# ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [2009] 6 S.C.R. 755
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-04-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.408 of 2007
- **Bench:** D.K. Jain, R.M. Lodha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/anna-reddy-sambasiva-reddy-ors-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-25927
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 154 - FIR - Reliability of - Death of two and injuries to c
prosecution witnesses due to political rivalry - Plea that FIR
concocted document - Held: Not sustainable - Prosecution
witness fit to give statement even though seriously injured -
Doctor endorsed fitness and statement recorded in his
.....
presence by AS/ - Absence of specific overt act attributed to
f
accused not fatal to prosecution case - No delay in sending D
FIR to magistrate.
s.464 - Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or
error in, charge - Notice to all accused under charge 1 that
E
they were members of unlawful assembly armed with deadly
weapons in prosecution of common object of murdering
deceased, committed offence of rioting u/s. 149 - Charge 4
-
~
& 5 against accused that during course of same transaction
committed murder by intentional causing death of deceased
~
and offence uls. 302 - Non-mentioning of s.149 in charge 4
F
& 5 - Held: Would not vitiate the conviction as accused failed
to show any prejudice - It is clear from charge 4 and 5 that
transaction mentioned in charge 1 was made integral part
thereof and ingredients of s.149 are implicit therein except
~ .}(
mentioning s. 149 ·specifically - Particulars in charge 4 and 6 G
......
sufficient to give notice of s. 149 to accused - Offence u/s. 302
rlw s.149 implicit- Penal Code, 1860- s.302 rlw s. 149.
Penal Code, 1860: ss.148, 302 and 149 - Unlawful
755
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 6 S.C.R.
•
A assembly - Common object - Determination of - Political
rivalry between two factions - Death of two and injuries to
prosecution witnesses - Plea that common object was to
cause injuries and not fatal injuries - Held: Accused armed
with deadly weapons - Deceased inflicted number of injuries
B - Assault was murderous - Thus, accused shared common
object of committing murder - They were more than five and
formed unlawful assembly to commit murder.
Evidence: Injured witness - Testimony of - Absence of
c
specific injuries or specific overt act attributed to accused
individually in FIR though detailed version given before court
- Held: Testimony of witnesses credible - One of the
witnesses seriously injured - Omissions and discrepancies
minor in nature - Many accused were involved, thus not
D
possible to attribute specific injury and overt act individually
::-
to each accused - Also, unlikely for witnesses who have lost
..,
their relatives to falsely implicate accused - More so,
testimony of witnesses corroborated by medical evidence.
There was a political rivalry between two factions. On
E the fateful day accused persons armed with deadly
weapons attacked the victims group. It resulted in death
of 01 and 02 and injuries to PW 1 to 3. 15 persons were
charged for offences under ss. 302,307, 307 rw 149, 148
and 341 IPC. Trial court convicted A1, A2, A4 to AS and
• --
F A10 to A13 u/s. 302 IPC and imposed imprisonment for
life and fine with default stipulation; and also convicted
u/s. 148 with imprisonment for one year. AG, A7, A10 to
A-13 were convicted u/s. 307 and sentenced to
imprisonment for five years and fine with default
G stipulation; A2, A4 and A5 u/s. 307 r/w 149 and sentenced
1
~
to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine with
f
default stipulation. The sentences of each accused were
to run concurrently. Two persons were acquitted and
two of them died during the trial. Eleven accused persons
H filed appeal. High Court upheld the order of conviction
ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. v.
757
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
...
and sentence. Hence the present appeal by ten accused
A
since A 5 died during pendency of appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. It cannot be accepted that F.l.R. is a
B
concocted document. The trial court as well as the High
Court rightly held that FIR was not fabricated. It is true
~
that injury no.1 received by PW-1 in front of left parietal
area and the depressed fracture of frontal bone was
extremely grave and serious

## Text

_Characters 0–39,974 of 68,729. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39974 for what follows._

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 755
4
ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS.
A
V.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No.408 of 2007)
APRIL 21, 2009
B
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 154 - FIR - Reliability of - Death of two and injuries to c
prosecution witnesses due to political rivalry - Plea that FIR
concocted document - Held: Not sustainable - Prosecution
witness fit to give statement even though seriously injured -
Doctor endorsed fitness and statement recorded in his
.....
presence by AS/ - Absence of specific overt act attributed to
f
accused not fatal to prosecution case - No delay in sending D
FIR to magistrate.
s.464 - Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or
error in, charge - Notice to all accused under charge 1 that
E
they were members of unlawful assembly armed with deadly
weapons in prosecution of common object of murdering
deceased, committed offence of rioting u/s. 149 - Charge 4
-
~
& 5 against accused that during course of same transaction
committed murder by intentional causing death of deceased
~
and offence uls. 302 - Non-mentioning of s.149 in charge 4
F
& 5 - Held: Would not vitiate the conviction as accused failed
to show any prejudice - It is clear from charge 4 and 5 that
transaction mentioned in charge 1 was made integral part
thereof and ingredients of s.149 are implicit therein except
~ .}(
mentioning s. 149 ·specifically - Particulars in charge 4 and 6 G
......
sufficient to give notice of s. 149 to accused - Offence u/s. 302
rlw s.149 implicit- Penal Code, 1860- s.302 rlw s. 149.
