LexPONNAM CHANDRAIAH versus STATE OF A.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 561 ... ~ PONNAM CHANDRAIAH A v. STATE OF A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1182 of 2008) JULY 30, 2008 B '( [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; Ss.147, 148, 149, S.302 rlw S.149; S.324-rlw. s.149 & s.448: Assault and murder - Accused, 16 in number, armed c with weapons attacked the deceased and injured him - De- ceased succumbed to injuries in hospital - Fl.R. - lnvestiga- tion - Chargesheet - Relying on evidence of relatives, eye witnesses, trial Court found accused persons guilty of com- mitting offences of assault and murder of the deceased by D forming an unlawful assembly and sentenced all of them to -_.._ life imprisonment - Affirmed by High Court against all the ac- cqsed persons excepting A2, A4, A5, A6, A 10, A 11 and A 14 to A 16 - Correctness of - Held: Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a. witness - Generally a relation would not E conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person - Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made - The Court has to adopt a careful ap- proach in analyzing evidence of witnesses to find out its cred- ibility - Even if major portion of evidence found to be defi- cient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, F his conviction could be maintained - Notwithstanding acquit- ta/ of co-accused person, conviction of accused-appellant could be maintained - However in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the proper conviction would be under s. 304 Pt. I instead of s. 302 /PC - Conviction of the appellants al- G tered accordingly - Sentencing. Maxims: c Maxim 'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' - Applicability of. 561 H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2008) 11 S.C.R. A· According to the prosecution,· on the fateful day, ac- cused persons, sixteen in number, armed with weapons came to the house of the dec·eased and attacked him. When PW-2, father o·f the deceased; intervene·d to rescue the deceased, A-1 beathim wi.th a stick. The accused per- B sons beat the deceased indiscriminately. At last, the de- ceased· feH ··clown ·at the ;Grain· panchay.al office: He :was . taken to a Government Hospital by PW 5 and others. On the advise ofthe Doctor, a comp·laintwas lodged bythem in the Police Station and the poliee registered a e:rime C against the accused persons for commit.ting offe_nces under Sectio.ns 147, 148,-448, 307; 327. read with ·149 of l.P.G .. Later, the deceased .succ.umbed ·to th~ injuries.' .The. Police arrested the accused and, after completico~ of th~ investigatio,n, submitted the. ctlarge sh~et.. Tria.1 Cot,Jrt found all the accused person~ guilty for commission _of D offences punishable under Sections 147, 14~,. 448 .f~a9 with Sections .149, 302 read with Section 149 and Sec~ion 324 read with Section-149 of .the Indian. Penal .Code, 1860 and sentenced them accordingly; In appeal, High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of A1, A3, A7 to:A9; E A12 and A13 butacquitted ·Other accused persons. Hence, the present appeals filed by A7 to A9 and A 13. Accused. persons. contended that the convi.ction is based primarily on the evidenc~ of witnesses~ who were F related to the deceased. Further the accusations even if accepted in toto do not make out a case relatable to Sec- . ' ' ' '• tion 302 IPC. Partly allowing the appeals, t~e Court · G HELD: 1.1 In regard to the interestedness <;>f the wit- nesses for furthering the prosecution version, relation- ship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an inno- cent person. Foundation has. to be laid if a plea of false H .... ..:. ' . Y' . ' ' PON NAM CHANDRAiAH v. STATE OF 563 AP. implication is. made. In such cases, the court has to adopt A a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (Para - 8) [567-C-D] 1.2 The ground that the witness being a close rela- tive and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon,. has no substance. (Para- 11) [568-C] B Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR.(1953) ·SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3 SCC 698; Vadive/u Thevar v. State of Madras AIR (1957) SC 614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP AIR (1965) SC 202 and c State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR (1973) SC 2407 and Lehna
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.