# ~ ;. GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR v. STATE OF A.P

- **Citation:** [2011] 9 S.C.R. 503
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-07-26
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1321 OF 2006
- **Bench:** V.S. Sirpurkar, T.S. Thakur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-v-state-of-a-p-27736
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 136 -:- Scope of - HELD: The extra-ordinary c
jurisdiction of the Court under Article 136 is not and cannot
be a substitute for a regular appeal -Appellant cannot seek
reversal of views taken by the courts below simply because
I
1
another view was possible on the evidence adduced in the
case - It must be demonstrated that the view taken by the trial
court or the appellate court for that matter is affected by any D
procedural or legal infirmity or is perverse or has caused
miscarriage of justice - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, ·
3021149 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3 and 5.
Penal Code, 1860:
E
ss. 147, 148, 3021149 /PC and ss. 3 and 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act - Accused hurling bombs at the
Jeep of complainants and hacking one of the victims to death
-
by hunting sickles - Conviction and life sentence by courts
F
below - HELD: It is evident from the depositions of the three
eye-witnesses that the deceased had come to his factory
accompanied by them and the driver of the Jeep and that the
deceased was killed inside the factory by five accused
----
persons -
The version of these eye-witnesses has been G
_j
accepted as truthful by the trial court as also the High Court
in appeal - In the absence of any material contradiction in
the version given by the eye-witnesses and in the absence
of any other cogent reason rendering the depositions
503
H
p
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A unacceptable, there is no reason why the said version should
not be accepted as truthful -
The depositions of two other
witnesses who were also in the factory premises substantially
support the prosecution case and prove the presence of
deceased and the three other eye-witnesses apart from the
8 driver of the Jeep inside the compound of the factory at 5 p. m.
when the incident took place - In the circumstances, there is
no reason to interfere with the view taken by the courts below.
Criminal Law:
C
Motive - Relevance of - HELD: In a case based on eye
witness account of the incident, proof or absence of the motive
is not of any significant consequence - If the motive is proved
it may support the prosecution version - In the instant case,
the prosecution case that the accused appellants had a
o motive for the commission of the offence alleged against them
stood satisfactorily proved.
Plea of alibi - HELD: In the instant case, the courts
below have rejected the plea - A finding of fact concurrently
recorded on the question of alibi is not disturbed by the
E Supreme Court in an appeal by special leave - The plea of
alibi has been rightly rejected by the courts below even on
an appraisal of the evidence on record - Though the defence
witnesses stated that they had gone to the district
•
>
• •
headquarters on the day of occurrence and A-1 and A-3 were
-
F with them there was no evidence to corroborate their version
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136.
Delay/Laches:
Delay of 1 hour in lodging FIR - Delay in sending copy
G of FIR to jurisdictional Magistrate - HELD: The credibility of
the report was not affected on account of the so called delay
of one hour in lodging of the complaint - So also, the receipt
of the report by the Magistrate at 1.05 a.m. was not so
inordinately delayed as to render suspect the entire
H
j
.,
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF AP.
505
prosecution case especially when no question regarding the
A
cause of delay was put to the Investigating Officer.
Evidence:
Eye-witness account and medical evidence -
Discrepancy - Witness stating that injury was inflicted on the
8
neck of the cleceased - In the post-mortem report, injury
noted on right clavicle - HELD: It is a case where the witness
describes the infliction of the injury in a region which may not
be accurate from the point of view of human anatomy but
which is capable of being understood in a layman's language C
to be an injury in an area that is proximate.
Non~examination of some of the witnesses of incident -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,800 of 74,486. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39800 for what follows._

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 503
~ ;.
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR.
A
v.
STATE OF A.P.
(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1321 OF 2006)
.
-\
JULY 26, 2011
B
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 136 -:- Scope of - HELD: The extra-ordinary c
jurisdiction of the Court under Article 136 is not and cannot
be a substitute for a regular appeal -Appellant cannot seek
reversal of views taken by the courts below simply because
I
1
another view was possible on the evidence adduced in the
case - It must be demonstrated that the view taken by the trial
court or the appellate court for that matter is affected by any D
procedural or legal infirmity or is perverse or has caused
miscarriage of justice - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 148, ·
3021149 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3 and 5.
Penal Code, 1860:
E
ss. 147, 148, 3021149 /PC and ss. 3 and 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act - Accused hurling bombs at the
Jeep of complainants and hacking one of the victims to death
-
by hunting sickles - Conviction and life sentence by courts
F
below - HELD: It is evident from the depositions of the three
eye-witnesses that the deceased had come to his factory
accompanied by them and the driver of the Jeep and that the
deceased was killed inside the factory by five accused
----
persons -
The version of these eye-witnesses has been G
_j
accepted as truthful by the trial court as also the High Court
in appeal - In the absence of any material contradiction in
the version given by the eye-witnesses and in the absence
of any other cogent reason rendering the depositions
503
H
p
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A unacceptable, there is no reason why the said version should
not be accepted as truthful -
The depositions of two other
witnesses who were also in the factory premises substantially
support the prosecution case and prove the presence of
deceased and the three other eye-witnesses apart from the
8 driver of the Jeep inside the compound of the factory at 5 p. m.
when the incident took place - In the circumstances, there is
no reason to interfere with the view taken by the courts below.