Penal Code, 1860: ss.148, 302 and 149 - Unlawful
755
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 6 S.C.R.
•
A assembly - Common object - Determination of - Political
rivalry between two factions - Death of two and injuries to
prosecution witnesses - Plea that common object was to
cause injuries and not fatal injuries - Held: Accused armed
with deadly weapons - Deceased inflicted number of injuries
B - Assault was murderous - Thus, accused shared common
object of committing murder - They were more than five and
formed unlawful assembly to commit murder.
Evidence: Injured witness - Testimony of - Absence of
c
specific injuries or specific overt act attributed to accused
individually in FIR though detailed version given before court
- Held: Testimony of witnesses credible - One of the
witnesses seriously injured - Omissions and discrepancies
minor in nature - Many accused were involved, thus not
D
possible to attribute specific injury and overt act individually
::-
to each accused - Also, unlikely for witnesses who have lost
..,
their relatives to falsely implicate accused - More so,
testimony of witnesses corroborated by medical evidence.
There was a political rivalry between two factions. On
E the fateful day accused persons armed with deadly
weapons attacked the victims group. It resulted in death
of 01 and 02 and injuries to PW 1 to 3. 15 persons were
charged for offences under ss. 302,307, 307 rw 149, 148
and 341 IPC. Trial court convicted A1, A2, A4 to AS and
• --
F A10 to A13 u/s. 302 IPC and imposed imprisonment for
life and fine with default stipulation; and also convicted
u/s. 148 with imprisonment for one year. AG, A7, A10 to
A-13 were convicted u/s. 307 and sentenced to
imprisonment for five years and fine with default
G stipulation; A2, A4 and A5 u/s. 307 r/w 149 and sentenced
1
~
to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine with
f
default stipulation. The sentences of each accused were
to run concurrently. Two persons were acquitted and
two of them died during the trial. Eleven accused persons
H filed appeal. High Court upheld the order of conviction
ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. v.
757
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
...
and sentence. Hence the present appeal by ten accused
A
since A 5 died during pendency of appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. It cannot be accepted that F.l.R. is a
B
concocted document. The trial court as well as the High
Court rightly held that FIR was not fabricated. It is true
~
that injury no.1 received by PW-1 in front of left parietal
area and the depressed fracture of frontal bone was
extremely grave and serious but on the face of clear,
categorical and unambiguous endorsement made by the c
doctor-PW 10 that PW-1 was in a fit and proper condition
to give a statement at that time and the fact that PW-11ASI recorded the statement of PW-1 in the presence of
PW-10, there cannot be even slightest doubt about the
.....
authenticity of FIR and there is no justifiable reason to D
~
even remotely conclude that FIR is not the statement
given by PW-1. It cannot be accepted that PW-11 is a
chance witness. Pertinently, the F.l.R. was forwarded to
the Magistrate without any delay. As to whether PW-1
was in a fit and proper condition to give statement or not,
E
could have been assessed by PW-10 under whose
treatment PW-1 was at that time and none else. The
t
evidence of PW-7 in no way creates any doubt about the
.,»'
correctness of statement of PW-10 as PW-7 has not
stated in definite terms that PW-1 was not in a fit state of F
condition to give statemen! at that time. [Para 22] [771-DH; 772-A]
1.2. PW-1 in his testimony before the court gave
account of the incident. He testified that A-1, A-2, A-1 O G
...
;i
and A-12 were armed with axes and remaining eleven
accused were armed with eathapululu (sickle). A-1 to A-
.
9 hacked D-1 with their weapons. A-3, A-6, A-7, A-10 to
A-13 hacked D-2 with their respective weapons. A-1, A-3,
A-6, A-7 and A-10 to A-13 hacked him with tfieir respective
weapons. A-7, A-9, A-10 'and A-14 hacked PW-3 and RN
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A with their respective weapons. D-1 and D-2 died on the
spot. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not
state the said facts in FIR. These omission does not affect
the credibility of his evidence since at the time of
recording of FIR, PW-1 was in injured condition. It was
B not expected of him to give a detailed version in that
condition, more so when so many accused were
involved. But despite that, in FIR, he has given names of
all the accused persons. The testimony of PW-1 is
,.
corroborated by medical evidence. [Paras 23 and 24]
c [772-8-H; 773-A]
1.3. PW-1 and PW-3 are injured witnesses. As a matter
of f~ct, PW-1 suffered a grave injury on his head. TVio of
their family members died. It is most unlikely that they
would have spared the actual assailants and falsely
D implicated these appellants merely because there is
political rivalry between them. The omissions and
discrepancies pointed out in the evidence of PW-1 and
PW-3 are only minor and do not shake their
trustworthiness. It is true that neither PW-1 nor PW-3
E assigned specific injuries or specific overt acts attributed
t:o the accused individually but looking to the nature of
the incident where large number of persons attacked D1, D-2, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, it would not have been
possible for PW-1 or PW-3 to attribute specific injury
F individually to each accused. It could not be possible for
any person to recount with meticulous exactitude the
\rarious individual acts done by each assailant. Had they
stated so, their testimony would have been criticized as
highly improbable and unnatural. The testimony of eyeG witnesses carries with it the criticism of being tutored if
they give graphic details of the incident and their
evidence would be assailed as unspecific, vague and
general if they fail to speak with precision. The golden
principle is not to weigh such testimony in golden scales
H but to view it from the cogent standards that lend
lo,
,..
ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. v.
759
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
assurance about its trustfulness. The testimony of PW-1
A
and PW-3 is of credence and does not deserve to be
discarded on the ground of non-mentioning of specific
overt acts. It is accepted that the trial court and the High
Court gave cogent and convincing reasons for accepting
the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3. Merely because A-14 and
B
15 got acquittal, credibility of deposition of PW-1 and PW3 is not affected. [Para 26) [773-0-H; 774-A-B]
2.1. Section 464 Cr.P.C. specifies that a finding or
sentence of a court shall not be set aside merely on the
C
ground that a charge was not framed or that charge was
defective unless it has occasioned in prejudice. Because
of a mere defect !n language or in the narration or in form
of the charge, the conviction would not be rendered bad
if accused has not been adversely affected thereby. If the
ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit, D
conviction in regard thereto can be sustained irrespective
of the fact that the said section has not been mentioned.
A fair trial to the accused is a sine quo non in our criminal
justice system but at the same time procedural law
contained in the Cr.P.C. is designed to further the ends
E
of justice and not to frustrate them by introduction of
hyper-technicalities. Every case must depend on its own
merits and no straightjacket formula can be applied; the
t
essential and important aspect to be kept in mind is: has
omission to frame a specific charge resulted in prejudice
F
to the accused. [Para 42) [788-E-H; 789-A)
2.2. All the accused were put to notice under charge
no.1 that on May 16, 1996 in the morning near place-GH,
they were members of an unlawful assembly armed with G
deadly weapons and in prosecution of common object
of such assembly, namely, in murdering 01 and 02, they
committed offence of rioting, punishable u/ 148 IPC. A-1
to A-5 and A-6 to A-9 were noticed of the particulars
under charge no.4 that during the course of same
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A transaction as mentioned in charge no.1, they committed
)o..
murder by intentional causing death of 01 and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC. A-3, A-6
to A-8, A-10 to A-13 were put to notice under charge no.5
that during the course of the same transaction as
B mentioned in charge no.1 they committed murder by
intentional causing death of 02 and thereby committed
an offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC. [Para 43] [789-8-0)
2.3. A careful reading of charge no. 4 'and 5 leaves
""'
c no manner of doubt, since the transaction mentioned in
charge no.1 has been made integral part thereof, that all
the necessary ingredients of s. 149 IPC are implicit therein
except mentioning of s. 149 !PC specifically. The
particulars stated in charge no. 4 and 5 are reasonably
D
sufficient to give the appellants adequate notice of s. 149
IPC although not specifically mentioned. Non-mentioning
.._
of s. 149 in charge no. 4 and charge no. 5 is not a
~
fundamental defect of an incurable illegality that may
warrant setting aside the conviction and sentence of the
appellants. Non-framing of a charge u/s. 149 IPC, on the
E face of the charges framed against the appellants would
not vitiate their conviction; more so when the accused
have failed to show any prejudice in this regard. The
instant case is a case where there is mere omission to
mention s. 149 in charge no. 4 and 5 which at the highest • •
F may be considered as an irregularity and since the
appellants have failed to show any prejudice, their
conviction and sentence is not at all affected. Tenor of
cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-3 by the defence also
rules out any prejudice to them. The offence, in the
G established facts and circumstances of the case, under
s. 302 r/w section 149 IPC is implicit. The omission to ,
#
mention section 149 IPC specifically in the charge no. 4
and 5 cannot affect their conviction. In no way their
conviction is rendered bad as the appellants had
H assembled together armed with axes and eathapululu
ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. v.
761
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
"
(sickle) and were parties to the assault on D-1 and D-2
A
and others. In a situation such as this it was not
obligatory upon the prosecution to prove which specific
overt act was done by which of the accused. [Para 44]
[789-E-H; 790-A-D]
2.4. The submission that since D-1 and D-2 received
B
only one and two fatal injuries respectively, the common
object at the most could be to cause injuries and not fatal
injuries hardly merits acceptance. The deadly weapons
with which appellants were armed, the number of injuries c
inflicted on D-1 and D-2, and the murderous assault lead
to a certain inference that the appellants shared common
object of committing murder with other accused. That
they were more than five and formed unlawful assembly
is beyond doubt. D-1 and D-2 died on the spot. PW-1
D
fortunately survived after surgery and hospitalization for
~-.....J
more than month. [Para 45] [790-E-F]
Willi~ (William) Slaney vs. The State of M.P. (1955) 2
SCR 1140, followed.
Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia vs. The State of Hyderabad
E
(1955) 1 SCR 1083; Suraj Pal vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
(1955) 1 SCR 1332; Nayan Ullah and Ors. vs. Emperor A.l.R.
1925 Calcutta 903; Tahsildar Singh vs. State A.l.R. 1958
___..,.,
t
Allahabad 255; Nanak Chand vs. The State of Punjab (1955)
1 SCR 1201; Shambhu Nath Singh and Ors. vs. State of F
Bihar AIR 1960 SC 725; Bhajan Singh and Ors. vs. The State
of Punjab (1978) 4 SCC 77; Ram Anjore And Ors. vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh (1975) 3 SCC 379; Bhoor Singh and Anr.
vs. State of Punjab (1974) 4 SCC 754; Karnam Ram
G
Narsaiah & Ors. vs. State of A.P (2005)10 SCC 629;
..
