caselaws
Supreme Court of India
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna … on 3 July, 2018Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: [ N Rao], [ Bobde]
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2089-2090 of 2009
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ……… APPELLANT
VERSUS
PULLAGUMMI KASI REDDY KRISHNA REDDY
@ RAMA KRISHNA REDDY & ORS. …….. RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J
1. There were two factions in Chindukur village,
Gadivemula Police Station, Kurnool District, Andhra
Pradesh. One faction was led by V. Venkateswara Reddy
and the other by Sivarami Reddy (Deceased No.1). V.
Venkateswara Reddy was murdered in July, 1992. In
retaliation, persons belonging to V. Venkateswara Reddy’s
group murdered four supporters of Sivarami Reddy. On
Signature Not Verified
11th October, 1994, Crime Nos. 92 and 93 of 1994 was
Digitally signed by
CHARANJEET KAUR
Date: 2018.07.03
16:31:23 IST
Reason:
registered in Gadivemula Police Station under Section 5 of
the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against persons of
1
both groups. Sivarami Reddy (Deceased No.1) was
released on conditional bail. One of the conditions for bail
was that he had to attend Gadivemula Police Station every
Sunday between 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m.
2. On 30th October, 1994, Sivarami Reddy along with his
supporters and two escort police constables left his
residence at 9.00 a.m. in a jeep to mark his attendance at
Gadivemula Police Station. When the jeep was passing by
the house of A-1 (wife of V. Venkateswara Reddy) a bullock
cart was pushed across the road by A-2, A-3 and A-4 to
stop the jeep. A-1 who was standing on the compound
wall exhorted the other accused to hurl bombs and kill the
deceased. A-5 to A-15 came out of the house of A-1 and
rushed towards the jeep in which Sivarami Reddy and
others were travelling. According to the prosecution, A-5
to A-7, A-9, A-11 to A-14 hurled country made bombs on
the jeep. One bomb exploded on the face of Y. Ayyapu
Reddy (Deceased No.2) who was driving the jeep. In an
attempt to escape, Sivarami Reddy (Deceased No.1)
started running while looking back and a bomb thrown by
A-7 exploded on the head of Sivarami Reddy due to which
2
he died on the spot. A-8, A-10, A-15 to A-37, A-42 to A-47
who were armed with hunting sickles and iron pipes
attacked Rami Reddy (Deceased No.3) and hacked him to
death. A-13, A-38 to A-41 chased Kambagiri Ramudu
(Deceased No.4) armed with country made bombs. The
bomb thrown by A-13 hit Kambagiri Ramudu on his back
and the explosion caused his death on the spot. A.
Ayyalanna (PW-1), N. Subrahmanyam, Y. Mudduleti Reddy,
Sunka Raju, Balaraju (PW-6) and Janardhan Reddy (PW-7)
and the escort police constable Gopal Rao received
splinter injuries in the bomb blast. The prosecution
version is that the escort constable Gopal Rao opened fire
in the air due to which the accused fled. The Sub
Inspector of Police, Gadivemula Police Station rushed to
the spot on receiving information and recorded the
statement of A. Ayyalanna(PW1) at 9:45 a.m. FIR No.
99/1994 was registered at 11.00 a.m. The police
conducted the inquest between 12.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.
and the FIR was sent to the Magistrate at 5:00 p.m.