Criminal Law:
C
Motive - Relevance of - HELD: In a case based on eye
witness account of the incident, proof or absence of the motive
is not of any significant consequence - If the motive is proved
it may support the prosecution version - In the instant case,
the prosecution case that the accused appellants had a
o motive for the commission of the offence alleged against them
stood satisfactorily proved.
Plea of alibi - HELD: In the instant case, the courts
below have rejected the plea - A finding of fact concurrently
recorded on the question of alibi is not disturbed by the
E Supreme Court in an appeal by special leave - The plea of
alibi has been rightly rejected by the courts below even on
an appraisal of the evidence on record - Though the defence
witnesses stated that they had gone to the district
•
>
• •
headquarters on the day of occurrence and A-1 and A-3 were
-
F with them there was no evidence to corroborate their version
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136.
Delay/Laches:
Delay of 1 hour in lodging FIR - Delay in sending copy
G of FIR to jurisdictional Magistrate - HELD: The credibility of
the report was not affected on account of the so called delay
of one hour in lodging of the complaint - So also, the receipt
of the report by the Magistrate at 1.05 a.m. was not so
inordinately delayed as to render suspect the entire
H
j
.,
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF AP.
505
prosecution case especially when no question regarding the
A
cause of delay was put to the Investigating Officer.
Evidence:
Eye-witness account and medical evidence -
Discrepancy - Witness stating that injury was inflicted on the
8
neck of the cleceased - In the post-mortem report, injury
noted on right clavicle - HELD: It is a case where the witness
describes the infliction of the injury in a region which may not
be accurate from the point of view of human anatomy but
which is capable of being understood in a layman's language C
to be an injury in an area that is proximate.
Non~examination of some of the witnesses of incident -
HELD: It is entirely in the discretion of the Public Prosecutor
to decide which of the listed witnesses are essential for D
unfolding the prosecution story - Simply because. more than
one witnesses have been cited to establish the very same fact
is no reason why the prosecution must examine all of them -
The prosecution, in the instant case, ·examined three eyewitnesses to prove the incident in question - There was no
E
particular fact that could be proved only by the deposition of
the driver and not by other witnesses - So also the nonexamination of another named person does not make any
dent in the prosecution case nor would it render the version
given by three eye-witnesses, who have supported the
prosecution version, unworthy of credit - As a matter of fact
F
once the deposition of the eye-witnesses examined at the trial
is accepted as trustworthy, non-examination of other
witnesses would become inconsequential.
Investigation:
Non-seizure of the Jeep in which the victims travelled -
Accused hurled bombs at the Jeep and hacked one of its
occupants to death - HELD: The vehicle in question was not
used for the commission of the offence - It was, therefore, not
G
H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A necessary to seize the vehicle - All that the prosecution was
required to establish was that the Jeep was indeed damaged
on account of throwing of bombs one of which had exploded
on the bonnet of the vehicle and the other on the left side of
its door- The investigating Officer had taken car~ to have the
B damaged portions of the vehicle cut, seized and sent the
same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for opinion - The
report from the FSL supports the prosecution case and proves
that explosive mixture used in manmade bombs was found
in the same.
c
The five appellants along with five others were
prosecuted for the murder of one 'PR'. The prosecution
case was that A-1 and A-3 were set up by a political party,
namely, TOP to contest the election to MPTC/ZPTC. They
approached 'PR' to support their candidature, but 'PR'
D declined stating that he being a staunch congressman
was committed to support the c1ndidate set up by his
party. A-1 and A-3 lost the election and started nursing a
grudge against 'PR'. On 31.7.2001 at 5.00 P.M., when 'PR'
accompanied by his son (PW-1 ), nephews (PWs 2 and 3)
E and two others reached his slab polishing factory on a
Sumo Jeep and the driver parked the jeep inside the
factory premises, A-1, his brother A-2 and A-3 and his
sons A-4 and A-5, armed with bombs and hunting sickles,
entered the factory. A-2 hurled two bombs towards the
F Jeep and when the occupants of the Jeep ran for safety,
A-1 and A-3 to A-5 attacked 'PR' with hunting sickles,
causing his death. The trial court convicted A-1 to A-5 of
the offences punishable ulss 147, 148 and 3021149 IPC
and ss. 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908,
G and sentenced each of them, inter a/ia, to imprisonment
for life with fine. The High Court affirmed the conviction
and the sentence.
