# GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY & ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 14 S.C.R. 155
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-09-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2011
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, S.A. Bobde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gangabhavani-v-rayapati-venkat-reddy-ors-29148
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 -
ss. 3021149, 148 -
Explosive
Substances Act, 1998 - ss. 3, 5 and 6 - Prosecution under -
A
B
Of 13 accused -
Trial court convicted A-1 to A-6 while c
acquitting rest of the accused - High Court acquitted A-1 to
A-6 - On appeal, held: High Court acquitted the accused on
erroneous findings -
Prosecution proved its case qua
accused A-1 to A-6 - Order of trial court is restored.
Appeal - Against acquittal - Interference with - Scope
of - Held: There are limitations while interfering with an order
against acquittal - Interference in a routine manner, where the
other view is possible, should be avoided, unless there are
good reasons for interference.
Evidence:
Medical evidence or evidence of ballistic expert vis-a-vis
ocular evidence - If ocular evidence is totally inconsistent with
medical evidence or evidence of ballistic expert, may discredit
the entire case, if not explained - Where eye-witness account
credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to
alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclsuive.
D
E
F
Medical evidence -
Evidentiary value -
Medical
evidence, if not consistent or probable, the Court has no
G
liability to go by that opinion.
Criminal Trial - Contradiction in evidence - Affect of -
Held: Minor contradictions are bound to be ignored - But if
155
H
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 14 S.C.R.
A the contradiction go to the root of the case, materially affect
the trial or core of the prosecution case, Court has to form its
opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as
to whether their depositions inspire confidence.
B
c
Witnesses:
Related/interested witness - Evidentiary value of - If
evidence of such witness is cogent, credible and trustworthy,
it can be relied upon - However, their evidence is required to
be carefully scrutinised.
Natural witness vis-a-vis interested witness - Held:
Natural witness should not be labelled as interested witness
- Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some
benefit out of the litigation.
D
FIR - Evidentiary value - Failure to mention all the
names and details in the FIR - Affect of.
The 6 respondents-accused alongwith 7 other
accused were prosecuted ulss. 148, 3021149 IPC, and ss.
E 3, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The
prosecution case was that the 13 accused persons came
to the field where PWs 1, 2 and 3 and the deceased were
working. They came armed with deadly weapons like
sticks, knives, bombs and sickles and assaulted the
F deceased and PWs 1, 2 and 3. Trial court convicted the
respondent-accused (A1to A6) and acquitted rest of the
accused (A7 to A-13). Respondents-accused filed appeal,
which was allowed by High Court, aquitting them. Hence
the present appeals by the complainant and the State.
G
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. There are limitations while interfering with
an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where
there are compelling circumstances and the judgment
· H under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court
GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY
157
can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate
A
court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence
of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower
Court bolsters the presumption of his ·innocence.
Interference in a routine manner where the other view is
possible should be avoided, unless there are good
B
reasons for interference. [Para 6] [169-E-G]
2.1. It is a settled legal proposition that where the
evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally
inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence
C
of the ballistics expert, it amounts to a fundamental defect
in the prosecution case and unless it is reasonably
explained, may discredit the entire case· of the
prosecution. However, the opinion given by a medical
witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such
an opinion is required to be tested by the court. If the
opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not
oblig

## Text

_Characters 0–39,995 of 55,359. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39995 for what follows._

[2013] 14 S.C.R. 155
GANGABHAVANI
v.
RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 -
ss. 3021149, 148 -
Explosive
Substances Act, 1998 - ss. 3, 5 and 6 - Prosecution under -
A
B
Of 13 accused -
Trial court convicted A-1 to A-6 while c
acquitting rest of the accused - High Court acquitted A-1 to
A-6 - On appeal, held: High Court acquitted the accused on
erroneous findings -
Prosecution proved its case qua
accused A-1 to A-6 - Order of trial court is restored.
Appeal - Against acquittal - Interference with - Scope
of - Held: There are limitations while interfering with an order
against acquittal - Interference in a routine manner, where the
other view is possible, should be avoided, unless there are
good reasons for interference.