-I
Dumpala Chandra Reddy vs. Nimakayala Balireddy and Ors .
(2008) 8 SCC 339; Malhu Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Bihar
(2002) 5 SCC 724; Umesh Singh and Anr. vs. State of Bihar
(2000) 6 sec 89, referred to.
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A
Case Law Reference:
(1955) 1 SCR 1083
Referred to.
Para 27
(1955) 1 SCR 1332
Referred to.
Para 27
B
A.LR. 1925 Calcutta 903
Referred to.
Para 27
A.l.R. 1958 Allahabad 255
Referred to.
Para 27
(1955) 1 SCR 1201
Referred to.
Para 27
AIR 1960 SC 725
Referred to.
Para 28
c
(1978) 4 sec 11
Referred to.
Para 28
(1975) 3 sec 379
Referred to.
Para 28
(1955) 2 SCR 1140
Followed.
Para 29
D
(1974) 4 sec 754
Referred to.
Para 29
~~
(2005)10 sec 629
Referred to.
Para 29
(2008) 8 sec 339
Referred to.
·Para 29
E
(2002) 5 sec 124
Referred to.
Para 29
(2000) s sec 89
Referred to.
Para 29
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 408 of 2007.
...
F
From the Judgment & Order dated 09.03.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
Appeal No. 928 of 2004.
P.P. Rao, Guntur Prabhakar, Purushottam S.T., Sahar
G Bakht and Utsav Sidhu for the Appellant.
)<
~
D. Rama Krishna Reddy and D. Bharathi Reddy for the
Respondents.
H
ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. v.
763
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. This criminal appeal by special leave
unfolds a woeful tale of a village political rivalry leading to
double murder; prior thereto also there were attacks by rival
factions that led to two murders.
8
2. Fifteen persons were arraigned before the trial court for
the offences under Section 302, 307, 307 read with 149, 148
and 341, IPC: The trial court convicted only eleven among them
and acquitted two accused. The other two accused died during
the trial. The convicted persons were sentenced under Section c
302, IPC, to life imprisonment and varying periods of
imprisonment under other offences; fine with default stipulation
was also imposed. All the eleven convicted persons filed
appeal before the High Court. The High Court affirmed the
conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. All these
D
eleven convicted persons preferred special leave petition in
which leave has been granted. During the pendency of the
appeal, one more convicted person has died.
3. Chinthalajuturu in Vemula Mandal of Cuddapah District
E
(Andhra Pradesh) is a faction-ridden village. One of these
factions is led by Kakarla Gangi Reddy (victim group) that
supports Congress Party. The leader of the other faction is
Annareddysamba Siva Reddy (accused group) which supports
'!:
Telugu Desam Party. There were instances of attack between
these groups earlier also. One year prior to the present incident,
F
one Yeddula Gangi Reddy of the Congress Party and belonging
to victim group was murdered. About a fortnight prior to the
incident, one Sirigireddy Prathapa Reddy of accused group
was murdered. For the murder of Sirigireddy Prathapa Reddy,
G
the members of victim group figured as accused. It is for this
..
<I
reason that AM. Annareddy Siva Reddy started residing at
Pulivendula.
4. On May 16, 1996 at about 9.00 AM. Annareddy Siva
Reddy (deceased hereinafter referred to as D-1), Yerram
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009) 6 S.C.R.
A 1--.eddy Pulla Reddy (deceased and hereinafter referred to as .
D-2), Annareddy Bala Gangi Reddy (PW-1) - brother of D-1,
Annareddy Jagan Mohan Reddy (PW-3) - nephew of D-1 and
_ ..
one Ramiredy Narayana Reddy left Pulivendula in a jeep driven
by Ala Krishnaiah (PW-2). D-1 sat in the front seat by the side
B of driver (PW-2). PW-1 and D-2 occupied the second row seat
behind D-1 and PW-2.
PW-3 and Ramireddy Narayana Reddy occupied the rear
seat of the jeep.
C
5. When the said jeep reached near Gollalaguduru
Harijanawada village, D-1 saw a jeep with the members of
accused group seated therein, coming from the opposite
direction. Seeing this, D-1 asked PW-2 to reve~e the jeep.
PW-2 had hardly reversed the jeep that Annareddi Sa.mbasiva
D Reddy (A-1), Annareddi Ramakrishna Reddy (A-2), Annareddi
Ramasura Reddy (A-3), Yeddula Eswara Reddy (A-4), Yeddula
Gangi Reddy (A-5), Annareddi Gangi Reddy (A-6), Palle
Venkatarami Reddy (A-7), Annareddi Srinivasul Reddy (A-8),
Dasareddigari Chalama Reddy (A-9), Dasareddigari Lakshmi
E Reddy (A-10), Singam Pedda Pulla Reddy (A-11), Singam
Chinna Gangi Reddy (A-12), Kakarla Subbi Reddy (A-13),
Annareddi Lakshmi Reddy (A-14) and Annareddi Ramana
Reddy (A-15) came out of their vehicle and surrounded the jeep
of D-1. A-1, A-2, A-10 and A-13 were armed with axes while
F the others were armed with Eathapululu (sickle). A-1 to A-9
hacked D-1. A-3, A-6, A-7 and A-10 to A-13 hacked D-2. 0-1
and D-2 died on the spot. A-1, A-3, A-6, A-7 and A-10 to A-13
inflicted grievous injuries on PW-1 whereas A-7, A-9, A-10 and
A-14 inflicted injuries on Annareddy Jagan Mohan Reddy (PWG 3) and Ramireddy Narayana Reddy. A-14 attacked PW-3 and
A-15 attacked PW-2.
