LexPULICHERLA NAGARAJU @NAGARAJA REDDY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PULICHERLA NAGARAJU @NAGARAJA REDDY v. ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AUGUST 18, 2006 (G.P. MATHUR AND R.V.RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: A B Section 378-Appeal against acquittal-Reversal of acquittal-Power of High Court-Scope and ambit of-Held: The power of the High Court in D an appeal from acquittal is no different from its power in an appeal from conviction-It can review and consider the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions by either accepting the evidence rejected by the trial court or rejecting the evidence accepted by the trial court-The crux of the matter, however, is whether the High court is able to give clear reasons to dispel the C doubt raised and reject the reasons given by the trial court. Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 304 Part II and 324. Murder-Culpable homicide-Offences falling under S. 302 and S. 304 Part I or II-Distinction between-Factors to be considered-Long standing E enmity between the families of two brothers-Accused attacked father and son-Within about half an hour, the deceased went towards the house of the accused to question him about his high-handed acts-Accused along with others came from his house armed with a stick and a Barisa-Accused stabbed thr' deceased near his throat with the Barisa-Deceased collapsed- Trial court acquitted the accused by extending him benefit of doubt-But F High Court reversed the finding of acquittal and convicted the accused under S. 302--Correctness of-Held: The deceased was not armed with any weapon-There was no indication that he intended to cause any physical harm to the accused, or that he intended to retaliate for the earlier incident- There was no provocation, sudden quarrel or fight-The stabbing was with G great force, causing an injury on a vital part of the body, sufficient in the ordinaiy course of nature to cause death-Hence conviction of accused under S. 302 justified Criminal Trial: 633 H 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Witnesses-Interested or partisan witnesses---J::videntiary value of-- Trial court acquitted the accused by extending him benefit of doubt-The trial court had rejected the evidence of PW--/ and PW--2 merely because they were interested witnesses being the brother and Ji.ii her of the deceased-- However, !he High Court held !hat !he rejection of the evidence was unjuslijied B and perverse and convicted !he accused-Correctness of-Held: The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or closely related lo the deceased, if ii is otherwise found to be trustworlhy and credible-.// only requires scrutiny with more care and caution-If the evidence is found to be reliable and probable, it can be acted upon---Hence conviction justified. c According to the prosecution, there were disputes between the families of PW-2 and Accused No. I. In an earlier incident, accused-appellants Nos. I, 2 and 3 came to the house of PW-2 and threatened him with dire consequences. In the second incident, PW-2 and his son PW-I were attacked by appellant-accused No. 3 and his father accused No. I. Within :ibout half an D hour of the second incident, the deceased went towards the house of the accused persons to question them about their high-handed acts. It was the further case of the prosecution that accused Nos. t, 2 and 3 along with others came from their house armed with a stick and a Barisa. Accused Nos. t and 2 caught hold of the deceased, who was unarmed, and E accused No. 3 stabbed the deceased near his throat with the Barisa. The deceased collapsed. F The trial court acquitted all the accused persons by extending them the benefit of doubt. It held that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses (PW-I and PW-2) is not trustworthy and could not be relied upon as they were close relatives of the deceased, having previous enmity and grudge against the accused persons and who were interested in falsely implicating the accused. The High Court allowed the appeal holding that rejection of the evidence of PW-I and PW-2 by the trial court was unjustified and perverse. G Accordingly, the High Court convicted the appellant-accused No. 3 under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. It is now well-settled that the power of the High Court in an H appeal from acquittal is no different from its power in an appeal from conviction. PULICHERLA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.