Evidence:
Medical evidence or evidence of ballistic expert vis-a-vis
ocular evidence - If ocular evidence is totally inconsistent with
medical evidence or evidence of ballistic expert, may discredit
the entire case, if not explained - Where eye-witness account
credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to
alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclsuive.
D
E
F
Medical evidence -
Evidentiary value -
Medical
evidence, if not consistent or probable, the Court has no
G
liability to go by that opinion.
Criminal Trial - Contradiction in evidence - Affect of -
Held: Minor contradictions are bound to be ignored - But if
155
H
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 14 S.C.R.
A the contradiction go to the root of the case, materially affect
the trial or core of the prosecution case, Court has to form its
opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as
to whether their depositions inspire confidence.
B
c
Witnesses:
Related/interested witness - Evidentiary value of - If
evidence of such witness is cogent, credible and trustworthy,
it can be relied upon - However, their evidence is required to
be carefully scrutinised.
Natural witness vis-a-vis interested witness - Held:
Natural witness should not be labelled as interested witness
- Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some
benefit out of the litigation.
D
FIR - Evidentiary value - Failure to mention all the
names and details in the FIR - Affect of.
The 6 respondents-accused alongwith 7 other
accused were prosecuted ulss. 148, 3021149 IPC, and ss.
E 3, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The
prosecution case was that the 13 accused persons came
to the field where PWs 1, 2 and 3 and the deceased were
working. They came armed with deadly weapons like
sticks, knives, bombs and sickles and assaulted the
F deceased and PWs 1, 2 and 3. Trial court convicted the
respondent-accused (A1to A6) and acquitted rest of the
accused (A7 to A-13). Respondents-accused filed appeal,
which was allowed by High Court, aquitting them. Hence
the present appeals by the complainant and the State.
G
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. There are limitations while interfering with
an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where
there are compelling circumstances and the judgment
· H under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court
GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY
157
can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate
A
court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence
of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower
Court bolsters the presumption of his ·innocence.
Interference in a routine manner where the other view is
possible should be avoided, unless there are good
B
reasons for interference. [Para 6] [169-E-G]
2.1. It is a settled legal proposition that where the
evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally
inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence
C
of the ballistics expert, it amounts to a fundamental defect
in the prosecution case and unless it is reasonably
explained, may discredit the entire case· of the
prosecution. However, the opinion given by a medical
witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such
an opinion is required to be tested by the court. If the
opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not
obliged to go by that opinion. If one doctor forms one
opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on
the same facts, it is open to the Judge to adopt the view
which is more objective or probable. Similarly, if the
opinion given by one doctor is not consistent or
probable, the court has no liability to go by that opinion
merely because it is given by the doctor. "It would be
erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical
answers of medical witnesses to exclude the
eyewitnesses' account which had to be
~ested
independently and not treated as the 'variable' keeping
the medical evidence as the 'constant' ". [Para 7] [169-H;
170-A-E]
2.2. Where the eyewitnesses' account is found
credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to
alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as
conclusive. The eyewitnesses' account requires a careful
independent assessment and evaluation for its
D
E
F
G
H
158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 14 S.C.R.
A credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged on
the basis of any other evidence, including medical
evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such
credibility. [Para 7] [170-E-F]
8
Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 1727:
1976 (1) SCR 27; State of Haryana v. Bhagirath AIR 1999 SC
2005: 1999 (3) SCR 529; Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.
(2010) 10 SCC 259: 2010 (13) SCR 311; Rakesh v. State
of M.P. (2011) 9 sec 698: 2011 (15 ) SCR 34 - relied on.
C
2.3. In cases where there is a contradiction between
medical evidence and ocular evidence stands
crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony
of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis
medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the
D ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant
factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence.
However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it
completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence
being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. [Para
E 8] [170-H; 171-A-B]
3. In case there are minor contradictions in the
depositions of the witnesses the same are bound to be
ignored as the same cannot be dubbed as improvements
and it is likely to be so as the statement in the court is
F recorded after an inordinate delay. In case the
contradictions are so material that the same go to the root
of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the
prosecution case, the court has to form its opinion about
the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether
G their depositions inspire confidence. [Para 1 O] [172-D-E]
State of UP. v. Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324: 2011 (4)
SCR 1176; Tehsildar Singh & Anr. v. State of U. P. AIR 1959
SC 1012: 1959 Suppl. SCR 875; Pudhu Raja & Anr. v.