6. PW-1 was taken to Pulivendula Government Hospital by
few residents of Chinthalajuturu village. Dr. T.V. Raghavendra
Reddy (PW-10), Civil Assistant Surgeon attended on him and
H gave PW-1 the necessary medical aid. K. Danam (PW-11) -
-'-"-
~
~
~
l
ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. v.
765
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [R.M. LODHA, J.]
Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Vemula Police Station while
A
he was at Pulivendula came to know of the incident at about
1.50 P.M. He went to the Pulivendula Government Hospital and
found that PW-1 was undergoing treatment. After being
satisfied that PW-1 was conscious and able to give his
statement, in the presence of the doctor (PW-10), he recorded
B
statement (Ex.P-1) of PW-1. PW-11 then went to Vemula Police
Station and registered the case (Crime No.26/1996) and
forw13rded a copy of the first information report to the corn~~rned
magistrate immediately thereafter.
7. A. Venkateswara Reddy (PW-12) - Inspector of Police, c
took up investigation and conducted further investigation on
May 17, 1996. He conducted inquest of the c;lead bodies and
sent them to Government Hospital, Pulivendula for post-mortem
examination. PW-10 conducted autopsy of the dead bodies and
issued post-mortem reports Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19. PW-10 also
D
examined the injured PW-2 and PW-3 and issued injury
certificates Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.16.
8. In order to complete the narration of facts, it may be
noticed here that during the course of investigation, A-14 and
E
A-15 pleaded alibi. The Investigating Officer took all necessary
steps towards investigation and after collecting the necessary
evidence and on completion of investigation, he filed
chargesheet against A-1 to A-13 before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Pulivendula who committed them to court
F
of sessions for trial. The accused were charged for the
following offences:
"(i)
A-1 to A-13 for rioting under Section 148 IPC;
(ii)
A-1 to A-13 for wrongful restraint under Section 341
G
IPC;
(iii)
A-1 to A-13 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to
PW-1 and PW-3 under Section 326 IPC;
(iv)
A-1 to A-5 and A-6 to A-9 under Section 302 IPC
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A
for the murder of 0-1;
B
c
•
(v)
A-3, A-6 to A-8 and A-10 to A-13 under Section
302 IPC for the murder of D-2;
(vi)
A-1, A-3, A-6 to A-8, A-10, A-12 and A-13 under
Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder PW-1;
(vii) A-7, A-9 and A-10 under Section 307 IPC for
attempt to murder Ramireddi Narayana Reddy;
(viii) A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-11 under Section 307 read
with Section 149 IPC for attempt to murder PW-1."
9. Since A-14 and A-15 were deleted from the
chargesheet by the Investigating Officer, a private complaint
came to be filed by PW-1 before the Judicial Magistrate 1st
D Class, Pulivendula. The concerned magistrate also committed
A-14 and A-15 to the court of sessions for trial.
10. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses including
three eye-witnesses (PW-1 to PW-3) and marked documents
E Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-28 and exhibited M.O. 1 to M.0.14.
11. In their statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the
accused denied their role in the crime.
12. The Ill Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, on
F consideration of both oral and documentary evidence vide his
judgment dated April 5, 2004, found A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-8 guilty
of the offence under section 302 IPC; they were sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulation. A-6, A-7, A-10 to A-13 were found guilty of
G the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulation. A-6, A-7, A-10 to A-13 were found guilty of the
offence under section 307 IPC as well and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-
H with default stipulation. A-2, A-4 and A-5 were found guilty of
-
--
..
~
-.
ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. v.
767
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [R.M. LODHA, J.]
the offence under section 307 read with section 149 IPC and
A
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and
a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. A-1, A-2, A-4 to AB, A-10 to A-13 were found guilty of the offence under section
148 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year
and a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. The sentence
B
passed against each of the accused was ordered to run
concurrently. The trial court acquitted A-14 and A-15 of all the
1
charges. A-3 and A-9 died during the trial and, .thus, the case
abated as against them.
I
"
13. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, A-1,
C
A-2, A-4 to A-8 and A-10 to A-13 filed appeal before the High
Court. The State preferred separate. appeal against that very
judgment in so far as acquittal ofA-14 and A-15 was concerned.
14. These two appeals were heard together by the Division
D
Bench of the High Court and were dismissed on March 9,
2006.
15. The present appeal now subsists on behalf of A-1, A2, A-4, A-6 to A-8 and A-10 to A-13 since A-5 has died during
E
the pendency of appeal.
16. Dr. T.V. Raghavendra Reddy (PW-10), Civil Surgeon,
Government Hospital, Pulivendla conducted post-mortem
examination on the body of Annareddy Siva Reddy (D-1) on
May 17, 1996. In the post-mortem report (Ex.P-18), he recorded
F
the following external injuries on the body of D-1:
"1. An incised wound in the middle of right upper arm
measuring about 7 cm x 3 cm x 4 cm deep. Muscles cut
and fracture of bone present.