Thereafter, the bodies of all the four deceased were sent
for Post Mortem on the same day. The explosives expert
3
opined that the bombs used by the accused could
endanger human life on explosion. A charge sheet was
filed against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 302,
307, 324, 332 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 47 persons were shown
as accused in the charge sheet. By mistake
Vaddegittannagari Kothuru Subbarayudu was shown as A-
36 and A-42 due to which A-42 was deleted from the list of
the accused. Vallapureddy Anasuyamma(A-1), Boya
Shakunala Ramadu(A-2), Pashula Bheemanna(A-3), Boya
Ayula Pullaiah(A-4) Bathula Satyanarayana Reddy(A-5),
Bathula Aki Reddy(A-8), Murasinin Hanumantha Reddy(A-
24), Vadde Sambasivudu (A-43), Bathula Gopal Reddy(A-
44), Golla Peda Saibaba(A-45), Valapureddy Pratap
Singh(A-46) and Kasideddi Krishna Reddy (A-47) were
acquitted by the trial Court. Seema Govinda Reddy(A-6),
Mulinti Telugu Sreemulu(A-7), Sura Sreedhar Reddy(A-9),
Vadde Gunja Venkatasubbadu(A-10) Kasireddy Bhupal
Reddy(A-11), Kasireddy Vasantha Kumar Reddy(A-12),
Pullagummi Kasireddy Krishna Reddy(A-13), Bathula
4
Pranamananda Reddy(A-14), Vadde Pallapu Jambula(A-15),
Kondapuram Narayana Reddy(A-16), Bathula Sankar
Reddy (A-17), Vade Malesh(A-18), Yedula Rami Reddy(A-
19), Perugu Pedda Venkateswarlu(A-20), Mulla Sha
Hussaini(A-21), Mulla Moula Peera(A-22), Mulla Hassan
Peera (A-23), Murasani Sudersana Reddy(A-25), Vade
Hanumanna(A-26), Vadde Sindesudu(A-27), Vadde
Venkatesu(A-28), Vadde Gittannagari Chinna
Subbarayudu(A-29), Vadde Rameshudu(A-30), Murasani
Venkatswara Reddy(A-31), Golla Chinna Saibaba(A-32),
Seema Chenchi Reddy(A-33), Telugu Sankaraiah(A-34),
Vadde Gittannagari Kotturu Chinna Sabbadu(A-35),
Vaddegittannagari Kothuru Subbarayudu (A-36), Bathula
Venkateswara Reddy(A-37), Vadde Koppugadu @
Sreeramulu(A-38), Sura Papi Reddy (A-39), Vadde Pedda
Venkateswarlu (A-40), Kasireddy Venkateswar Reddy (A-
41) were convicted by the trial Court under Section 302
read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment. A-6, A-7, A-9, A-11 to A14 and A-38 to A-41
were also convicted under Section 3 and 5 of the Explosive
5
Substances Act. The acquittal of A-1 to A-5, A-8, A-24 and
A-43 to A-47 was not challenged by the State.
3. The accused who were convicted for various offences
by the trial Court filed appeals before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh. The High Court allowed the appeals and
acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved, the State has
preferred the above appeal.
4. The trial Court held that A-1 was entitled to the
benefit of doubt. The evidence relating to A-1 climbing
over a 10 feet high wall and instigating the other accused
to hurl bombs was found to be artificial by the trial Court.
The alibi pleaded by her that she was not in the village on
the date of incident as she was in Peddapadu village
visiting her ailing sister’s husband was accepted by the
trial Court. A-2 to A-4 were also given the benefit of doubt
and acquitted by the trial Court as no overt acts were
attributed to them except placing a double bullock cart on
the road. The finding recorded by the trial Court is to the
effect that the sketches prepared by the investigating
officer marked as Exhibit 20 and 25 clearly showed that
there was no hinderance for the jeep to pass through the
road in spite of the bullock cart being placed on the road.
6
Similarly, A-5 was also acquitted as the trial Court
accepted the evidence of DW-1 and held that he was not
present in the village at the time of commission of the
offence on 30th October, 1994. A-8 volunteered to be
examined as DW-3. He was a practicing advocate at
Kurnool. His version was that he was coming to the village
from Kurnool and mid-way he was informed about the
incident. On receipt of the said information, according to
A-8, he returned to Kurnool. After examining the other
evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted A-8 by giving
him the benefit of doubt. A-24 who was the paid Secretary
in a Cooperative Society pleaded that he was at
Karimaddela village on 30th October 1994. He went to
collect the debts due to the cooperative society. No
specific overt acts had been attributed to him. The trial
Court accepted the submission on behalf of A-24 regarding
the propensity of the prosecution witnesses to implicate all
persons belonging to the opposite group. A-43 to A-47
were also acquitted as their names did not find mention in
the FIR and no specific overt act was attributed to them.
While repelling the submissions of the defence that the
7
prosecution version bristles with contradictions and
improbabilities, the trial Court examined the evidence on
record to convict the other accused. The evidence of PWs-
1, 6 and 7 who were injured eye-witnesses was relied upon
by the trial Court. Minor contradictions in their evidence
were ignored. The testimony of PWs- 2, 3 and 5 who were
chance witnesses was also relied upon by the trial Court.