In the instant appeals filed by the accused, it was
contended for the appellants that the trial court had rightly
H rejected the theory of motive set up by the prosecution,
. .
...
r
,;
1
. ..
.J
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P.
507
but the High Court erred in believing the prosecution
A
case in this regard; that there was no explanation for
lodging the FIR with the delay of one hour and the delay
in despatch of copy of FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate;
that the driver of the Jeep and two other persons
accompanying the complainant party to the place of B
incident were not examined by the prosecution; and that
there was contradiction in medical report and the eyewitness account as regards the injuries caused to the
deceased. The plea of alibi on behalf of A-1 to A-3 was
als.o reiterated.
c
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court
under Article 136 is not and cannot be a substitute for a
regular appeal where the same is not provided for by the
D
law. The scope of any such appeal has, therefore, to be
limited lest the spirit and the intent of the law that does
not sanction a second round of appellate hearing in
criminal cases, is ·defeated and a remedy that is not
provided directly made available indirectly through the
E
medium of Article 136. The appellant cannot seek reversal
of views taken by the courts below simply because
another view was possible on the evidence adduced in
the case. In order that the appellant may succeed before
this Court, it must be demonstrated that the view taken
F
by the trial court or the appellate court for that matter is
affected by any procedural or legal infirmity or is perverse
or has caused miscarriage of justice. [para 10-11] [520A-C; 521-C-D]
Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab AIR ·1955 SC 320;
G
D. Macropollo and (Pvt.) Ltd. v. D. Macropol/o and (Pvt.) Ltd.
Employees' Union and Ors. AIR 1958 SC 1012; Ramaniklal
Gokaldas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat AIR 1975 SC 1752;
Pal/avan Transport Corporation Ltd. v. M. Jagannathan 2001
AIR SCW 4786; Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal Saheb and
H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011] 9 S.C.R
A Ors. v. State of U.P. 2006 (1) SCR 519 = AIR 2006 SC 951;
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC 985;
Suresh Kumar Jain v. Shanti Swarup Jain and Ors. 1996
(9) Suppl. SCR 28 = AIR 1997 SC 2291; and Kirpa/ Singh
v. State of Utter Pradesh 1964 SCR 992 = AIR 1965 SC 712
s - relied on
2.1 It is settled by a series of decisions of this Court
that in cases based on eye-witness account of the
incident, proof or absence of the motive is not of any
significant consequence. If the motive is proved it may
C support the prosecution version. But existence or
otherwise of the motive plays a significant role in cases
based on circumstantial evidence. [para 13] [522-B-C]
2.2 In the instant case, the finding of the trial court
o that there was no material to show enmity between the
accused and the complainants was manifestly erroneous.
Not only was there evidence on record in the form of
depositions of PW1 and PW2, the alleged political rivalry
between the two sides was mentioned even in the first
E information report lodged by PW1 in writing. The
complaint and so also the FIR registered on the basis of
the same clearly referred to the reason why the deceased
had been killed. It attributed the reason for the ghastly
murder of the deceased to his refusal to support the
F candidature of A1 and A3 in the ZPTC/MPTC elections. It
was not, therefore, a case where motive was introduced
as an improvement in the prosecution story. It was on the
contrary a case where right from the stage of lodging of
the FIR till recording of depositions in the court, political
G rivalry was said to be the motive for the killing of the
deceased. The High Court appreciated the above
evidence and rightly observed that there was political
rivalry between the accused party and the deceased
party and the accused bore grudge against the deceased
on account of the refusal of the deceased to support
H · them in the elections and on account of the defeat of A-
··•
t
..
' .
" ...
..
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P. 509
~~ -)
1 and A-3 in the ZPTC elections. There is no reason much
A •
less a compelling one for this Court to take a view
different from the one taken by the High Court. The
prosecution case that the accused appellants had a
,.
motive for the commission of the offence alleged against
..
them thus stood satisfactorily proved. [para 15-16) [523-
.... -..
B
A-G]
3. A report regarding the commission of a cognizable
offence, lodged within an hour of the incident cannot be
said to be so inordinately delayed as to give rise to a c
suspicion that the delay - if at all the time lag can be
described to be constituting any delay - was caused
because the complainant, resorted to deliberations and
consultations with a view to presenting a distorted,
,.
~
inaccurate or exaggerated version of the actual incident.
