LexSTATE OF A.P. versus S. RAYAPPA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST A TE OF A.P. v. S. RA YAPPA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 14, 2006 B [H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860---Sections 302 and 148: Murder-Evidence of P. W.2--Discarded by High Court on ground that C inquest report did not disclose his name as an eyewitness--Propriety of-· Held: lmprope.·--/n view of direct evidence that P. W.2 was present at the incident spot at the time of inquest report--High Court failed to take note that in the FIR, the name of P. W.2 prominently figured as an eyewitness. D Murder-Delayed reaching of FIR before !laqa Magistrate--High Court doubted p1esence vf eye-witnesses on that ground--Propriety of-Held: Not proper since evidence of eye-witness categorical with regard to participation of each accused-Also no question or suggestion was put to the Investigating _,. Officer to explain the delayed reaching of FIR before the Magistrate. E Criminal Trial: Murder-Related witness-Evidence of--Admissibility--Held: A related witness is not necessarily an interested witness--No reason for such witness to depose falsely against somebody-But testimony of a related witness should be examined cautiously---High Court erred in acquitting the accused on ground F that eye-witnesses were related to the deceased---Penal Code, 1860---Sections 302 and 148. Murder-Independent witness-Non-exammation of-Held: No ground to discard creditworthy and confidence inspiring testimony of related eye G witnesses when tension and fear psychosis prevailed amongst public due to double murder in the town in a single day-In such situation, any independent witness nut expected to come and depose about the incident even though he may have seen it--Penal Code, I 860- Sections 302 and 148. Murder- -Discrepancy in statement of prosecution witness--Ejfect of-· H 200 /", 'f I STATE OF A.P. v. S. RAY APPA 201 Held: Every discrepancy is not fatal lo !he prosecution's case-Discrepancy A which does not ma/erially affect the prosecution case does not create any infirmilies. According to the prosecution, Respondents attacked the brother of PWI with various deadly weapons and caused his death. Trial Court convicted the Respondents based on testimony of the two eye-witnesses, PWl and PW2. PW2 is brother-in-law of the deceased. B High Court, however, acquitted the Respondents by discarding the testimony of PWI and PW2. It discarded the evidence of PW2 on the ground that the inquest report did not disclose his name as an eyewitness, C and further held that the delayed reaching of FIR to the ilaqa Magistrate made the presence of PWI and PW2 doubtful. The other reason assigned by the Court while recording acquittal was that PWI and PW2 were interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. In appeal to this Court, the State challenged the said judgment of High Court. Allowing the appeals, the Court D HELD: 1. The High Court erroneously discarded the evidence of E P.W.2 merely on the ground that the inquest report does not disclose his name as an eyewitness. In cross-examination, P.W.1 categorically stated that P.W.2 was present at the scene during the time of inquest and until the dead body was taken to the hospital. The High. Court failed to take note that in the FIR the name of P.W.2 prominently figures as an F eyewitness. This apart, P.W.2 in his deposition clear!y stated that he was present at the spot at the time of inquest report. He has also stated that he was examined by the police at the scene during the time of inquest and his statement was recorded. The statement of P.W.2 was corroborated by the statement of P.W.3, and further corroborated by P.W.4, the Village Administrative Officer and a panch witness to the inquest report. P.W.5 G also corroborated the evidence of P. W.2. In view of the direct evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the p~esence of P.W.2 at the spot at the time of the inquest report, the finding recprded by the High Court is clearly perverse. (205-B-D, E] 2. Why and how the FIR lodged at 2.30 p.m. reached the llaqa H 202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 2 S.C.R. A Magistrate at mid night should have been explained by the 1.0., PW9 if such question was put to him. But throughout the entire examination and cross-examination of the 1.0. not even a suggestion was put to him about the delay of F.l.R. reaching the llaqa Magistrate at mid night. If such a question was p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.