5. The appeals filed by the Respondents/Accused were
allowed. The High Court acquitted all the Accused by
reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. The entire
incident was disbelieved by the High Court as the
prosecution version was found to be improbable. The High
Court found many contradictions and discrepancies in the
evidence of the eye witnesses. After referring to the law
laid down by this Court on appreciation of evidence, the
High Court held that the evidence of PWs-1, 6 and 7
cannot be relied upon as they belong to the faction of
deceased No.1 and were closely related to the deceased.
The High Court further held that the evidence of all the
eye-witnesses cannot be accepted as they made an
attempt to rope in number of persons belong to the
8
opposite faction. PWs-1, 6 and 7 were found to be
unreliable witnesses as the allegations made by them
against A-1 to A-5, A-8, A-24 and A-43 to A-47 were found
to be false even by the trial Court. PWs- 2, 3 and 5 were
dubbed as interested witnesses by the High Court and
their presence at the spot was also doubted. According to
the High Court, PWs-2, 3 and 5 were planted witnesses.
The High Court further observed that a number of persons
belonging to the faction of the accused were implicated
after consultations. As the credibility of the above
witnesses was doubted by the High Court, all the
Respondents/Accused were acquitted by the High Court.
6. It is necessary to mention that the
Respondents/Accused (30 in number) presently before us
are, A-6, A-9 to A-19, A-21 to A-23, A-25 to A-31, A-33 to A-
38 and A-40 to A-41. It is also relevant to note that we are
not concerned with A-1 to A-5 A-8, A-24 and A-43 to A-47
who were acquitted by the trial Court and whose acquittal
has become final. A-7, A-20, A-32 and A-39 died during
the pendency of this Appeal. I.A. No. 33287/2018 was filed
before us bringing on record that Murasani Sudersana
9
Reddy (A-25) was a minor at the time of the incident and
the said fact was not noticed before the Courts below. The
counsel for the Appellant- State took time to seek
instructions and it was submitted that the details
submitted by the Senior Counsel for the Respondents were
correct.
7. The admitted facts of this case are that Chindukur is
a faction ridden village. There were two factions, one
headed by the husband of A-1 and other by deceased No.1
Sivarami Reddy. The husband of A-1 was murdered in July,
1992. On the same day, 4 supporters of deceased No.1
were killed. Apart from others, cases under the Explosive
Substances Act were registered a few days prior to the
date of the incident against both sides. Apprehending
violence, two policemen were posted in the village. The
deceased No.1 had to report at Gadivemula Police Station
on every Sunday between 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. The
deceased No.1 had to necessarily cross the house of A-1
which is situated besides the only road which leads to the
police station. The incident occurred right opposite the
house of A-1. Four people died in the incident. The medical
10
evidence on record shows that three of them died due to
explosion of bombs on their bodies. The fourth (Deceased
No.3) died due to injuries caused by sickles and iron pipes.
It would be relevant to refer to the injuries received by the
four deceased.
Injuries on the dead body of D-1:
1. Head:- Total disintegration of the upper half of the head
with complete loss of upper skull vault upto upper lips. Eye
balls are absent. Brain is entirely lost. Charring of tissues
with black discoloration of the remaining face.
2. Chest: Multiple, about a hundred or more small, about 1/4
cm tattooed abrasions extending over entire right side of
chest and upper abdomen right side. Right upper arm
splinter abrasions of the entire right upper arm.
Lacerations about 1 cm diameter over middle of the right
upper arm in front, burn of the entire dorsal and medical
aspect of right forearm and yellowish discolouration. Burn
of the thump, index and middle fingers over the dorsal
aspect with yellowing.
3. Laceration of left hand 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm over the
dorsum. Burn of the left forearm dorsal aspect 8 cm x 3
cm. Abrasions four in number small ½ cm square area
front of right thigh with tattooing. Abrasions of lower left
thigh in front four in number small ½ cm square area with
tattooing.
