LexTALLURRI VENKAIAH NAIDU AND ANR. ETC. versus PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
TALLURRI VENKAIAH NAIDU AND ANR. ETC. A v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AUGUST 21, 1996 [FAIZAN UDDIN AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] B Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 120-B/302 and 302/109. Code of Climinal Procedure, 1973 : Section 378. R>:plosive Substances Act, 1908: Section 3. c Murder--Conviction-Validity-Number of accused-Enemity between accused and deceased-Deceased talking to witnesse:r-Emergence of accused persons on scene-Bomb thrown by accused persons 011 the instigation of other co-accused--Trial-Acquittal-Appeal pref med before High Court-Ac- D quittal of some accused by High Court and conviction of appellant-Ap- peal-Sustainability of conviction of appellant-Held 011 facts evidence of PW-4, patemal uncle of the deceased, was fully corroborated by other inde- pendent witness-Held the implication of appellant in crime was fully estab- lished. Witnes:r-Relative witnes:r-Acceptance of-Safeguard:r-Relative wit- ness should be subjected to careful and close scruti117If such a witness stands scrutiny there is no reason not to accP.pt his testimony-Mere fact that witness is related to deceased is no ground to reject his testimony if othe1wise found to be truthful. Acquittal-Appeal against-Power of High Cowt to inteifere-Appellate Court should be slow in reversing the order of acquittal unless there are good and strong grounds for inteiference-Reasoning of the Trial Cowt in rejecting the evidence of prosecution witnesses.found high!)' discrepant and er- roneou:r-Reversal of tlial cowt's order by High Cowt held justified. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 1983 Etc. From the Judgment and order dated 28.2.83 of the Andhra Pradesh E F G High.. Court in Cr!. A. No. 784 of 1980. H 1 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A U.R. Lalit, B. Kanta Rao and Ms. Sudha Gupta for the Appellants. B c Ms. K. Ameraswari and G. Prabhakar for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : In Sessions Case No. 8 of 1980, the three appellants were variously charged and tried along with three other co-accused and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, Nellore by a judgment dated 24th May, 1980 convicted S. Srihari Naidu, the appellant No. 1 as well as R. Ramasubha Reddy and Ganapam Ghealla Reddy, the accused Nos. 5 and 6 respectively under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Penal Code. A/6 has also been convicted under Section 302/109 IPC as well as under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. All the three were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on each count, but all sentences were directed to run concurrently. The trial Court acquitted A-2, A-3 and D A-4 from all the offences they were charged with. A-1 to A-5 and A-6 were also acquitted of some of the other charges that were framed against them. The convicted accused, namely, A-1, A-5 and A-6 preferred an appeal in the High Court. The State of Andh~a Pradesh also preferred an appeal against the acquittal of A-2 to A-4 as well as against A-1 and A-5 who was E F acquitted of some of the other offences. The High Court held that charge under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC was not established against any of the accused persons and therefore set aside the conviction under. Section 120-B/302 IPC. The High Court also allowed the appeal of A-5 and A·6 and :>et aside their conviction and sentence on all counts. But the High Court found the appellant herein A-1 guilty of the offences under Section 147 IPC and after setting aside acquittal of A-2 and A-3 namely , T. Venkaiah Naidu and S. Mallikarjuna Naidu respectively, they were found guilty under Section 148 IPC. The High Court also held A-2 guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and A-1 and A-3 guilty under Section 302/149 IPC. A-2 and A-3 are fuither held guilty under Section 9. of G Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and convicted them accordingly and all the three were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction of A-1 and A-3 under Section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act was also main- tained bat no separate sentence has been awarded on that eoimt. A-1 has filed Cr. A. No. 741/83 against his aforesaid conviction and A-2 and A-3 have filed Cr!. A. No. 425/83 against the common judgment. We are H informed at the very outset by the learned counsel for the appellants that ·~· T.V. NAIDU v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR H.C. OF AP. 3 · A-1, name
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.