LexTHOTI MANOHAR versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012) 5 S.C.R. 1129 THOTIMANOHAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1739 of 2007) MAY 15, 2012 [DR. B. 5. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B ss. 302, 302134, 324, 326 and 452 - Murder - Common c intention - Two brothers and their cousin convicted by trial court - Cousin acquitted by High Court of the charge uls 3021 34 - Appeal by one of the convicts - Held: The material evidence clearly shows that the appellant along with his brother had the previous day threatened the deceased with 0 dire consequences and had inimical relationship with the deceased and his family - On the day of occurrence both armed with deadly weapons went to the house of deceased and dragged him - Though the appellant did not give the blow, but his participation from the beginning till the end would E clearly show that he shared the common intention with his brother - He had assaulted the other witnesses who tried to intervene - High Court rightly upheld his conviction. EVIDENCE: Evidence of related witnesses - Held: All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution - If F on such scrutiny, their testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, G in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon - Jn the instant case, the occurrence in part took place inside the house and the rest of it slightly outside the premises of the deceased - Under these circumstances, 1129 H 1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A the family members and the close relatives are bound to be the natural witnesses - They intervened and sustained injuries - They are the most natural witnesses and there is nothing on record to doubt their presence at the place of occurrence. B Oral evidence - Discrepancies in - Held: The discrepancies pointed out are minor is nature - Giving undue importance to them would amount to adopting a hyper- technical approach - The court, while appreciating the evidence, should not attach much significance to minor C discrepancies, which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case, and, as such, are to be ignored - As regard non-explanation of injuries of the ac9used, the same were superficial in nature - Besides, non-explaining of injuries of the accused persons is a/ways not fatal to the case of the prosecution. D The appellant (A-2) along with his real brother (A-1) and a distant cousin (A-3), was prosecuted for causing death of one 'KM' the father of PW-1 and causing injuries to him and other members of his family. The prosecution E case was that A-1 had developed illicit relationship with the cousin sister of the 'KM' and because of this, she was sent to Bangalore. This enraged A-1 and he started picking up quarrels with 'KM' and his family. On 24.9.2009, A-1 and A-2 drove their cows into the crop of 'KM'. When F PW-1 tethered the said cows in his house, A-1 and A-2 went there assaulted his family members, threatened them with dire consequences and took away the cattle. 'KM' and PW-1 approached the elders of the village including PWs 7 and 12, who secured the presence of A- G 1 and A-2 and told the parties that there would be a mediation on 26.9.2002. However, at about 11.00 a.m. on 25.9.2002, the three accused armed with deadly weapons entered the house of 'KM'; A-1 and A-2 dragged 'KM' and PW1 out of the house; A-1 assaulted 'KM' with iron rod, who became unconscious and fell down. When PW-6, the H THOTI MANOHAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 1131 younger brother of 'KM' intervened, A-2 struck him with A billhook and A-3 also was stated to have assaulted him with iron rod. When PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 intervened, they were also assaulted by the accused persons. All the injured were taken to the hospital where 'KM' was declared dead. The trial court convicted A-1 u/s 302 IPC and A-2 and A-3 u/s 302/34 IPC. All the accused were also convicted u/ss 452 and 324 IPC. A-2 was further convicted u/s 326 IPC. On appeal, the High Court interfered only to the extent that it acquitted A-3 of the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC. B c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 PW-1 has testified that on 24.9.2002, A-1 and A-2 0 had led their cows to graze in the sugarcane field of the deceased; he drove the cows to his house and tied them; A-1 and A-2 came and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.