SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. versus STATE OF A. P.

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 454 · Decided: 13-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 454 
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. 
v. 
. STATE OF A. P. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 119-120 of 2014) 
APRIL 13, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
• 
~· 
s. 32 r/w s. 149-Murder of two-Charges against 19 accused 
C -·Eye-witnesses to the incident including injured eye-witness - Trial 
court disbelieving the prosecution case, acquitled all the accused 
giving them benefit of doubt - In appeal of State and Revision of 
the complainant, High Court convicted all the surviving accused 
except A-12 and A-9 - Appeal to Supreme Court by the convicted 
0 
accused - Held: The evidence of the injured eye-witness which is 
corroborated by medical evidence, is reliable - Evidence of other 
eye-witnesses are also reliable in the facts of the case - Minor 
inconsistencies in the statements of eye-witnesses were 
inconsequential - High Court righlly convicted the accused persons 
reverting the order· of acquittal. 
E 
Criminal Law: 
Interference with order of acquittal - When two views are 
reasonably possible, one indicating conviction and other acquittal 
- Normally in such case, Supreme Court not to interfere with the 
order of acquittal - But court should interfere, if the acquittal is 
F perverse in the sense that no reasonable person would have come 
to that conclusion, or if the acquittal is· manifestly illegal or grossly 
unjust. 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The observation of the Trial Court that there 
being no evidence that PW.5 was unconscious and in the absence 
of evidence that PW.5 was brought to the Hospital in unconscious 
state, the whole theory is to be disbelieved, is wholly incorrect 
and perverse appreciation of evidence. There being evidence of 
PW.5 and PW.23 that he was unconscious when he was admitted 
454 
SUDHA RENUKAIAH & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. 
455 
in Government Hospital, Guntur and there is no contrary evidence A 
on the record. [Para 22][467-A-B] 
2. The mere fact that certificate was not obtained by IO 
from the Doctor, to the effect that PW.5 was in unconscious state 
of mind on 10.10.2003, is inconsequential. Furthermore, it is well 
settled that even if IO has committed any error and has been 
B 
negligent in carrying out any investigation or in the investigi>tion 
there is some omission and defect, it is the legal obligation on 
the part of the Court to examine the prosecution evidence de 
hors such lapses. [Para 23)(467-C~DJ 
C. Muniappan and Ors. v. Stale of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 
C 
SCC 567: [2010) 10 SCR 262 - relied on. 
3. The High Court has specifically considered the evidence 
of PW.5 and has rightly observed that the fact of sustaining injuries 
by this .witness has not been denied or disputed nor it was 
suggested to him that he sustained those injuries at a different 
D 
place in a different manner in the hands of some other assail:mts. 
The High Court observed that some lapses on behalf of the 
investigation in examining the Doctor cannot be taken as sole 
basis so as to doubt the case of the prosecution. When PW.5 was 
'unconscious, the delay in examination cannot be said to be fatal 
to the case of the prosecution. [Para 24)(467-F-H; 468-A] 
E 
4. The injured witness PW.5 having given specific role of 
the persons who caused injuries to deceased Nos.1 and 2 which 
stands corroborated with the medical evidence, ignoring the 
evidence of PW.5 an injured witness by the Trial Court is clearly 
unsustainable and the High Court, after considering all aspects 
F 
of the matter, has rightly relied on the evidence of PW.5 for holding 
the accused guilty. [Para 25)(468-B-C] 
5. There is no reason to discard the evidence of PW.I who 
was an eye-witness. The information of offence having been 
received. by Police within one hour and statements of witnesses 
G 
were recorded by 6 p.m. in the presence of PW.l at the Hospital 
corroborates the prosecution case of occurrence at 4 p.m. and 
shifting of injured to the Hospital immediately. One of the injured 
had died at Hospital between 5.30 to 6 p.m., inquest report of 
which was also prepared immediately, Thus, the Trial Court H 
'/ 
456 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A without any valid reason has discarded the evidence of PW.1 and 
the High Court did not commit an error on placing reliance on 
PW.I who made statement and gave detail of entire incident in 
his statement and details of the accused and manner of carrying 
out the assault on both the deceased and injured witness. 

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