VEMIREDDY SATYANARAYAN REDDY AND THREE OTHERS versus THE STATE OF HYDERABAD

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 14-03-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
247 
assets of the assessee and that aspect of the question 
1956 
was not at all considered by the Privy Council. It Th c 
.. 
• 
. • 
e otn11usstone,. 
is not, therefore, necessary t? express any ?J.:>llll~n of Income Tax and 
on the correctness or otherwise of that dec1s10n m Excess Profits Tax, 
this case. 
, 
Madras 
Having regard to all the circumstances adverted to 
v. 
h 
h 
f The South India 
above, it is, therefore, clear t at t e payment o 
Pictures Ud., 
Rs. 26,000 received by the assessee from the producers 
Karaikudi 
was in consideration of the surrender by the assessee 
of the capital assets which it had acquired from the 
Bhagu•atiJ. 
producers under the three agreements in question 
and constituted a capital receipt not liable to tax for 
the assessment year 1946-47. The answer given by 
the High Court to the referred question was, 
therefore, correct and I would dismiss the appeal 
with costs. 
ORDER. 
BY THE CouRT:-In accordance with the Judgment 
of the majority, the appeal is allowed wjth costs 
throughout. 
VEMIREDDY SATYANARAYAN REDDY AND 
THREE OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF HYDERABAD. 
[VIVIAN BOSE and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] 
Crime, perpetration of-A person present but not aiding or abet-
ting-Whether principal or accessory-Corroboration of the statement 
of a single witness against accused-What the law requires. 
There is no warrant for the extreme proposition that if a man 
sees the perpetration of a crime and does not give information of it 
to anyone else, he might well be regarded in law as an accomplice 
and that he could be put in the dock with the actual criminals. 
A person may be present, and, if not aiding and abetting, be 
neither principal nor accessory; as, if A, happens to be present at a 
murder and takes no part in it, nor endeavours to prevent it, or to 
apprehend the murderer, this course of conduct will not of Itself ren· 
der him either principal or accessory. 
Russell on Crime, 10th Edition, p. 1846, referred to. 
aa 
1956 
March 14 
1956 
Ve1nireddy 
Sat yanarayan 
Reddy and 
three others 
v. 
The State of 
Hyderabad 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1956] 
In the matter of corroboration of the evidence of a single wit-
ness against the accused what the law requirss is that there should be 
such corroboration of the material part of the story connecting the 
accused with the crime as will satisfy reasonable minds that the 
man can he regarded as a truthful witness. The corroboration need 
not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is 
sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection 
with the crime. The nature of the corroboration will depend on and 
vary according to the particular circumstances of each case. 
Bez v. Baskerville (1916) 2 K.B.D. 658, referrsd to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeals No. 28 to 31 of 1955. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated the 11th February, 1953 of the Hydera-
bad High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 1260 to 
1263 of 1951/1952 arising out of the judgment and 
order dated the 6th November, 1951 of the Court of 
the Sessions Judge at w,.rangal in Original Criminal 
Case No. 127 of 1950. 
H. J. Umrigar, for. appellant No. 1. 
K. R. Olwuilhry, for appellants Nos. 2 to 4. 
Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Golchale, for the respon-
dent. 
1956. March 14. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
CHANDRASEKHA.RA AIYAR J.-The four appellants 
and two others named Sheshaya and Pitchi Reddy, 
who are all communists, were charged with the mur-
der of one V enka takrishna Sh as try who was a Cong-
ress worker or leader. 
The appellants were convicted of the offence but 
the other two were acquitted by the Sessions Judge, 
Warangal, Hyderabad State, on the astounding 
ground that no overt acts were proved against them. 
The appellants preferred appeals to the High Court 
at Hyderabad and there was the usual reference for 
confirmation of the death sentences imposed on them. 
The appeals were heard by a Bench consisting of 
Deshpande J. and Dr. Mir Siadat Ali Khan J. and 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
249 
they disagreed with each other. Deshpande J. held 
that the evidence did not establish the. guilt of the 
appellants and he acquitted them. On the other hand, 
Dr. Mir Siadat Ali Khan came to the conclusion that 
the prosecution had established its case beyond rea-
sonable doubt. He confirmed the convictions but 
reduced the sentences to imprisonme

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