Internal examination:
Subcutaneous fat is yellow muscles are pale. Heart:
Pericardium empty. Heart is pale and empty. Lungs: Both
lungs are collapsed, left lung is pale, right lung upper lobe
is congested. About 50 ml of blood in right plural cavity,
left plural cavity is empty. Liver is pale cut Section pale.
Spleen is pale. Both kidneys are pale, No blood is in the
abdominal cavity. Structures are not injured, no fractures
of long bones noted.
The deceased would appear to have died of multiple
injuries mainly the head leading to hemorrhage and shock
and death. Time of death 6 to 8 hours prior to post
mortem.”
11
Injuries on the dead body of D-2:
“External injuries:
Head:
1. contusion 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm over the left side of
scalp with laceration 1 cm long over the swelling.
2. Laceration of right cheek 2 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm with
tattooing. Entire face is charred and disfigured.
3. Laceration left side of forehead 1 cm circular with
tattooing
4. Laceration over bridge of the nose 1 cm x ½ cm.
5. Charred burn of entire back of neck.
Chest and abdomen: Anterior(front) aspect of chest is
burnt with blackish discoloration. Laceration front of chest
5 cm x 4 cm square in the upper middle aspect with
tattooing.
Laceration 2 cm x 1 cm x ½ cm over right infra claviular
area.
Abrasion with black discoloration 15 cm x 15 cm over the
right scapular and supra scapular area.
Burn with charring of right infrascapular area15 cm x 10
cm
Peripheral limbs:
Laceration 1 cm diameter with charring of margins over
right upper arm. Burn 3 cm circular over back of right
upper arm. Laceration 3 cm x 1 cm lower left upper
arm. Laceration 2 cm x 2 cm with irregular margins front
of left upper arm. Laceration 2 cm x ½ cm with
irregular margins with burns marks over lateral aspect of
left upper arm. Laceration 2 cm x 1 cm left upper
forearm with tattooing. Laceration 1 cm x 1 cm lower
forearm left with black staining. Blackish soot staining of
entire front and side of both lower limbs. Burn with loss of
skin of right calf 4 cm x 2 cm. Burn of upper right
thigh in front thigh in front 4 cm x 3 cm. Burn of left calf
lateral aspect 3 cm x 1 cm.
Internal:
1. Fracture of skull about 7 cm long extending from
centre to the left side over parietal bone crack fracture.
12
2. Contusion of subcutaneous tissues over the fracture
site.
3. Brain contusion of the entire cortex of the brain on
both sides over parietal and occipitalareas.
4. Pericardium empty, Heart empty.
5. Right lung congested.
6. About 100 ml of blood in right plural cavity.
7. Stomach about 400 ml of digested for.
8. Liver pale
9. Kidney are pale, and bladder is empty.
Opinion as to cause of death:
The deceased would appear to have died of Head injury
and multiple burns of the body leading to death about 6-8
hours prior to the Post Mortem”
Injuries on the dead body of D-4:
“External injuries:
1. A burst out laceration injury on the back of the body of
size 17 ½” x 14 ½” horizontal involving entire left side and
extending on to the right side upto 7” away from right
posterior axillary line. Upper border extending to just
above the left supra scapular border. Lower border
extending upto 3” above the waistline. Left side of injury
extending on to the left anterior axillary line. Skin at the
edge is torn into irregular flaps with yellow staining of
under surface of skin flaps here and there. Left para
vertebral muscle missing in the wound except 3” size
muscle flap at the lower end of the wound. The upper end
of this muscle flap is irregular torn and the muscle surface
is charred. Left half of the vertebral column is seen with
ribs corresponding to the wound missing. Right sided
paravertabral muscle present in its entire length but
blackened. Left scapula with its lower 2/3 rd missing is
exposed at the upper side of the wound. Floor of the
wound is irregularly lacerated with blackened. Lacerated
organs like left lung, heart spleen, stomach, left kidney are
lying exposed in the floor of the wound. Intestinal coils are
also seen in the floor of the wound. Darkened liquid blood
is preset in the floor of the wound seven ¾” size nails are
found in the floor of the wound. The shirt corresponding to
the wound is torn on the back.
2. Yellow staining and blackened of kin of size 8” x 3”
present on the lower end of arm, elbow and upper end of
forearm of left side on the exposed black aspect. In this
area hair is lost. At the periphery of this area is singed.
