LexTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus M.NARASIMHA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- [2010) 10 S.C.R. 533 THE"STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH A • . . v . .. M.NARASIMHA RAO ,., . . .'" ;' (Criminal Appeal No. 1361 of 2003) . . . - ' - . ' . AUGUST 27, 2010. B . . . [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. . . . • . . . ' . PRASAD, JJ.] . . . ~ . ' ,. i' Penal Code, -1860: s.302 - Murder - Conviction by trial court ..,.. Based on medical evidence and evidence of wife and c · son_ -~f the deceased - _High Court reversed the order of conviction holding that the son of the deceased was rfot eye~ witness and the delay in filing FIR and sending the special I - ' ' report to the magistrate was fatal to prosecution case - Appeal by State against the order of acquittal- Held: The eye-witness D .. . ' account was fully corroborated by the medical. evidence - Post mortem report stated several cut injuries on the face and ( neck of the deceased - The violence and intensity of the -' attack depicted that it must have taken plaC(J over some time and it would not only have enabled the son of the deceased E to reach the place of incident but also his wife to have properly ' identified the accused as he was also a resident of the same village - Incident took place at midnight - The. wife of the deceased aged 75 years gave the statement' to the Village Administrative Officer in the morning and the information was forwarded to the police station - Delay thereafter was beyond F her control - Thus, there was no delay in the recording of the FIR- In the face of unimpeachable evidence, the late delivery . . of the special report by itself would not be fatal to prosecution case - Accused convicted u/s 302. G Appeal against acquittal - Acquittal by High Court - Scope of interference by Supreme Court - Discussed . . . The prosecution case was that two months prior. to . ' f 533 H 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 10 S.C.R. A the incident, a quarrel took place between the respondent-accused and PW-1. PW-3, the brother of PW- 1 went to the house of the accused and gave a sound thrashing to him. On the day of incident, PW-3 planned to go on a pilgrimage with his family. He requested his B mother (PW-2) and his father, the deceased to sleep in his house. Accordingly, the deceased and PW-2 went to the house of PW-3 to sleep there. At about mid-night, the accused went to the house of PW-3, armed with a knife and on seeing a person sleeping on a cot and believing c him to be PW-3 attacked him with the knife. On hearing the commotion, PW-2 sleeping on a mat nearby, screamed and tried to save her husband. The accused pushed her down. In the meantime, PW-1, whose house was nearby, rushed to the spot and witnessed the D incident and tried to catch the accused but' the accused managed to escape. In the morning at 8 A.M., PW-1 went to the Village Administrative Officer (PW-8) and narrated the incident to him. PW-8 sent the information to the police station and FIR was then recorded. E The trial court relied upon the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 as corroborated by the statement of PW-3 with regard to the motive and convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC. The High Court reversed the findings of the trial court and acquitted the accused. While recording F the order of acquittal, the High Court held that the evidence of PW-1 was not reliable as he was not present at the time of incident and the delay in lodging FIR and sending the special report to the magistrate was fatal to the prosecution case. The instant appeal was filed by the G State challenging the order of acquittal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Ordinarily, interference by the Supreme Court on a re-appraisal of the evidence should not be H made particularly in a case of an appeal against acquittal, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. M.NARASIMHA 535 RAO but if it is found that the judgment of acquittal recorded A by the High Court was not justified on the evidence,· it would be a travesty of justice for the Supreme Court to ignore this aspect and the circumstances may, thus, warrant interference. The instant case hinges .on the testimony of PW1 and PW2. The eye-witness account s was fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The doctor, PW-11 who conducted the post mortem had found several cut injuries on the face and neck of the deceased. The violence and intensity of the attack showed that it must have taken place over a couple of c minutes and it would not on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.