G
2. An incised wound 5 cm above wound No.1 measuring
about 7 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm deep. Muscles cut.
3. An incised wound from the lateral part of the left eye
below the ear to the root of neck measuring about 20 cm
H
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A
x 3 cm x 5 cm deep. Muscles cut and fracture of mandible
and spinal process.
4. An incised wound 1 Yi cm above wound No.3 measuring
about 15 cm x 1% cm x 4 cm deep.
B
5. An incised wound 7 cm x 1 cm x bone deep 1 cm above
wound No.4.
6. An incised wound 2 cm above wound No.5 measuring
about 5 cm x 1 Yi cm x bone deep fracture of occipital
c
bone present.
D
E
F
7. An incised wound in the left occipital area measuring
about 8 cm x 5 cm x bone deep. Flap is hanging with bit
of skin.
8. An incised wound on the left parietal area measuring
about 6 cm x 1 Yi cm x bone deep and fracture of parietal
bone present.
9. An incised wound in the centre of the scalp measuring
about 6 cm x 1% cm x bone deep. Fracture of the left and
right parietal bones seen.
10. An incised wound on the right parietal area measuring
about 5 ems x 1 cm x bone deep and fracture of right
parietal bone seen.
Head and neck: Brain injured and neck vessels cut."
The aforesaid injuries on the body of D-1 were found antemortem in nature. In the opinion of PW-10, D-1 died due to
G haemorrhage, shock and injury to neck vessels.
H
17. On the same day (May 17, 1996) at 1.30 P.M., PW10 conducted post-mortem examination on the body of D-2. In
the post-mortem report (Ex.P-19), he recorded the following
injuries on the body of D-2:
ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. v.
769
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [R.M. LODHA, J.]
"1. Incised wound on the left leg at the knee joint measuring
A
about 15 ems x 8 cm x 8 cm deep. Fracture of patella bone
seen.
2. Incised wound 6 ems below wound No.1. measuring
about 10 cm x 3 cm x 4 ems deep. Fracture of Tibia seen.
B
3. Incised wound in centre of chest lower part of sternum
f
measuring about 6 cm x 2 cm x fracture of sternum and
plura is injured.
4. An incised wound between left thumb and the index c
finger measuring about 3112 cm x 1112 cm x 1112 cm deep.
5. An incised wound on the nape of the neck measuring
about 5 cm x 1112 cm x 1112 cm deep.
_l
6. An incised wound on the left parietal area measuring
D
t
about 5 cm x 1112 cm x scalp deep.
7. An incised wound on the posterior part of left parietal
area measuring about 5 cm x 1112 cm x scalp deep."
The aforesaid injuries were found ante-mortem in nature.
E
According to PW-10, D-2 died of haemorrhage, shock and
injury to vital organs .
;:
•
18. The evidence of PW-10 and post-mortem reports
(Ex.P-18 and Ex.P-19) leave no manner of doubt that the death
F
of D-1 and D-2 was homicidal.
19. PW-1 is the injured witness. The following injuries were
inflicted on him:
-
,.(
"1. An incised wound in front of left parietal area and front
G
bone measuring about 7 cm x 1112 cm x bone deep.
(Depressed fracture of the frontal bone as per the
specialist opinion).
2. An incised wound on the left hand above the wrist
H
A
B
770
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
measuring about 4 cm x 1 cm x muscles deep. Fracture
of Ulna bone (As per the specialist opinion).
3. An incised wound on the posterior part of the left parietal
area measuring about 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, and cut
of the bone.
4. An incised wound by the side of wound No.3, 2 cm apart
measuring about 3 cm x Yi cm x scalp deep.
5. An incised wound on the left hand above wound No.2
c
measuring about 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep.
D
E
6. An incised wound on the right wrist measuring about 1 Yi
cm x Yi cm skin deep.
7. An incised wound on the anterior part of Right parietal
bone measuring about 2 cm x % cm x skin deep.
8.
An incised wound on the anterior part of the left
parietal bone measuring about 3Yi cm x % cm x Skin
deep."
20. K. Danam (PW-11), was posted as Assistant Sub
Inspector of Police at Vemula Police Station at the relevant
time. Having come to know of the incident that two persons
belonging to the Congress Party were done to death at
Gollalaguduru Harijanwada by the Telugu Desam Party faction,
F PW-11 immediately rushed to the Government Hospital,
Pulivendula. He found that PW-1 was undergoing treatment in
the emergency ward. As PW-1 was in a fit condition to give
statement, PW-11 recorded his statement marked Ex.P-1. PW10 also made an endorsement on Ex.P-1 that PW-1 was in a
G fit and proper condition to give a statement. Based on Ex.P-1,
first information report came to be registered.
21. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants vehemently contended that first information report
H was a concocted document and that makes the entire
ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. v.
771
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [R.M. LODHA, J.]
