LexPUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY versus STATE OF A.P. AND ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 877 PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. AND ETC. (Criminal Appeal Nos.1521-22 of 2011 OCTOBER18, 2013 etc.) [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, 30~, 307 and 326 r/w. A B s. 149 - Prosecution of 20 accused - Acquittal of all the accused by trial court - 12 of the accused convicted by High C Court, while maintaining the acquittal order in respect of the remaining accused - On appeal by the convicted accused held: The prosecution case is proved by the evidence of the oral testimony of the witnesses which are clear and consistent, medical evidence and by recovery of weapons of offence - D Prosecution has also proved motive - Hence, conviction by High Court is justified - However, in view of the fact that A-2 inflicted only one injury to PW3, simple in nature, can be held guilty for the offence punishable uls. 324 34 - Hence his conviction u/s. 3021149 altered to one u/s. 324134 I PC and E sentence altered to 2 years RI. Appeal against acquittal - Acquittal order - Interference with - Held: There is no embargo on appellate court to interfere with acquittal order - Paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure prevention of miscarriage of justice. F 20 accused, including the appellants-accused were prosecuted u/ss. 147, 148, 302 IPC. Some of the accused were also prosecuted ulss. 307/149 and 3261 149 IPC. Trial Court acquitted all the accused. In appeal, High G Court convicted Accused Nos. 13 to 20. Hence the present appeals filed by the convicted accused. Partly allowing the appeal filed by accused No. 2 and dismissing the other appeals, the Court 877 H 878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 14 S.C.R. A HELD: 1. The High Court was fully justified in reversing the order of acquittal in respect of accused Nos. 1 to 12. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. The paramount consideration of the court is to B ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate c the evidence even where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. [Paras 22 and 23] [899-F-G, 900-A-C] State of UP. vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998: 1988 D Suppl. SCR 611; State of Punjab vs. Kamai/ Singh (2003) 11 sec 271: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 593 - relied on. Rohtash vs. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 589: 2012 (6) SCR 62; Murugesan vs. State (2012) 10 SCC 383: 2012 E (13) SCR 1 - referred to. F 2.1. The depositions of PWs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are clear and consistent about the incident. Deposition of P.W. 6, who accompanied the deceased fully corroborates the version of P.W. 3. There is no substance in the contention that this witness supported the prosecution side in some earlier litigation, therefore, his testimony is liable to be discarded. P.W. 7 was also present when the deceased was requested to mediate the dispute on the earlier date and accompany him to the field on the next G day. His narration of the incident is similar to the deposition of other witnesses and have been believed by the High Court. The prosecution case is fully supported by rest of the witnesses and the evidence. [Paras 16 and 17] [892-E, 893-E, F-H] H PUTCHALAPALLI NARESH REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 879 2.2. The prosecution in the present case has A sufficiently established the motive, which is the political rivalry and the land dispute between the parties; their preparation, which consists the accused party going to the field of P.W. 3 and L.W. 2 with arms; the recovery of these arms at the instance of A-2; the discovery of blood B stains on the knife and battle-axe and ante-mortem injuries inflicted on the deceased, as per the inquest and post mortem report. The injuries on the deceased are completely relatable to the injuries to the attack as deposed to by the prosecution witnesses. [Paras 18 and c 19] [894-A-C, 898-E] · 2.3. The Court has also carefully examined the alleged discrepancies and it does not find that the discrepancies and doubts are such as makes their testimonies liable to be rejected, in view of the deposition D of PWs 3, 6 and 7, which is clear and consis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.