FAzAL Au, JJ.J 
Evidence-Appreciation ~f-Onzission of details in First Infonnation and 
Inquest Report-Effect of-Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) s .. 
174~Scope of. 
· 
' 
f The ~rst accused borrowed m~ney f!·om t~c deceased anO' as the money was 
~C:~ r~pard the deceased filed a suit against him. 
.Angered by being drawn into 
hh.gation, A. 1 to A. 3 and three others came upon the deceased in a 
jeep 
d~1ven by A. 4, and ~· 1 to A. 3 getting down from the jeep stabbed the deceased 
;v1th daggers and "".h1le the deceased waSi falling down carried hin1 tl\vay in the 
1eep. 
The co1npan;on of the deceased at the time \vhen the occurrence took 
place gave the first information to the police. Three days after the incident the 
dead body was recovered, and inquest was held. 
T~e four accuse~ were charged with offences of murder and- kidnapping, but 
the tnal ~ourt acquitted them for the n~asons : (i) the First Information did 
noL contain the overt acts attributed to each of the accused: (ii) details of the 
~vcrt acts were not m~ntioned in the Inquest Report and therefore it mu~ be 
inferred that the eye witnesses did not mention the overt acts to the police; (iii) 
there was no .reliable. evidence identifying the dead body: and (iv) the motive 
E 
\Vas not sufficient to impel the accused to murder the deceased. 
F 
G 
H 
On appeal the High Court convicted A. 1 to A. 3 for offences under s. 302 
read with ss. 34 and 148 and under s. 364 read \Vith s. 34 I.P.C. A .. 4 was 
convicted under s. 302 read with s. 149 and under s. 364 read ~:ith s. 34, I.P.C. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court of A. 1 to A. 3 und allowing that of 
A. 4, 
l-IELD : The High Court rightly believed the evidence of the prosecution 
witnesses and there was no error in its aproach to the case. '[91 A.-BJ. 
( 1) The witness who gave the first information nius.t have been extremely 
perturbed having seen the attack on his companion. 
Even so, all the essential 
details which a first information should contain are there. 
The names of 
the accused and the circumstances of the murderous assault are mentioned. 
Shorn of minute detail the broad picture presented by the prosecutioo was 
mentioned in the first information which was. lodged soon after the occurrence. 
Jt is neither customary nor necessary to mention every 1ninute detail in the 
first information. [88 A-C] 
(2) The object of the inquest proceedings under s. 174 Cr. P.C. is merely 
to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or whether 
it \Vas a case of unnatural death, and if so, what was the apparent cause of 
death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted 
or who assaulted him or under what circumstances is foreign to the proceeding5. 
Therefore, neither in practice nor in law was it necessa~y for .the police to 
have mentioned details of all the overt acts of the accused in the inquest report. 
From such absence of details in the inquest report it ~as wr.ong. to 
~res~me 
that the witnesses did not mention- the details to the pOhce dunng 1nvesttgat1on. 
[89 C-EJ 
(3) The dead body was identifiable ~nd was .identified by the son of the 
.deceased, the witness who gave the first information and a co-v11lager. [90 E]. 
• 
' 
. , ;,
PEDDA v. A. P. STATE (Fazal Ali, !.) 
(4) Various persons react to circumstances in different ways and it 
is 
difficult to say when a motive would be sufficient for a crime. 
Moreover, in 
vie\v ·of the independent testimony of eye witnesses, whom the High Court has 
believed the question of motive beco:ine academic. 
'[90G-H]. 
(5) This is not a case where· two vie,vs are possible. 
The only possible 
view is that taken by the High Court ano' the High Court rightly reversed 
the acquittal under s. 417 Cr. P. C. (91 C-D]. 
6(a) The medical evidence showes that the deceased must have died before 
the body \Vas put in the jeep and so the charge of kidnapping fails. [91D-E]. 
(b) ,As regards A. 4 there is no reliable evidence to prove actual complicity 
in the murder. 
He is a young boy of l 8 engaged as a <lrivcr. 
His name is 
not mentioned in the first information to the police as haYing taken any part in 
the assault. [91 H]. 
(c) Therefore, he could not be convicted for murder. He could be guilty 
of the offence under s. 201 I. P. C. but he was acquitted of that charge by the 
tria
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.