H State Rep. by Inspector of Police JT 2012 (9) SC 252; Lal
GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY
159
Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 4 SCC 557:
2013
A
(5) SCR 744 - relied on.
4.1. The evidence of closely related witnesses is
required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated
before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding
the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence
cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the
witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased.
B
In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be
relied upon. [Para 11] [172-F-G]
C
Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of UP. AIR 2011 SC
2292: 2011 (6) SCR 1037; Dhari & Ors. v. State of U P. AIR
2013 SC 308: 2012 (8) SCR 1219; State of Rajasthan v.
Smt. Kalki & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1390; Chakali Maddilety & D
Ors. v. State of A. P. AIR 2010 SC 3473: 2010 (10) SCR 77
- relied on.
4.2. Natural witnesses may not be labelled as
interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are those who
want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In
case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present
on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the
crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the
ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased.
[Para 14] [174-B-0]
Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of UP. AIR 2004 SC 5039:
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 107 - relied on.
E
F
5.1. The case of the prosecution cannot be rejected
G
solely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. The court
has to examine the explanation furnished by the
prosecution for explaining the delay. If the prosecution
explains the delay, the court should not reject the ease
of the prosecution solely on this ground. Therefore, the
H
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A entire incident as narrated by the witnesses has to be
construed and examined to decide whether there was an
unreasonable and unexplained delay which goes to the
root of the case of the prosecution and even if there is
some unexplained delay, the court has to take into
8 consideration whether it can be termed as abnormal.
[Para 15] [17 4-D-E, F-G]
c
P. Venkataswarlu v. State of A.P. AIR 2003 SC 574: 2002
(10) SCC 46; State of UP. v. Munesh AIR 2013 SC 147:
2012 (9) SCR 545 - relied on.
5.2. Merely not mentioning all the names of all the
accused or their overt acts elaborately or details of
injuries said to have been suffered, could not render the
FIR vague or unreliable. The FIR is not an encyclopaedia
o of all the facts. More so, it is quite natural that all the
names and details may not be given in the FIR, where a
large number of accused are involved. [Para 16] [174-H;
175-A-B]
6. The defence cannot rely on nor can the court base
E its finding on a particular fact or issue on which the
witness has not made any statement in his examinationin-chief and the defence has not cross examined him on
the said aspect of the matter. [Para 18] [176-C-D]
F
Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr. v. Bhagwanthuva
G
H
(Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 2013 SC 1204: 2013 (1)
SCR 632; Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, JT 2013 (8)
SC 181; Gian Chand & Ors. v. State of Haryana JT 2013
(10) SC 515 - relied on.
7 .1. In the present case, in view of the fact that there
is sufficient evidence on record that the deceased was
hacked with a hunting sickle and in such a case, AS was
convicted under Section 148 IPC, want of such an
explanation is irrelevant. The cause of death as opined
GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY
161
by the medical evidence was shock due to fracture of A
skull bone and lacerations to the brain matter and that in
normal circumstances injury Nos. 1 to 3 could cause
death. The doctor specifically deposed that the deceased
died of a fracture of skull bones i.e. injury No. 1. PW.6
(doctor) further explained that she did not mention the
B
type of weapon used for the reason that she was not
asked about the same. However, she had clearly deposed
that injury No. 2 could have been caused by a hunting
sickle. This evidence of PW.6 stood fully corroborated by
the version given by PWs. 1 to 3 who have clearly c
deposed that AS hacked the deceased with hunting
sickle on his head. [Para 29) [181-C-F]
7.2. The High Court has also taken note of the fact
that the overt act assigned to AS has not been mentioned
in the FIR. The evidence on record clearly revealed that
D
A1 to AS came armed with deadly weapons whistling war
cries and chased the deceased. The trial court convicted
AS with the aid of Section 149 IPC and not independently
for the reason that the trial court was not satisfied that
AS had hacked the deceased. PW.8 who was the witness
E
to the recoveries, deposed that seizure of hunting sickle
etc. was made at the disclosure statement of the accused
and he had signed the recovery memos for the same.