_.
prosecution case doubtful. He would submit that PW-1 was
A
seriously injured and not in a position to give any statement. In
this regard, he referred to the evidence of Dr. A. Sudhakar
Reddy (PW-7), Assistant Professor of Neuro Surgery at
S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati who treated PW-1. The learned
senior counsel also submitted that at the time of the recording
B
of statement (Ex.P-1), the group leader Kakarla Gangj Reddy
had already arrived and he was in the room where PW-1 was
"
being treated. It is the contention of Mr. P.P. Rao that Kakarla
Gangi Reddy was instrumental in implicating the accused falsely
who belonged to rival group. It was also contended that in the c
first information report except naming all the accused and
making omnibus allegations, no specific overt acts of the
accused were mentioned.
22. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned
D
~
senior counsel that F.l.R. is a concocted document. It is true that
"
injury no.1 received by PW-1 in front of left parietal area and
the depressed fracture of frontal bone was extremely grave and
serious but on the face of clear, categorical and unambiguous
endorsement made by Dr. TV. Raghavendra Reddy (PW-10)
that PW-1 was in a fit and proper condition to give a statement
E
at that time and the fact that PW-11 recorded the statement of
PW-1 in the presence of PW-10, there cannot be even slightest
doubt about the authenticity of Ex.P-1 and we find no justifiable
reason to even remotely conclude that Ex.P-1 is not the
statement given by PW-1. The contention that PW-11 is a
F
chance witness, is noted to be rejected. Pertinently, the F.l.R.
was forwarded to the Magistrate without any delay. As a matter
of fact, F.l.R. reached the Magistrate at 10.45 P.M. on May 16,
1996 itself. As to whether PW-1 was in a fit and proper
condition to give statement or not, could tiave been assessed
G
..,. "
by PW-10 under whose treatment PW-1 was at that time and
none else. The evidence of PW-7 referred to by the learned
senior counsel in no way creates any doubt about the
correctness of statement of PW-10 as PW-7 has not stated in
definite terms that PW-1 was not in a fit state of condition to
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A give statement at that time. The trial court as well as the High
Court did not accept the contention made on behalf of the
accused that Ex.P-1 was fabricated. We agree with this view
of the trial court and the High Court.
B
23. PW-1 in his testimony before the court has given
account of the incident. He testified that A-1, A-2, A-10 and A12 were armed with axes and remaining eleven accused were
armed with eathapu/ulu (sickle). A-1 to A-9 hacked D-1 with
their weapons. A-3, A-6, A-7, A-10 to A-13 hacl<ed D-2 with
their respective weapons. A-1, A-3, A-6, A-7 and A-10 to AC 13 hacked him with their respective weapons. A-7, A-9, A-10
and A-14 hacked PW-3 and R. Narayanareddy with their
respective weapons. D-1 and D-2 died qn the spot. In his crossexamination, he admitted that he did not state in Ex.P-1 that
they (PW-1 and D-1) obtained loan of Rs.6,000/- from the bank.
D He also admitted in Ex.P-1 that he did not state that A-1, A-2,
A-10 and A-12 were armed with axes and the remaining
accused with eathapulu/u (sickle). He also admitted that he did
not state in Ex.P-1 that A-1 to A-9 hacked D-1; A-3, A-6, A-10
to A-13 hacked D-2 and that he was attacked by A-1, A-3, AE 6, A-7, A-10 to A-13 and that A-7, A-9, A-10 and A-14 attacked
PW-3 and R. Narayanareddy. These omissions do not affect ~
the credibility of his evidence since at the time of recording of
Ex.P-1, PW-1 was in injured condition. It was not expected of
him to give a detailed version in that condition, more so when
F so many accused were involved. But despite that, in Ex.P-1,
he has given names of all the accused persons.
24. The testimony of PW-1 is corroborated by medical
evidence. The factum of PW-1 and D-1 having gone to the Bank
G at Pulivendula and that they obtained a loan of Rs.6,000/- from
Alavalapadu Grameena Bank is also established by the
evidence of R.B.S.K. Satyamurthy (PW-5) and M. Venkata
Subbareddy (PW-6). PW-5 and PW-6 were Branch Manager
and Clerk-cum-Cashier respectively in the Bank at the relevant
H time. The evidence of driver of the jeep A. Krishnaiah (PW-2),
ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. v.
773
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [R.M. LODHA, J.]
-'
although declared hostile as he refused to recognize the
A
assailants, corroborates the evidence of PW-1 to the extent that
they had gone to the Bank at Pulivendula and that they were
returning from that place on May 16, 1996at11.00 A.M.
25. A. Jaganmohan Reddy (PW-3) is yet another eyeB
witness. He also got injured in the incident. He has given
detailed version of the incident. He has testified that A-1 to A-
~
9 hacked D-1 and A-3, A-6, A-7, and A-10 to A-13 hacked D2 with their weapons. He also testified that A-3, A-6, A-7 and
A-10 to A-13 hacked PW-1 causing various injuries to_him_and c
A-7 and A-10 hacked him on his left forearm and left thigh. PW10 examined PW-3 at about 3.45 P.M. on May 16, 1996 and
found two ir:icised injuries on the left hand and left thigh. The
i_njury report pertaining to him is Ex.P-16.