Besides, no such suggestion was made to PW1, the first D
('
informant. It is the totality of the circumstances that would
determine whether the delay long or short has in any way
affected the truthfulness of the report lodged in a given
.case. The credibility of a report cannot be judged only by
reference to the days, hours or minutes it has taken to
E
reach the police station concerned. Viewed thus, the
credibility of the report was not- affected on account of
the so called delay of one hour in lodging of the
I .
complaint. So also, the receipt of the report by the
Magistrate at 1.05 a.m. was not so inordinately delayed
F
as to render suspect the entire prosecution case,
especially, when no question regarding the cause of
delay was put to the Investigating Officer. [para 18) (524C-H]
,.
G
J
4.1 As regards the eye-witness account of the
incident, according to PW 1, as soon as the jeep carrying
the complainant party was parked by the driver inside the
factory premises, A1 to AS came running through the
gate into the factory. A2 was armed with bombs while the
other accused were armed with hunting sickles. A2
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A hurled two bombs towards the jeep. The witness ran and
stood behind the workers room from where he witnessed
the occurrence. He saw that when 'PR' was running to
the office room of the factory, A1 attacked him with a
hunting sickle on his head. Similarly A3 also attacked
B 'PR' on the neck. 'PR' fell down at a distance of 3 ft. from
the office room. A3 instigated the other accused to kill
'PR' whereupon A4 and AS also hacked the deceased.
The accused left the place from the same gate carrying
the blood stained sickles. The witness goes on to state
c that PW 3 also came to the spot after the occurrence and
saw the dead body of the deceased. Persons were sent
by the witness to the village to inform his mother and
brother. The witness himself went to the Police Station
and lodged the report at the Police Station. At the inquest,
0 the watchman told the witness that he had seen AG to
A10 outside the factory gate. It was on the basis of the
said statement that the names of AG to A10 were also
included as persons responsible for the commission of
the offence. Despite extensive cross-examination nothing
material has been extracted from the witness which
E could possibly discredit his testimony. [para 20-21] [52GB-H; 527-A-C]
4.2 To the same effect are the depositions of PW 2
and PW3 who too have fully supported the prosecution
F case and the narrative given by PW1. The version of
these witnesses who, according to the prosecution, were
eye-witnesses to the occurrence, has been accepted as
truthful by the trial court as also the High Court. In the
absence of any material contradiction in the version
G given by these witnesses and in the absence of any other
cogent reason rendering the depositions unacceptable,
there is no reason why the said version should not be
accepted as truthful. [para 22] [527-D-F]
4.3 It is evident from the depositions of the three
H witnesses (PWs 1 and 3) that the deceased accompanied
. '
.;
-
•
-· --)
,, ..
-··
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P.
511
by them reached his factory on a Sumo Jeep and that
A
the deceased was killed inside the factory by the five
accused. The depositions of PW 4 who was staying in a
labour room of the factory and PW-5, who was a factory
worl:er, substantially support the prosecution case and
prove the presence of the deceased and PWs 1, 2 and 3
B
apart from the driver of the Sumo Jeep inside the
compound of the factory at 5 p.m. on 31.7.2001 when the
incident took place. Once the presence of PWs 1, 2 and
3 was established by their own depositions which have
remained unshattered and the supporting evidence of c
PWs 4 and 5, the version given by the said three
witnesses cannot be brushed aside lightly. [para 25) [528E-G]
5.1 It is true that PW 1 .has in his depositions
attributed an injury to A 3 which according to the witness
D
was inflicted on the neck of the deceased. It is also true
that the post-mortem examination did not reveal any
injury on the neck. But this discrepancy cannot affect the
prosecution case, in the light of the evidence on record
and the fact that it is not always easy for an eye-witness
E
to a ghastly murder to register the precise number of
injuries that were inflicted by the assailants and the part
of the body on which the same were inflicted. Courts
need to be realistic in their expectation from witnesses
and go by what would be reasonable, based on ordinary
F
human conduct with ordinary human frailties of memory
and power to register events and their details. In the
instant case, injury no.6 was found over the right clavicle.
The injury was bone deep and the clavicle fractured. It is
a case where the witness describes the infliction of the
G
injury in a region which may not be accurate from the
point of view of human anatomy but which is capable of
being understood in a layman's language to be an injury
in an area that is proximate. Further, the injuries noticed
on the dead body of the deceased, according to the
H
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A medical evidence, had been inflicted by sharp cutting
instrument like sickles as deposed by the eye-witnesses.
[para 28-30] [530-A-E; 532-F-G; 533-A-C]
6. As regards the non-examination of the driver, it is
.. .
well-settled that every witness that the prosecution may
• •
8 have listed in the charge-sheet need not be examined. It
is entirely in the discretion of the Public Prosecutor to
decide as to how he proposes to establish his case and
which of the listed witnesses are essential for unfolding
the prosecution story. Simply because more than one
C witnesses have been cited to establish the very same fact
is no reason why the prosecution must examine all of
them. The prosecution, in the instant case, examined
three eye-witnesses to prove the incident in question.