Thus, the observations made by the High Court in this
regard cannot be approved. [Para 30) [181-F-H; 182-A-B]
F
7.3. The High Court erroneously observed that the
eye-witnesses did not speak of the explosion of bombs
by certain accused and, therefore, their presence at the
place of occurrence was doubted and they could also not G
have seen the incident because of smoke from the
explosion. Such a finding was totally unwarranted,
uncalled for and is perverse being based on no evidence.
Not a single question had been put to the eye-witnesses
in this respect and, therefore, there is nothing on record
H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A to show that their visibility was impaired due to the
emanating of smoke and the said finding recorded by the
High Court could be simply termed as illogical. The
witnesses deposed that A3 to A5 also hurled the bombs
which had fallen in close vicinity of the body of the
B deceased though they did not hit him. It was specifically
mentioned that bombs hurled by A1 and A2 had hit him,
therefore, it is clear that there is no discrepancy in the
testimony of the eye-witnesses with respect to the overt
acts of the accused. More so, the High Court doubted the
c version given by PW.1 that out of fear he hid himself
behind the bushes and returned after some time and
when he came back there, he did not find any person,
though, in his cross-examination, he explained that about
two hundred persons gathered at the place of occurrence
0 after the accused had left the place. [Para 31] [182-B-G]
7.4. The evidence is to be examined considering the
tension prevailing at the place of occurrence. It is natural
that in such a fact-situation every person would feel the
apprehension of danger to his life and may run away.
E There may be some discrepancy in his evidence in crossexamination but it has to be examined while taking into
consideration the evidence on record as a whole. As he
explained the gathering of a crowd consisting of
approximately 200 persons, may have been at a later point
F of time. Therefore, merely on the basis of such a statement,
his presence could not be doubted and his version could
not be discarded. [Para 31] [182-G-H; 183-A]
7.5. So far as the delay in lodging of FIR is
G concerned, it has to be considered in light of the
prevailing circumstances on that fateful day when two
persons were murdered and third died of electrocution.
The incident occurred in a faction ridden village having
only 80 houses. The accused persons used bombs etc.
H
GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY
163
for killing two persons. The police arrived at 10 O'clock
A
in the morning in the village. PW.1 was taken into custody
suspecting his involvement in the murder of the person
who died due to electrocution. Therefore, in such a factsituation, such adverse inference could not have been
drawn and testimony of PW.1 who had submitted the FIR,
since he was illiterate and, a rustic villager and did not
know the niceties of law, could not be doubted. When he
lodged an oral complaint, he was asked to get it written
B
by somebody and then present it for lodging the FIR. The
police officials made it clear in their cross-examination
that they had asked persons present at the place of
occurrence to give a complaint in regard to the incident
twice, but nobody came forward to give it. In view thereof,
c
a person who had lost two of his family members and
had been suspected of being involved in the murder of D
a person who died due to electrocution alongwith the fact
that no other person was willing to submit a complaint,
the delay of 6 hours, could not be fatal, particularly in
view of depositions of the eye-witnesses. Thus, the delay
has been fully explained by the prosecution and there
was no occasion for the High Court to take it to be fatal
to the case of the prosecution. [Para 32] [183-B-G]
7.6. There could be no reason for the eye-witnesses
i.e. PWs 1 to 3, who had lost two of their family members,
to falsely implicate the respondents and spare the real
assailants. The findings recorded by the High Court are
liable to be set aside being perverse and the order of the
trial court is restored. [Paras 33 and 34] [183-G-H; 184-AB]
Case Law Reference:
1976 (1)SCR27
1999 (3) SCR 529
2010 (13) SCR311
relied on
relied on
relied on
Para 7
Para 7
Para 7
E
F
G
H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A
2011 (15) SCR 34
relied on
Para 7
2011 (4) SCR 1176
relied on
Para 9
1959 Suppl. SCR 875
relied on
Para 9
B
JT 2012 (9) SC 252
relied on
Para 9
2013 (5) SCR 744
relied on
Para 9
2011 (6) SCR 1037
relied on
Para 11
2012 (8) SCR 1219
relied on
Para 11
c
AIR 1981 SC 1390
relied on
Para 12
2010 (10) SCR 77
relied on
Para 12
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 107 relied on
Para 13
D
2002 (1 O) sec 46
relied on
Para 15
2012 (9) SCR 545
relied on
Para 15
2013 (1) SCR 632
relied on
Para 17
E
JT 2013 (8) SC 181
relied on
Para 17
JT 2013 (10) SC 515
relied on
Para 17
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 84 of 2011.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2007.of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal
No 41 of 2005.