J
26. PW-1 and PW-3 are injured witnesses. As a matter D
•
of fact, PW-1 suffered a grave injury on his head. Two of their
family members died. Why should he and PW-3 let real culprits
go scot-free ? It is most unlikely that they would have spared
the actual assailants and falsely implicated these appellants
merely because there is political rivalry between them. The
E
omissions and discrepancies pointed out in the evidence of
PW-1 and PW-3 are only minor and do not shake their
trustworthiness. It is true that neither PW-1 nor PW-3 assigned
~
specific injuries or specific overt acts attributed to the accused
individually but looking to the nature of the incident where large
F
number of persons attacked D-1, D-2 PW-1, PW-2 and PW3, it would not have been possible for PW-1 or PW-3 to attribute
specific injury individually to each accused. How could it be
possible for any person to recount with meticulous exactitude
the various individual acts done by each assailant ? Had they
G
-~ ,.
stated so, their testimony would have been criticized as highly
improbable and unnatural. The testimony of eye-witnesses
carries with it the criticism of being tutored if they give graphic
details of the incident and their evidence would be assailed as
unspecific, vague and general if they fail to speak with
H
/
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 6 S.C.R.
A precision. The golden principle is not to weigh such testimony
in golden scales but to view it from the cogent standards that
lend assurance about its trustfulness. In our view, the testimony
of PW-1 and PW-3 is of credence and does not deserve to be
discarded on the ground of non-mentioning of specific overt
B acts. The trial court and the High Court have given cogent and
convincing reasons for accepting the evidence of PW-1 and
PW-3. We concur. Merely because A-14 and A-15 got acquittal,
in our view, credibility of deposition of P'{V-1 and PW-3 is not
affected.
c
27. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel submitted that
the conviction and sentence passed against the accusedappellants for the offence unc;fer Section 302, IPC, simpliciter
is not legally sustainable in the absence of any specific overt
acts attributed to each of the accused. The learned senior
D counsel would submit that the accused who inflicted fatal injury/
injuries resulting in the death with the requisite intention or
knowledge alone are liable for the offence under Section 302,
IPC simpliciter. The learned senior counsel contended that as
there is no conviction for the offence under Section 302 read
E with Section 149, IPC, the question whether such conviction is
maintainable or not without such charge does not arise in the
present case. Placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in
Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia vs. The State of Hyderabad 1,
learned senior counsel would submit that in absence of specific
F charge under Section 149, the accused persons cannot be
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 as Section
149 creates a distinct and separate offence. The learned senior
counsel also relied upon Suraj Pal vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh2, Nayan Ullah and Ors. vs. Emperor, Tahsi/dar
G Singh vs. State4 and Nanak Chand vs. The State of Punjab5•
1.
(1955) 1 SCR 1083.
2.
(1955) 1 SCR 1332.
3.
A.LR. 1925 Calcutta 93.
4.
A.LR. 1958 Allahabad 255.
H
5.
(1955) 1 SCR 1201.
'
.j
..
~
~
ANNA REDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY & ORS. v.
775
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [R.M. LODHA, J.]
28. Learned senior counsel for the appellants also
A
·contended that in the instant case there is no charge under
Section 149, IPC at all nor any finding of the courts below that
the accused had the common object to commit the offence
under Section 302, IPC. He submitted that barring one injury
in the case of D-1 and two injuries in the case of D-2, none of
B
the other injuries was found to be fatal and, therefore, the
common ooject at the most could be only to cause some injury
"
but not to cau.se the fatal injuries. In support of this contention
of his, the learned senior counsel relied upon Shambhu Nath
Singh and Ors. vs. State of Biha~; Bhajan Singh and Ors. vs. c
The State of Punjab7 and Ram Anjore and Ors. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh8•
29. Mr.D. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
State in his reply submitted that in the complaint (Ex.P-1), the
D
...
names of all the accused persons, weapons wielded by them
•
and their participation have been clearly mentioned. In their
deposition, PW-1 and PW-3 have also stated which of the
accused attacked D-1, D-2 and injured PW-1, PW-2 and PW3 and, therefore, non-attributing the injuries specifically to the
individual accused does not materially affect the prosecution
E
case. He would urge that the accused-appellants have been
convicted for the offences under Sections 148 and 307 read
..
with Section 149 and Section 302 IPC simpliciter which would
. show that the accused formed unlawful assembly. The learned
counsel invited our attention to Section 464 of the Code of
F
Criminal Procedure and submitted that in the present case,
neither in the grounds of appeal before this Court nor before
the courts below the accused have pleaded prejudice or failure
of justice due to non-mentioning of Section 149 IPC with
Section 302 IPC. He relied upon: Willie (William) Slaney vs.
G
... "
The State of M.P9• ; Bhoor Singh and Anr. vs. State of
6.
AIR 1960 SC 725.
7.
(1978) 4 sec 77.
8.
(1975) 3 sec 379.
9.
(1955) S SCR 1140.
H
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A Punjab10; Kamam Ram Narsaiah & Ors. vs. State of A.P.
11 and
Dumpala Chandra Reddy vs. Nimakayala Bafireddy and
Ors. 12 and Ma/hu Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Bihar
13 and
Umesh Singh and Anr. vs. State of Bihar,
14•
B
30. In Suraj Pal, this Court held:
" ... Whether or not Section 149 IPC creates a distinct
offence (as regards which there has been conflict of views
in the High Courts), there can be no doubt that it creates
a distinct head of criminal liability which has come to be
c
known as "constructive liability" -a convenient phrase not
used in the Indian Penal Code. There can, therefore, be
no doubt that the direct individual liability of a person can
only be fixed upon him with reference to a specific charge
in respect of the particular offence.