There was no particular fact that could be proved only
D by the deposition of the driver and not by other
witnesses. The driver of the vehicle reversed and parked
it facing the gate, was the fact regarding which each one
of the occupants of the vehicle was a competent witness.
PWs. 1, 2 and 3 have in their depositions testified that the
E vehicle was parked facing the gate by the driver of the
vehicle after reversing the same. So also the nonexamination of 'HR' does not make any dent in the
prosecution case nor would it render the version given
by three eye-witnesses, who have supported the
~
F prosecution version, unworthy of credit. As a matter of
fact once the deposition of the eye-witnesses examined
at the trial is accepted as trustworthy, non-examination
of other witnesses would become inconsequential. [para
31) [533-G-H; 534-A-E]
G
Nirpal Singh v. State of Haryana 1977 (2) SCR 901 =
(1977) 2 sec 131; State of U.P. v. Hakim Singh and Ors.
(1980) 3 SCC 55, Nandu Rastogi alias Nandji Rastogi and
Anr. v. State of Bihar 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 30 =(2002) 8
SCC 9, Hem Raj & Ors. v. State of Haryana AIR 2005 SC
H 2010; State of M.P. v. Dharkole@ Govind Singh and Ors.
,. "'
.>
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF AP.
513
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 780 = AIR 2005 SC 44 and Raj Narain A
Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 362 - relied on.
7. With regard to the plea that failure of the
Investigating Officer to seize the Jeep must give rise to
an adverse inference and discredit the entire prosecution
8
case, sufficie it to say that the vehicle in question was not
used for the commission of the offence. It was, therefore,
not necessary to seize the vehicle. All that the prosecution
was required to establish was that the Jeep was indeed
damaged on account of thro~ing of bombs one of which C
had exploded on the bonnet of the vehicle and the other
on the left side of its. door. The Investigating Officer had
taken care to have the damaged portions of the vehicle
cut, seized and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory
for opinion. The report from the FSL supports the
prosecution case and proves that explosive mixture used D
in manmade bombs was found in the same. Thus, the
non-seizure of the Jeep made no difference to the veracity
of the prosecution case. [para 33-34] [535-C-G]
8.1 So far as the plea of alibi set up by accused A-1
E
and A-3 is concerned, their case was that they were at
Anantpuram, between 11 A.M. to 5 P.M. on the date of
occurrence. The trial court has rejected the plea. The High
Court has affirmed the said finding. A finding of fact
concurrently recorded on the question of alibi is not F
disturbed by the Supreme Court in an appeal by special
leave. [para 35] [535-H; 536-A-E]
Thakur Prasad v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR
1 1954 SC 30 Vol. 41 - relied on
8.2 That apart, the plea of alibi has been rightly
rejected by the courts below even on an appraisal of the
evidence on record. DW1 an Agriculturist deposed that
he approached A-1 to help him in getting compensation
G
for compulsory acquisition of his land and for that H
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A purpose A1 and A3 and others reached Anantpur. DW2
in her deposition stated that she had made an application
for the grant of a fair price shop licence and on the date
of the incident she went to Anntpur and met A1 In the
RDO office along with DW1. These witnesses did not
B have any supporting material, such as copy of their
applications etc., with regard to their respective claims.
In the absence of any evidence to corroborate their
version that they were at Anantpur on 31.7 .2001, the
courts below were justified in rejecting the same. DW3
c also claims to be at Anantpur on 31.7.2001 and stated that
A-1 and A-3 accompanied him to SP Office at 5 P.M. The
courts below have rightly rejected the testimony of this
witness also. The close affiliation of this witness and A-1
and A-3 to the party to which they belong and his
0 antecedents, suggesting involvement in several criminal
cases registered against him, was reason enough for the
courts to disbelieve his version also and consequently
reject the plea of alibi raised by the accused in their
defence. [paras 36, 37-39, 41) [53€.-G-H; 537-A-B; G-H;
E 538-A-F; 539-D-E)
F
G
H
9. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere
with the view taken by the courts below. [para 42) [539F]
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1955 SC 320
AIR 1958 SC 1012
AIR 1975 SC 1752
2001 AIR sew 4786
2006 (1 ) SCR 519
relied on
relied on
relied on
relied on
relied on
AIR 1976 SC 985
relied on
1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 28
relied on
para 10
para 10
para 10
para 10
para 10
para 10
para 10
.. .
• •
4.
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P.
515
1964 SCR 992
1977 (2) SCR 901
(1980) 3 sec 55
relied on
relied on
relied on
para 10
A
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 30
relied on
AIR 2005 SC 2010
relied on
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 780 relied on
(2009) 1 o sec 362
relied on
AIR 1954 SC 30 Vol. 41
relied on
para 31
para 32
para 32
para 32
para 32
para 32
para 35
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION : Criminal
Appeal No. 1321 of 2006.