WITH
G
Crl. A. NO. 86 OF 2011.
Huzefa
Ahmadi,
Sidharth
Luthra,
A.
T
M.
Rangaramanujam, Altaf Ahmad. Altaf Fathima Rashmi
H Nandakumar, Rohan Sharma. P Vinay Kumar, A. Handa,
GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY
165
Supriya Juneja, Dr. D . Mahesh Babu., Amit K. Nain, Suchitra
A
H, Amjid Maqbool, C.S. N. Mohan Rao, Allanki Ramesh,
Lokesh Kumar, Shilpa Gupta. D. Bhrathi Reddy, for the
appearing Parties.
The Judgment of the court was delivered by
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. Both these appeals have been
preferred against the impugned judgment and order of the High
B
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 13.2.2007
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2005, reversing the
judgment and order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Additional
C
Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur in Sessions Case No.
374 of 2000, by which and whereunder the respondents were
found guilty and convicted under Section 148 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'the IPC') and awarded a
sentence of 2 years each. A 1 and A2 had been convicted for
D ,
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and they were
awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default,
to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. They
were also convicted under the provisions of Section 3 of the
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the
E
'Act 1908') and had been awarded the sentence of 3 years with
a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- respectively and, in default, to
further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and 15
days respectively. They had further been convicted under
Section 5 of the Act 1908, and were awarded the punishment
F
of three years with a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for one month. A3 to A6 had been
convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 302 read with Section
149 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo a further
G
period of simple imprisonment of one month each. However,
A3 was acquitted for the offence under Section 6 of the Act
1908. A4 and A5 were further convicted under Sections 3 and
5 of the Act 1908 and awarded the punishment of 3 years on
each count with a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default, to undergo a
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A.
further period of imprisonment for one month. However, all the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
B
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals
are that:
A On 4.12.1999, Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1 ), Y. Gangadhar
Reddy (PW.2) and Y. Gangabhavani (PW.3) were working in
their agricultural fields alongwith Y. Ramachandra Reddy
(deceased) and his brother Balagangi Reddy and others.
c
B. Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) and his brother
Balagangi Reddy supported the Congress-I party in the
elections held for the State Assembly, while the accused
persons supported the Telugu Desham Party (TOP). There were
ill feelings between two groups as there existed chronic
o factionalism between the families of the deceased and
accused. In State Assembly elections, the political parties
created pressure on their supporters to get maximum votes, by
any means. The accused persons were waiting for the
opportunity to kill Balagangi Reddy and Y. Ramachandra Reddy
E (deceased).
C. On 4.12.1999, when PW.1 to PW.3 and some others
were doing agricultural work in their fields alongwith Y.
Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) in the morning, they heard
weeping cries from the agricultural field nearby. All of them
F rushed to that place and found that Rayapati Narayana Reddy
had died due to electrocution. After sometime, they returned
to their fields and attended to their work. At 7.30 A.M., the
accused Rayapati Venkata Reddy (A 1 ), Rayapati Raman ju I
Reddy (A2), Rayapati Bheema Reddy (A3), Korrapati Rami
G Reddy (A4), Korrapati Thimma Reddy (A5), Kadiyam Rami
Reddy (A6), Rayapati Thirupathi Reddy (A7), Rayapati Pedda
Venkata Reddy (AB), Kadiyam Rama Subba Reddy (A9),
Rayapati Pedda Venkata Reddy (A 10), Rayapati Chinna Bali
Reddy (A11), Rayapati Venkata Reddy (A12) and
H Chinnapureddy Bala Chenna Reddy (A 13) came to the fields
GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY
167
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
where PW.1 to PW.3, namely, Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1), Y.