13
3/4th size nail is found on the lower end of arm piercing the
skin.
3. Contusion of size ½” x ¼” are present along the front
border of nose. Blue in colour.
4. Left upper central incisor broken near gingival margin
with blood staining of the gingival margin. The distal
fragment missing.
Internal examination :
Thorox: Bony cage: All ribs on left side except upper two
are missing. Right side lower 3 ribs are fractured anteriorly
1st away from the sternum. Posteriorly all right side ribs
are intact. Lower 2/3rd of left scapula missing.
Lungs: Left lung lacerated posteriorly in its entire length.
Heart: Entire posterior wall of the heat lacerated exposing
the chambers of the heart.
Abdomen: Stomach: A tear of size 2 ½” x ½” over posterior
wall of the stomach, stomach empty. Intestines lying
exposed in the floor of the wound.
Spleen: Lacerated on its entire posterior surface and lying
detached in the wound.
Liver: Posterior surface of the left lobe of liver lacerated.
Kidneys: Left kidney lacerated posteriorly. Right kidney
normal.
Opinion as to cause of death:
The deceased would appear to have died of injuries to vital
organs due to bomb blast.”
Cause of death of D-3:
15 incised injuries including amputation of the right forearm on
the lower 3rd with both bones cut and the hand separated.
Opinion as to cause of death:
“The deceased would appear to have died on multiple injuries
and due to fracture of skull and due to shock and hemorrhage 6-
8 hours prior to post mortem.”
14
8. Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel for the Appellant-
State criticized the judgment of the High Court on the
following grounds:
a. The incident happened in the faction ridden
Chindukur village, right outside the house of
Accused No. 1 who is the wife of a slain leader
of a warring group.
b. There was prior animosity between the two
factions and motive of the crime was to do
away with Sivarami Reddy (Deceased No. 1)
who was the leader of the opposite faction.
c. There was no delay in lodging the FIR. The oral
evidence of all the prosecution witnesses is
consistent in material particulars except for
some minor contradictions and inconsistencies.
The High Court erred in highlighting the minor
contradictions and ignoring the consistent
testimony of the injured eyewitnesses.
d. The occular evidence of the eye witnesses is
corroborated by the medical and forensic
evidence on record.
e. In faction ridden villages, even if some
independent or impartial witnesses were
15
present at or near the scene of the incident they
are not likely to volunteer to give evidence and
it is only the relatives who would be willing to
tender evidence.
f. The High Court was wrong in discarding the
evidence of the eyewitnesses on the ground
that they were interested and partisan.
g. Even if the evidence of the eyewitnesses was
disbelieved qua some accused, it can still be
relied upon to convict the other accused.
h. The High Court ought not to have interfered
with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial
Court.
i. The entire approach of the High Court appears
to be focused on minor contradictions oblivious
to the fact that four people were killed in broad
daylight on 30.10.1994.
j. The judgment of the High Court is perverse and
deserves to be set aside.
16
9. Shri Basant, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent-
Accused submits that the judgment of the High Court
warrants no interference for the following reasons:
a. Every accused is presumed to be innocent
unless proven guilty. This presumption is further
strengthened by a finding of acquittal arrived by
a Court.
b. Though the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King
Emperor1 held that there was no real distinction
between appeal against acquittal and an appeal
against a conviction, it was submitted that the
approach of this Court has been qualitatively
different in cases of appeals against acquittal.
c. It is submitted that this Court should be slow in
interfering with the judgment of acquittal of the
High Court, if the view of the High Court is a
possible one. The judgment of the High Court
ought not be set aside unless it is perverse.
d. On merits, it was submitted that the entire
genesis of the case is extremely doubtful. As per
the FIR, A-1 was the mastermind of the attack
1 AIR 1934 PC 227
17
and on her instigation the other accused
attacked the deceased. This version was
disbelieved by the Trial Court and A-1’s plea of
alibi was accepted. A-2 to A-5, A-8, A-24, A-43 to
A-47 were also acquitted by the trial Court. This
finding has attained finality as the Appellant-
State has not chosen to file an appeal against
the acquittal of A-1 and thus the whole incident
as deposed by the eyewitnesses is riddled with
uncertainty and is highly doubtful. In such a
situation, the benefit of the doubt should accrue
to the accused. It is not safe to convict any of
the Respondents/Accused.
e. All the eyewitness put forth by the prosecution
are members of the opposite faction. The
credibility of the witnesses is also suspect as
they are accused in several cases filed by the
Respondents. There is a clear motive to falsely
rope in the Respondent/Accused. The evidence
of partisan witnesses merits acceptance only
after a careful scrutiny of the same.
