LexVUTUKURU LAKSHMAIAH versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 4 S.C.R. 750 VUTUKURU LAKSHMAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 2047 of 2008) APRIL 24, 2015 · [DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1 B60 - ss. 302, 14B, 324 and 3241149 - Murder - Previous animosity between the parties - On the fateful day, accused persons armed with weapons stabbed the victim multiple times who succumbed to his injuries 0 three days later - PW1 escaped the assault - Conviction of A 1 to A5 and A 7 to A9 for offences punishable u/ss. 148 and 302 and conviction of A2 to A5 u/s. 324 and A5 uls. 3241 149 on the basis of the testimony of the eye-witnesses-PW 2 and PW 3 and the dying declaration of the victim - E Acquittal of A4, AB and A9 by High Court but conviction of other accused upheld - On appeal, held: Facts and circumstances clearly bring out that there was an unlawful assembly - Prosecution established the presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence - Dying declaration was F totally reliable - High Court acquitted A4, AB and A9 because they were falsely implicated but the same could not be a ground to discard the otherwise reliable dying declaration, since the evidence in entirety showed the involvement of the accused - Plea of alibi of accused-A 1, G could not be accepted since his presence was proved - Considering the nature of injuries and the previous animosity, it is not a fit case to convert the offence u/s. 302 to s. 304 Part I - Thus, the order passed by the High Court H 750 VUTUKURU LAKSHMAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA 751 PRADESH upheld - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32. A Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 On a perusal of the evidence on record, it is found that the facts and circumstances clearly bring 8 out that there was an unlawful assembly. Each of the accused person was very well aware that they were tried for being a part of the assembly which was armed with weapons and hence, it was unlawful. Thus, the submission as regards non-framing of charge u/s.149 c IPC pales into insignificance. [Para 12] [763-B-C] Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. AIR 1956 SC 116: 1955 SCR 1140; Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. (2009) 12 SCC 546: 2009 (6) SCR 755; Rana Pratap D and others v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 327; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719: 2009 (13) SCR 77 4 - referred to. 1.2 The prosecution was able to establish the presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence. E The plea that there was no electricity and, therefore, it would not have been possible on the part of the witnesses to see the accused-appellants by lighting the earthen mud lamp does not deserve commendation, for F the witnesses categorically deposed that they were able to see the accused and the participation of the accused- appellants. Thus, despite the keen scrutiny of their evidence, they cannot be put in the category of so- called 'chance witnesses'. [Para 15] [764-D-F] G 1.3 The contents of the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class- PW-18 have been scrutinized. In his testimony, he categorically stated every aspect in detail and nothing was elicited in the H 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A cross-examination. At the time of recording of the dying declaration, as the material would show, the declarant was absolutely in a conscious state and there is an endorsement in that regard by the treating doctor. The submission that the dying declaration is eminently B vague is neither correct nor is it based on any material on record. On the scanning of the dying declaration, it is found that he named A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5, A-8, A-9, and RS. Thus, in the absence of any kind of infirmity or inherent contradiction or inconsistency or any facet C that would create a serious doubt on the dying declaration, it cannot be discarded. The conviction undisputedly can be based on dying declaration, if it is found totally reliable. [Para 16) [765-B-E) D Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf v. State of Kamataka (2007) 13 SCC 112: 2007 (8) SCR 713; Kashi Vishwanath v. State of Kamataka (2013) 7 SCC 162: 2013 (10) SCR 627 - referred to. E 1.4 On a perusal of the judgment of appellate court, it is found that the judgment of conviction was reversed on the score that the names of A-8 and A-9 did not find mention in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. On similar basis, A-4 was acquitted. Suffice to mention because the High F Court acquitted A-4, A-8
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.