A
Gangadhar Reddy (PW.2) and Y. Gangabhavani Reddy (PW.3)
were working armed with deadly weapons like sticks, knives,
bombs and sickles whistling war cries and hurling bombs with
the intent to kill Ramachandra Reddy and Balagangi Reddy.
Balagangi Reddy fled his fields due to fear and was chased
B
by A7 to A13. PW.1 hid himself under cheeky bushes near his
field. Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) fled on his cycle. A2
hurled a bomb which fell on the cycle of the deceased and
exploded causing the deceased to fall from his cycle. A 1 also
hurled a bomb which hit the head of Y. Ramachandra Reddy. c
His head was fractured and he died due to injuries. A4 and A5
also hurled bombs towards the deceased.
D. PW.1 to PW.3 witnessed the same, however, failed to
give a report immediately to the police due to fear of their lives.
Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1) preferred a complaint to the police,
thus, Case Crime No. 137 of 1999 of Muddanur PS was
registered. S.V. Ramana, C.I. (PW.9) began investigation, and
conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in
presence of R. Pedda Naidu (PW.4) and M. Pratap Naidu
(PW.7). He also seized blood stained tar, control tar, bomb
blast thread pieces and the cycle of the deceased. Further, the
Dhoti, Banian and waist thread of the deceased were also
seized. Chappals of A5 which had- been lying there were
recovered in the presence of M. Pedda Aswartha Reddy
(PW.5). The dead body of Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased)
was sent for post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. Y.
Karunasree (PW.6) wherein it was opined that he died of shock
due to a fracture of the skull bones and lacerations to brain
matter. The materials collected were sent for forensic analysis
D
E
F
and it was found that the bombs contained Potassium, Chlorate
G
Chloride, Arsenic, Sulphide and Sulphate etc.
E. After concluding the investigation, a chargesheet was
filed against A1 to A13. During the trial, the prosecution
examined 14 witnesses. The accused in their statement under
H
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') denied their involvement and
submitted that they had been falsely implicated because of
political enmity. The defence also examined one Penugonda
Sreenivasulu (DW.1 ), who claimed to have prepared the site
B plan (Ex.X-1) but not on the basis of scale measurement.
c
F. On the basis of the evidence etc., the trial court found
A 1 to A6 guilty of the aforesaid offences and awarded them
sentences as referred to hereinabove, however, A7 to A13
were acquitted.
G. Aggrieved, A1 to A6 filed Criminal Appeal No. 41 of
2005 which has been allowed by the High Court.
Hence, these appeals by the complainant as well as by the
0
State of Andhra Pradesh.
3. Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG appearing on behalf
of the State of Andhra Pradesh and Shri Huzefa Ahmadi,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/
complainant, have submitted that the High Court acquitted the
E said respondents without any justification. The High Court
mainly found material contradictions in the evidence of PW.1
to PW.3 and doubted their presence at the place of
occurrence; considered the delay in lodging the FIR fatal; found
contradictions in medical evidence and ocular evidence;
F doubted the witnessing of the occurrence as there could be no
visibility because of the smoke created by the bombs at the
time of explosion; PW.1 did not mention that A6 used a sickle
in the FIR; and that only interested witnesses had been
examined. It was contended that the High Court erroneously did
G the same even though, the contradictions in the medical and
ocular evidence were insignificant and the contradictions in the
statements of PWs 1 to 3 were minor in nature. The findings
of fact recorded by the High Court are perverse being based
on no evidence. Thus, the appeals deserve to be allowed and
H the judgment of the trial court deserves to be restored.
GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY
169
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
4. Per contra, Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel
A
appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed the appeal
contending that this Court should not interfere with the judgment
of the High Court keeping in mind the well settled parameters
for interference with the order of acquittal. The High Court has
given cogent reasons for acquittal of the respondents. The
B
incident occurred in a faction-ridden village and, admittedly,
there had been a political rivalry between the parties. The delay
in lodging the FIR which is at about 3.00 P.M., though the
incident occurred at 7.00 A.M.- 7.30 A.M., was inordinate in
view of the fact that the police had arrived at the scene of c
occurrence at about 9.00 A.M. The FIR was lodged after due
deliberation with political leaders. Thus, no interference is
called for and appeals are liable to be dismissed.
5. We have considered 1he rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Before
D
deciding the factual controversies, we will first deal with LEGAL
ISSUES:
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL:
6. This Court has persistently emphasised that there are
limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In
exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances
E
F
and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the·
appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The
appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of
innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the
lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence.
Interference in a routine manner where the other view is
possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for
interference.
G
CONTRADICTIONS IN MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND
OCULAR EVIDENCE:
.
7. It is a settled legal proposition that where the evidence . H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with
the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistics expert, it
amounts to a fundamental defect in the prosecution case and
unless it is reasonably explained may discredit the entire case
of the prosecution. However, the opinion given by a medical
B witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an
opinion is required to be tested by the court. If the opinion is
bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by
that opinion. After all an opinion is what is formed in the mind
of a person regarding a particular fact situation. If one doctor
c forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion
on the same facts, it is open to the Judge to adopt the view
which is more objective or probable. Similarly, if the opinion
given by one doctor is not consistent or probable, the court has
no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is given by
0 the doctor. "It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to
the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the
eyewitnesses' account which had to be tested independently
and not treated as the 'variable' keeping the medical evidence
as the 'constant' ".
E
Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and
trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative
possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. The
eyewitnesses' account requires a careful independent
assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which should not
F be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other evidence,
including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test
of such credibility.
(Vide: Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975
G SC 1727; State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, AIR 1999 SC 2005;
Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; and
Rakesh v. State of M.P., (2011) 9 SCC 698).
8. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a
contradiction between medical evidence and ocular eviden·ce
H stands crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony
GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY
171
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical
A
evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony
improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of
the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical
evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility
of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be
B
disbelieved.
CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE:
9. In State of UP. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, this Court
after considering a large number of its earlier judgments held:
C
"In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are
bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to
normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory
due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such
D
as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the
omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious
doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other
witnesses also make material improvement while
deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to
rely
upon.
However,
minor
contradictions,
inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on
trivial matters which do not affect the core of the
prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which
E
the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has
to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and
record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires
confidence.
F
Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence
brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility
G
of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is
put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of
credibility.
Therefore, mere marginal variations in the
H
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 14 S.C.R.
A
statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as
improvements as the same may be elaborations of the
statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions
which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e.
go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core
B
of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the
witness liable to be discredited."
A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in
Tehsildar Singh & Anr. v. State of UP., AIR 1959 SC 1012;
Pudhu Raja & Anr. v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, JT
C 2012 (9) SC 252; and Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2013) 4 sec 557).
10. Thus! it is evident that in case there are minor
contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses the same are
0 bound to be ignored as the same cannot be dubbed as
improvements and it is likely to be so as the statement in the
court is recorded after an inordinate delay. In case the
contradictions are so material that the same go to the root of
the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution
case, the court has to form its opinion about the credibility of
E the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions
inspire confidence.
EVIDENCE OF A RELATED/INTERESTED WITNESSES:
11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of
F closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised
and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon
it, regarding the convicUaccused in a given case. Thus, the
evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the
witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case
G the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon.
(Vide: Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of UP., AIR 2011
SC 2292; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U P., AIR 2013 SC
H 308).
GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY
173
[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
12. In State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki & Anr. AIR 1981
A
SC 1390, this Court held:
"5A. As mentioned above the High Court has declined
to rely on the evidence of P. W 1 on two grounds: (1) she
was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife
8
of the deceased" ...... For, in the circumstances of the
case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was
the only person present in the hut with the deceased at
the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw
the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased;
C
but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is
related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to
'interested. A witness may be called 'interested' only
when he or she derives some benefit from the result
of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing
an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural D
one and is the only possible eye witness in the
circumstances of a case cannot f)e said to be 'interested'.