18
f. Finally, it was urged that this Court should take a
compassionate view of the fact that the incident
took place a long time ago and the
Respondent/Accused have suffered the agony of
trial for almost 25 years.
10. After hearing both the parties, we undertook the
exercise of examining the evidence on record. On a
thorough scrutiny of the evidence of PWs-1 to 7, we are of
the opinion that the High Court has committed an error in
eschewing their testimonies in toto. The evidence of PWs-
1, 6 and 7 was found to be unreliable and unbelievable by
the High Court on the ground that they implicated several
persons belonging to the opposite faction. Reliance was
placed by the High Court on the observations of the Trial
Court while acquitting A-1 to A5, A-8, A-24, A-43 to A-
47. The High Court held that the evidence of eye witnesses
cannot be relied upon for convicting the other accused.
11. The principle of ‘Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ has
not been accepted in our country.2 Even if some accused
are acquitted on the ground that the evidence of a witness
2 See Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 10 SCC
537 ¶19
19
is unreliable, the other accused can still be convicted by
relying on the evidence of the same witness. 3 Minor
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of a witness
are to be ignored if there is a ring of truth in the testimony
of a witness.4 The High Court was oblivious to this settled
position of law. The High Court highlighted the minor
inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence of PWs- 1 to
3 and PW-5 to 7 to disbelieve them. The High Court
wrongly refused to believe the eye witnesses on the
ground that they attempted to implicate as many persons
as possible by making omnibus allegations. The High
Court further erred in holding that PW-1, 6 and 7, who
were the eye witnesses travelling in the jeep with the
deceased, were not speaking the truth as they were close
relatives and supporters of Deceased No. 1. The rejection
of the evidence of PW-2, 3 and 5 by the High Court on the
ground that they did not attribute specific overt acts to
each accused is also erroneous.
12. Undoubtedly, a horrendous crime was committed in a
village in which four persons lost their lives. There is no
3 See Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381, ¶ 15
4 See State of U.P. v. Dan Singh, (1997) 3 SCC 747 ¶32
20
dispute that the deceased and the accused belonged to
opposite factions. There is also no doubt about the situs of
the crime. A-1 to A-5, A-8, A-24 and A-43 to A-47 were
acquitted by the Trial Court. There is no appeal against
their acquittal. The question that remains for our
consideration is whether there is evidence on record to
convict the other accused.
13. All the eyewitnesses including PW-4 who turned
hostile have consistently spoken about the attack on
Sivarami Reddy (Deceased No.1) and his supporters on
30.10.1994. PW-1, Ayyalanna gave a vivid description of
the incident. He deposed that A-5 to A-15 came from the
side of the house of A-1 armed with hunting sickles and
bombs. They surrounded the jeep and hurled bombs on
the jeep. One bomb hit the driver Ayyappu Reddy
(Deceased No.2) who fell down and he was dragged to the
back of the jeep by A-10 and A-15. A-7 hurled a bomb on
Sivarami Reddy when he was running. The bomb exploded
on the face of Sivarami Reddy who fell down and died on
the spot. According to him, A-16 to A-37 surrounded Rami
Reddy, Deceased No.3 while he was running away and
21
hacked him to death by hunting sickles and iron pipes.
