STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus DR. M.V. RAMANA REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 600 · Decided: 14-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
DR. M.V. RAMANA REDDY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 14, 1991 
[A.M. AHMADI AND M.M. PUNCHHJ, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code-Sections 148, 302 and 324-Acquittal of 
accused-Whether valid and proper on the evidence adduced. 
Delay in holding identification parade-Effect of. 
One Ram Sobba Reddy, an advocate, politician and a trade-
unionist, was murdered on the night between 14th and 15th April, 1975, 
at his house in Proddatur, when the deceased is stated to have received 
fatal blows by lethal weapons whilst his daughter (PW 1), sleeping 
nearby received injuries when she attempted to go to help her father. 
According to the prosecution, Accused No. 1 (Respondent No. 1), was a 
friend and a regular visitor to the house of the deceased, till they fell out 
on account of trade union activities. Accused No. 1 was the President of 
the workmen's unions of Andhra Cotton Mills, Proddatur, Interna-
tional Packaging Company, Proddatur and Transport Workers, 
espousing the cause of workmen and directing their union activities 
while the deceased, a practising Advocate represented the manage-
ments of these companies and tendered legal advice to them in connec-
tion with the various labour problems arising in those companies. The 
d'eceased who was a lawyer for the companies had advised the accused 
No. 1 not to resort to violence for settlement of industrial disputes. The 
fact that infuriated accused No. 1 further was the help which the 
deceased agreed to provide to PW 11 for setting up an office of INTUC 
in his own office. This was intended to counter the militant activities of 
Accused 1 who was in control of most of the labour unions in the town. 
According to the prosecution at about 3.30 a.m. on the day of 
occurrence, PW 1 who was sleeping on the terrace of the house nearby 
G 
her father, woke up hearing the cries of her father ans saw accused 1 
with 6 or 7 others stabbing her father with daggers. She raised an alarm 
and tried to go to rescue her father but she was prevented by three of 
them from getting up; accused No. 3 bad gagged her mouth with bis 
hand and had pinned her down to the cot. Thereafter accused 5 tried to 
stab her with a dagger twice but on both the occasions she warded off 
H 
the blows and in the process sustained injuries on her left index fmger, 
600 
' 
STATE OF A.P. v. DR. REDDY 
601 
thumb and palm extending to another finger. Aller the assailants left, 
she got down and informed her mother PW 2 about the incident; she 
opened the door to PWs 3 and 4, who were sleeping· outside. She sent a 
message to the police through PW 5, her neighbour, as telephone lines 
were cut. The police took np investigation and 19 persons including the 
respondents were put up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, 
Cuddapah on different charges e.g. criminal conspiracy, rioting and 
murder, etc. The learned trial judge came to the conclusion that the 
prosecution had failed to establish the charge of criminal conspiracy 
under Section 120B, I.P.C. It accepted the testimony of PWs 1to5 and 
held (i) that the incident occurred at ,3.30 a.m. on the terrace of the 
residence of the deceased; (ii) the injuries borne on the fingers of PW 1 
were not self-inflicted as suggested by defence and (iii) that the intima-
tion of the incident was the police without loss of time. Accordingly the 
trial Judge convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 3 under Sections 148 and 302 
and Sec. 324 with the aid of Section 149, I.P.C. and accused No. 5 
under Section 148, 302 and 324, I.P .C. and sentenced all the three to 
life imprisonment for murdering Ram Sobba Reddy and to rigorous 
imprisonment for 3 years under section 148, IPC. The other 16 accused 
were acquitted. The convicted persons appealed to the High Court and 
the State filed an application for enhancement of the sentence imposed 
on Accused No. 1 to capital punishment. The High Court allowed the 
appeal by the convicted persons and acquitted them. Hence this appeal 
A 
B 
c 
D 
by the State against the order of acquittal, by special leave. The High 
Court held that the evidence of PW 1 is tainted in that the names of E 
accused 2 and 4 who were strangers to her figure in her statement Exh. 
P-1 and further her statement regarding identity of Accused 3 and 5 was 
unacceptable. The High Court therefore found the evidence led by the 
prosecution untrustworthy and thus acquitted the accused appellants 
before it. 
· 
Partly allowing the appeal, t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.