Jn the instant case P. W 1 had no interest in protecting the
real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents."
(Emphasis added)
(See also: Chakali Maddilety & Ors. v. State of A. P., AIR
2010 SC 3473).
E
13. In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of UP., AIR 2004 SC
F
5039, while dealing with the case this Court held:,
"7. .. ... Murders are not committed with previous notice to
witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is
committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house
G
are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street,
only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot
be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground
that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression
'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every
H
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A
man's home is considered his castle and everyone must
have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in
another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression
in a country where people are less formal and more
casual, at any rate in the matter explaining their
B
presence."
14. In view of the above, it can safely be held that natural
witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses.
Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit
C out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that
a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had
witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded
merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/
deceased.
D DELAY IN LODGING FIR AND ITS CONTENTS:
15. The case of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely
on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. The court has to
examine the explanation f~rnished by the prosecution for
E explaining the delay. There may be various circumstances
particularly the number of victims, atmosphere prevailing at the
scene of incidence, the complainant may be scared and fearing
the action against him in pursuance of the incident that has
taken place. If the prosecution explains the. delay, the court
F should not reject the case of the prosecution solely on this
ground. Therefore, the entire incident as narrated by the
witnesses has to be construed and examined to decide whether
there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay which goes
to the root of the case of the prosecution and even if there is
some unexplained delay, the court has to take into
G consideration whether it can be termed as abnormal.
H
(Vide: P. Venkataswarlu v. State of A.P., AIR 2003 SC
574; and State of UP. v. Munesh, AIR 2013 SC 147).
16. It is also a settled legal proposition that merely not
GANGABHAVANI v. RAYAPATI VENKAT REDDY
175
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
mentioning all the names of all the accused or their overt acts
A
elaborately or details of injuries said to have been suffered,
could not render the FIR vague or unreliable. The FIR is not an
encyclopaedia of all the facts. More so, it is quite natural that
all the names and details may not be given in the FIR, where a
large number of accused are involved.
B
NON-CROSS EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS ON A
PARTICULAR ISSUE:
17. This Court in Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr. v.
Bhagwanthuva (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 1204
C
examined the effect of non-cross examination of witness on a
particular facUcircumstance and held as under:
"31. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with
respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party D
wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of
the statement of a witness, the said witness must be
given an opportunity to explain his statement by
drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been
objected to by the other party, as being untrue.
Without this, it is not possible to impeach his
credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the
statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the
Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to
cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered
in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief,
and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by
Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness
E
F
to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity.
Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to
be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the
G
witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as
regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him
with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the
version of events provided by him, is not fit to be
believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit.
H
A
B
c
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must
provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness
box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is
essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with
witnesses."
(Emphasis supplied)
(See also: Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, JT 2013
(8) SC 181 ; and Gian Chand & Ors. v. State of Haryana, JT
2013 (10) SC 515).
18. Thus, it becomes crystal clear that the defence cannot
rely on nor can the court base its finding on a particular fact or
issue on which the witness has not made any statement in his
examination-in-chief and the defence has not cross examined
0
him on the said aspect of the matter.
19. The case is thus, required to be examined with
reference to the aforesaid legal propositions.
Y. Eswara Reddy (PW.1) submitted the complaint stating
E that they were working in their respective fields in the morning,
and had gone to the neighbouring field after hearing the hue
and cry and found that one Rayarati Narayana Reddy had died
due to electrocution. When they returned and began to work in
their field, the accused persons came there armed with sticks,
F
knives, bombs and sickles and some of them were whistling
war cries. Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased) and his brother
Balagangi Reddy also came there. The accused trespassed
in their field and chased the deceased who escaped on his
cycle. A2 hurled a bomb at Y. Ramachandra Reddy (deceased)
G which hit him on the legs and he fell down from the cycle. A 1
hurled a bomb which fell on the head of Y.