B
c
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.07.2006 of the High
D
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.
1112 of 2005.
WITH
Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2006.
Sushil Kumar, Ranjit Kumar, Guntur Pramod Kumar, K.
Rani Reddy, Guntur Prabhakar, T. Anamika, Chandra Mohani
Setty for the Appellants.
E
~ ' ~
June Chaudhary, Ramesh Allanki, G. Madhavi, Prabhat Kr.
F
Rai, Savita Dhanda, D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Political rivalry at times degenerates
,.
into personal vendetta where principles and policies take a
G
_..,
back seat and personal ambition and longing for power drive
men to commit the foulest of deeds to avenge defeat and to
settle scores. These appeals by special leave present a
somewhat similar picture and assail the judgment and orders
of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20111 9 S.C.R
A Judge, Anantapur of Gooty and the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in appeal. The prosecution case may be summarised
as under:
2. Gosu Ramchandra Reddy (A 1) and his two brothers
8 Gosu Jayarami Reddy (A2) & Gosu Jayaranga Reddy (A3)
together with Gosu Rameshwar Reddy (A4) and Gosu
Rajagopal Reddy (A5) sons of Gosu Ramchandra Reddy (A 1)
all residents of village Aluru of Anantapur District in the State
of A.P. were political activists owing their allegiance to the
Telugu Desam Party. The opposite group active in the region
C and owing allegiance to the Congress party comprised Shri
Midde Chinna Pulla Reddy (deceased) his son Shri M.
Sanjeeva Reddy (PW1) and his two nephews M. Rammohan
Reddy (PW2) and M. Veeranjaneyuly (PW3); all residents of
village Kaveti Samudram in the District of Anantpur.
D
3. Elections to MPTC/ZPTC were held in July 2001 which
saw Gosu Jayaranga Reddy (A3) contesting for M.P.T.C. from
Virapuram village, while Gosu Ramchandra Reddy (A 1) sought
election from the neighbouring Yerraguntapalli village. Both of
E them were set up by Telugu Desam Party. Electoral contest
took a bitter turn when the duo mentioned above sought the
support of the deceased M. Chinna Pulla Reddy which he
declined for he claimed to be a staunch congressman
committed to supporting the candidate set up by his party. It
F so happened that A 1 and A3 were both defeated at the
hustings.
4. The accused did not, according to the prosecution,
reconcile to the defeat. Instead they started nursing a grudge
against M. Chinna Pulla Reddy who was in their view the cause
G of their humiliation in the electoral battle. The animosity arising
out of the electoral debacle of the two accused persons
provided the motive for a murderous assault and resultant death
of M. Chinna Pulla Reddy on 31st July, 2001 at village
Sajjaladinne where the deceased had established a slab
H
..
•.
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P.
517
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
,,,,,, ~--·
polishing factory in the name and style of Reddy & Reddy Slab
A
Polishing factory .
. 5. The prosecution case is that the deceased Shri M.
Chinna Pulla Reddy reached his house at Tadipatri from his
I I
t' .,
village in a Tata Sumo Jeep alongwith his son M. Sanjeeva
B
Reddy (PW1) and his nephews M. Rammohan Reddy (PW2)
and M. Veeranjaneyuly (PW3). One Hanumanatha Reddy and
Mabu also accompanied them. From there the deceased and
his companions came to the Slab Polishing Factory at
Sajjaladinne at about 5.00 p.m. Hardly had Ganur Shankar the c
driver of the jeep parked the jeep at the factory office when A 1
to A5 entered the factory from the main gate, with A2 carrying
bombs and A 1 & A3 to A5 carrying hunting sickles. Coming
..
closer, accused Gosu Jayarami Reddy (A2) hurled two bombs
...
towards the Jeep out of which one fell and exploded on the
..
bonnet of the Jeep while the other fell on its left side door and
D
exploded thereby partially damaging the Jeep. The inmates of
the Jeep ran for safety in different directions. The deceased
also got down from the jeep and started running towards the
office room of the factory, when A-1 Gosu Ramchandra Reddy
and A3 to A5 viz. Gosu Jayaranga Reddy, Gosu Rameshwar
E
Reddy and Gosu Rajagopal Reddy attacked him with the
hunting sickles which they were carrying. The prosecution case
is that A 1 Gosu Ramchanda Reddy hacked the deceased on
...
'~
his head, while A3 Gosu Jayaranga Reddy assaulted him on
his neck. A4 Gosu Rameshwar Reddy and A5 Gosu Rajagopal
F
Reddy also similarly hacked the deceased resulting in the death
of the deceased on the spot. The entire incident is said to have
been witnessed by M. Sanjeeva Reddy (PW1) from behind the
workers room and by M. Ram Mohan Reddy (PW2) from the
_>-
Pial of the Southern door of the office room. The incident was
G
_J
witnessed even by M. Veeranjane Reddy allegedly from the
side of the labour room.