Kambagiri Ramudu, Deceased No.4 was chased by A-13, A-
20, A-38, A-39 and A-41. A-13 threw a bomb which hit on
the back of Kambagiri Ramudu and exploded. He also died
on the spot. We are not dealing with the version of PW-1
regarding the involvement of A-1 to A-5, A-8, A-24, A-43 to
A-47 as they have been acquitted by the Trial Court which
has become final. PW-2, K.Venkata Reddy corroborated the
evidence of PW-1 in respect of the occurrence. He
voluntarily deposed that A-18 to A-20 were carrying
sickles, A-16, A-21, A-22 and A-26 were carrying iron pipes,
A-24 was carrying a stick and A-17, A-23, A-25, A-27, A-29
to A-37 were armed with bombs. As per his deposition,
Rami Reddy was attacked by all the above accused i.e. A-
16 to A-37 and he was hacked indiscriminately. He
categorically stated that Rami Reddy was hacked with iron
pipes, hunting sickles and sticks. He stated that no bomb
was hurled on Rami Reddy. PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7
deposed on the same lines as PW-1 in respect of the
involvement of A-6, A-9 to A-19, A-21 to A-23, A-25 to A-31,
A-33 to A-38 and A-40 to A-41.
22
14. Admittedly, there are two factions in the village and
the deceased belong to rival groups. There is no dispute
about the history of murder of persons belonging to either
side before the incident on 30.10.1994. The oral evidence
in cases of faction fights has to be scrutinized carefully in
view of the tendency of implication of innocent persons
belonging to the opposite group. After the acquittal of
some of the accused and the death of some accused
during the pendency of case before the Courts, we have
before us A-6, A-9 to A-19, A-21 to A-23, A-25 to A-31, A-33
to A-38 and A-40 to A-41. We proceed to deal with the
point regarding the involvement of the
Accused/Respondents before us to decide whether they
are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302
I.P.C. A-38, A-40 and A-41 were named by PW-6 and no
specific overt act has been attributed to them. They are
entitled to the benefit of doubt which was given by the
High Court and we uphold the same. A-6, A-9, A-11, A-12
and A-14 were armed with country made bombs. There is
nothing further stated by any of the witnesses regarding
their involvement in the offence. No specific over act has
23
been attributed to them. We concur with the judgment of
the High Court that they are also entitled for the benefit of
doubt and entitled to be acquitted. PW-1, PW-3, PW-5 to
PW-7 have in one voice deposed that A-13 hurled bomb on
Kambagiri Ramudu due to which he died on the spot. The
medical evidence is in conformity with the occular
testimonies of all the eyewitnesses. On a detailed
consideration of the evidence on record, we hold A-13
guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. for
causing the death of Kambagiri Ramudu (Deceased No.4).
A-10 was armed with a sickle and A-15 was armed with a
country-made bomb. There is no evidence about their
using the weapons They had dragged Ayyappu Reddy
(Deceased No.2) to the back of the jeep. None of the
eyewitnesses spoke about any attack made by A-10 and A-
15 on Ayyappu Reddy after he was dragged to the back of
the jeep. As no specific role has been attributed to A-10
and A-15 regarding any attack on any of the deceased, we
do not see any reason to interfere with their acquittal. A-
16 to A-37, according to the evidence of the eyewitnesses,
were armed with hunting sickles, iron pipes and bombs.
24
They attacked Rami Reddy (Deceased No.3) and hacked
him indiscriminately. PW-1, PW-3, PW-5 to PW-7 deposed
that all of them were having sickles and iron pipes. PW-2
volunteered to state in his evidence that A-17, A-23, A-25,
A-27, A-29 to A-37 were armed with bombs. A-16, A-18, A-
24 and A-26 were armed with iron pipes and sticks. He
categorically stated in his evidence that Rami Reddy did
not receive any injury by the bomb and that he was
hacked with iron pipes, hunting sickles and sticks. A
perusal of the injury certificate of Rami Reddy would
disclose that the following injuries were found on his body:-
“On the body of a male aged about 60 yeas moderately built
and moderately nourished and the following injuries are found:
1. There is amputation of right forearm on the lower 3 rd with both
bones are cut and the hand is separated.
2. An incised injury of about 1” x ¼” fracture of frontal bone on
the right side.
3. An incised injury of about 4” x 2” x bone deep on the right side
of face.
4. An incised injury of about 2” x 1” x fracture mandible in the
middle.
5. An incised injury of about 2” x ½” x middle deep 1” lateral to
the right eye.
6. An incised injury of about 3” x 2” x fracture of right humeral
head.
7. An incised injury of about 1” ½” x muscle deep on the upper
and of right scapula.
8. An incised injury of about 8” x ¼” x facture scapula vertically
placed on the right side.