6. A written complaint about the occurrence was lodged
by M. Sanjeeva Reddy (PW1) on the basis whereof FIR No.85/
H
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A 01 was registered in the Police Station at Tadipatri at 6 p.m.
' ..
on 31st July, 2001. The police arrived at the scene of
occurrence at about 7 p.m., conducted an inquest and sent the
dead body for post-mortem examination to the Government
hospital at Tadipatri. After completion of the investigation, a
B chargesheet was presented against A 1 to A5 and five others
,. •
for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147,
148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5
of the Explosive Substances Act, before the Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Tadipatri who committed the accused
c persons to the Court of Sessions at Anantpur. The case was
then made over to Vlth Additional District and Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track) Anantapur before whom the accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
7. In support of its case the prosecution examined PWs 1
. ..
D to 1 O apart from placing reliance upon the documents marked
Ex.P1 to P22 and MOs marked 1 to 20. Accused Gosu
,.
Ramchandra Reddy (A 1) and Gosu Jayaranga Reddy (A3)
examined DW1 to DW4 apart from placing reliance on
documents marked 01 to 012, in support of the plea of alibi
E raised in defence.
8. By its judgment and order dated 15th July, 2005, the
Trial Court convicted A 1 to A5 for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section
F 149 and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and
....
sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period
of one year for the commission of an offence under Section 14 7
IPC, two years under Section 148 IPC and life imprisonment
for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. They were
G also convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment for the
~
offence punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive
Substancl~s Act. The sentences were ordered to run
concurrently. The Trial Court also directed payment of fine of
Rs.10,000/- each by the accused persons and a default
H sentence of three months simple imprisonment for the offence
'
.J
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P.
519
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
under Section 302 IPC and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the
A
offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances
Act and in default simple imprisonment for a period of one
month. A6 to A 10 were, however, acquitted of the charges
framed against them.
9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the
B
Trial Court the appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.1112 of
2005 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
The High Court after reappraisal of the entire evidence on
record affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the
appellants and dismissed the appeal. The present appeals by
C
special leave assail the correctness of the said judgment and
order.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties who
have taken pains to extensively refer to the evidence adduced
D
by the prosecution and the defence before the Trial Court in a
bid to show that the Trial Court as well as the High Court both
have failed to properly appreciate the same hence erroneously
found the appellants guilty of the offences alleged against them.
Before we advert to the criticism levelled against the inferences
E
& conclusions drawn by the Courts below we need to point out
that an appeal to this Court by special leave under Article 136
of the Constitution of India is not an ordinary or regular appeal
against an order of conviction recorded by a competent Court.
In an ordinary or regular appeal, the appellate Court can and
indeed is duty bound to re-appraise the evidence and arrive
at its own conclusions. It has the same power as the Trial Court
when it comes to marshalling of facts and appreciation of the
probative value of the evidence brought on record. The accused
F
,.
can, therefore, expect and even demand a thorough scrutiny
_., '
and discussion of his case in all its factual and legal aspects
G
from the appellate Court, in the same manner as would be
~equired of a Trial Court. But once the appellate Court has done
I
rts task, no second appeal lies against the judgment; under the
Cr.P_.C. whether to the High Court or to this Court. A revision
against an appellate judgment of a criminal Court is
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
maintainable before the High Court but the same has its own
. ""
A
limitations. Suffice it to say that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not and
cannot be a substitute for a regular appeal where the same is
not provided for by the law. The scope of any such appeal has,
B therefore, to be limited lest the spirit and the intent of the law
~ •
that does not sanction a second round of appellate hearing in
criminal cases, is defeated and a remedy that is not provided
directly made available indirectly; through the medium of Article
136 of the Constitution. The decisions of this Court on the
c subject are a legion. Reference to some of them would however
suffice. In Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1955 SC
320) this Court held that it cannot consistently with its practice
convert itself into a third Court of facts. In D. Macropo/lo and
(Pvt.) Ltd. v. D. Macropollo and (Pvt.) Ltd. Employees' Union
• •
and Ors. (AIR 1958 SC 1012) this Court declared that it will
D not disturb concurrent findings of fact save in most exceptional
~
cases. In Ramanik!al Gokaldas 8 Ors. v. State of Gujarat (AIR
1975 SC 1752) this Court observed that it is not a regular Court
of appeal which an accused may approach as of right in
criminal cases. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction which this court
E exercises when it entertains an appeal by special leave and
this jurisdiction by its very nature is exercisable only when the
Court is satisfied that it is necessary to interfere in order to
prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice. In Pallavan
Transport Corporation Ltd. v. M. Jagannathan (2001 AIR SCW
I 1
F 4786) this Court held that reassessment of evidence in
proceedings under Article 136 is not permissible even if
another view is possible. In Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal
Saheb and Ors. v. State ofU.P. (AIR 2006 SC 951) this Court
declared that re-appreciation of evidence was permissible only
G if the Trial Court or the High Court is shown to have committed
.
'
an error of law or procedure and conclusions arrived at are
perverse. This Court further held that while it does not interfere
with concurrent findings of fact reached by the Trial Court or the
High Court, it will interfere in those rare and exceptional cases
H where it finds that several important circumstances have not
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P.
521
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
been taken-into account by the Trial Court and the High Court
A
resulting in serious miscarriage of justice or where the trial is
vitiated because of some illegality or irregularity of procedure
or is otherwise held in a manner violating the rules of natural
justice or that the judgment under appeal has resulted in gross
miscarriage of justice. (See also Bhagwan Singh v. State of B
Rajasthan (AIR 1976 SC 985), Suresh Kumar Jain v. Shanti
Swarup Jain and Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 2291) and Kirpal Singh
v. State of Utter Pradesh (AIR 1965 SC 712).
11. It is in the light of the above pronouncements of this
C
Court evident that an appeal by special leave against the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not a regular
appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court. The appellant
cannot seek reversal of views taken by the Courts below simply
because another view was possible on the evidence adduced
in the case. In order that the appellant may succeed before this
D
Court, it must be demonstrated that the view taken by the Trial
Court or the appellate Court for that matter is affected by any._
procedural or legal infirmity or is perverse or has caused
. miscarriage of justice.
12. It is now our task to determine whether the order of
conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below suffers
from any such infirmity as is mentioned above so as to justify
interference with the same in exercise of our extra ordinary
E
..
j 1 jurisdiction. On behalf of the appellants it was argued that the
F
alleged motive behind the killing of the deceased Midde Chinna
Pulfa Reddy has not been established. The Trial Court has
according to the learned counsel rejected the plea of political
rivalry being the driving force behind the incident in question.
The High Court was, argued the learned counsel for the
G
/'
appellants, in error in reversing that finding and holding that the
' prosecution had established the existence of political rivalry as
the motive for the murder of the deceased. Absence of a strong
motive was a circumstance, that according to the learned
counsel rendered the entire prosecution story suspect, the
H
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 9 S.C.R.
A benefit whereof ought to go to the appellants.
13. It is settled by a series of decisions of this Court that
in cases based on eye witness account of the incident proof
or absence of a motive is not of any significant consequence.
8 If a motive is proved it may supports the prosecution version.
But existence or otherwise of a motive plays a significant role
in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution
has in the instant case examined as many as five eye witnesses
in support of its case that the deceased was done to death by
C the appellants. The depositions of Shri M. Sanjeeva Reddy
(PW1), Shri M. Rammohan Reddy (PW2), Shri Veeranjaneyu
(PW3), Shri D. Dastnagiramma (PW4) and Shri Eswaraiah
(PW5) have been relied upon by the prosecution to
substantiate the charge framed against the appellants. If the
depositions giving the eye witness account of the incident that
D led to the death of late Shri Midde Chinna Reddy are indeed
reliable as the same have been f.,,und to be, by the Trial Court
and the first appellate Court, absence of a motive would make
little difference.
E
14. Having said that we need to examine the reasoning
F
G
H'
of the Trial Court while it dealt with the question of motive -
which finding of the trial Court has been reversed by the High
Court. The trial court has on the question of motive observed:
"In the present case 3 eye witnesses are there and their
evidence is supported by PW.4. Even though both parties
accused group and the deceased group belonged to
different political parties, but actually there is no evidence
that there are pending civil litigations between them. In the
MPTC Elections the accused No.1 and 3 contested for the
post of MPTC on behalf of the Telugu Desam Party and
the deceased supported the congress back ground
candidates and who succeeded and the accused persons
were defeated in the elections. Except that there is no
material to state that the deceased and his sons got enmity
towards the accused persons"
·- ,...
t
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P.
523
.........
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
15. The above finding was manifestly erroneous. Not only
A
was there evidence on record in the form of depositions of Shri
M. Sanjeeva Reddy PW1 and Shri M. Rammohan Reddy PW2,
the alleged political rivalry between the two sides was
~ .,
mentioned even in the first information report lodged by PW1
t
in writing. The complaint and so also the FIR registered on the
B
basis of the same clearly referred to the reason why the
deceased had been killed. It attributed the reason for the ghastly
murder of the deceased to his refusal to support the
candidature of A 1 and A3 in the ZPTC/MPTC elections. It was
not, therefore, a case where motive was introduced as an c
improvement in the prosecution story.