9. An incised injury of about 1” x ¼” x skin deep ½” below the
right eye.
10.An incised injury of about ½” x ¼” x skin deep on the front
side of upper part of right shoulder.
11.There is tattooing present over the abdomen and lower limbs
with splinters.
25
12.An incised injury of about ½” x ¼” x skin deep on the left side
of nose.
13.An abrasion of 2” x 2” in size on the left knee.
14.An abrasion of about 3” x 2” in size on the right knee.
15.An incised injury of about 6” x ½” x bone deep on the occipital
region with fracture.
All the injuries are ante mortem in nature.
Opinion as to cause of death:
The deceased would appear to have died on multiple injuries
and due to fracture of skull and due to shock and
hemorrhage 6-8 hours prior to post mortem.”
15. As stated above PW-1, PW-3, PW-5 to PW-7 have
deposed that all the Accused i.e. A-16 to A-37 attacked
Rami Reddy and hacked him with iron pipes and hunting
sickles. In view of the deposition of PW-2 who came
forward to state that A-17, A-23, A-25, A-27, A-29 to A-37
were armed with bombs and that Rami Reddy’s death was
not caused by any bomb would disclose that the said
accused who were carrying bombs are not responsible for
the death of Rami Reddy. The injury certificate issued by
PW-18 is in tune also impugned with the evidence of PW-2.
There are 11 incisions on the body of Rami Reddy which
were caused by hunting sickles and iron pipes. Except
some splinter injury over the abdomen and his leg, there is
no serious injury caused to Rami Reddy by a bomb.
Several bombs were thrown during the attack which could
26
have caused the splinter injuries. On consideration of the
oral evidence of PW-2 and the medical opinion of PW-18,
we are of the considered view that A-17, A-23, A-25, A-27,
A-29 to A-37 are also entitled for the benefit of doubt. We
uphold their acquittal as recorded by the High Court. A-16,
A-18 to A-22, A-26 and A-28 who were armed with hunting
sickles and iron pipes are liable to be convicted for causing
the death of Rami Reddy in view of the testimony of PW-1
to PW-3, PW-5 to PW-7 and the medical opinion given by
PW-18 which corroborates the oral evidence.
16. In view of the above, the acquittal of Seema
Govinda Reddy(A-6), Sura Sreedhar Reddy(A-9), Vadde
Gunja Venkatasubbadu(A-10), Kasireddy Bhupal Reddy(A-
11), Kasireddy Vasantha Kumar Reddy(A-12), Bathula
Pranamananda Reddy(A-14), Vadde Pallapu Jambula(A-15),
Bathula Sankar Reddy (A-17), Mulla Hassan Peera (A-23),
Murasani Sudersana Reddy(A-25), Vadde Sindesudu(A-27),
Vadde Gittannagari Chinna Subbarayudu(A-29), Vadde
Rameshudu(A-30), Murasani Venkatswara Reddy(A-31),
Golla Chinna Saibaba(A-32), Seema Chenchi Reddy(A-33),
Telugu Sankaraiah(A-34), Vadde Gittannagari Kotturu
27
Chinna Sabbadu(A-35), Vaddegittannagari Kothuru
Subbarayudu (A-36), Bathula Venkateswara Reddy(A-37),
Vadde Koppugadu @ Sreeramulu (A-38), Vadde Pedda
Venkateswarlu (A-40), Kasireddy Venkateswar Reddy (A-
41), as recorded by the High Court is upheld for the
reasons mentioned above. In view of the affirmation of the
acquittal of Murasani Sudersana Reddy(A-25), it is not
necessary for us to deal with the point pertaining to his
being a minor.
17. Pullagummi Kasireddy Krishna Reddy(A-13),
Kondapuram Narayana Reddy(A-16), Vade Malesh(A-18),
Yedula Rami Reddy(A-19), Perugu Pedda Venkateswarlu(A-
20), Mulla Sha Hussaini(A-21), Mulla Moula Peera(A-22),
Vade Hanumanna (A-26), Vadde Venkatesu(A-28) are
convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The
above Accused are directed to surrender within a period of
four weeks from today. The appeals are disposed of
accordingly.
…………………………………J.
[S.A. BOBDE]
28
…………………………………J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi,
July 3, 2018
29
Comments