# Ve1nireddy Sat yanarayan Reddy and three others v. The State of Hyderabad

- **Citation:** [1956] 1 S.C.R. 247
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1956-03-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeals No. 28 to 31 of 1955
- **Bench:** Vivian Bose, Chandrasekhara Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ve1nireddy-sat-yanarayan-reddy-and-three-others-v-the-state-of-hyderabad-1306
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Crime, perpetration of-A person present but not aiding or abetting-Whether principal or accessory-Corroboration of the statement
of a single witness against accused-What the law requires.
There is no warrant for the extreme proposition that if a man
sees the perpetration of a crime and does not give information of it
to anyone else, he might well be regarded in law as an accomplice
and that he could be put in the dock with the actual criminals.
A person may be present, and, if not aiding and abetting, be
neither principal nor accessory; as, if A, happens to be present at a
murder and takes no part in it, nor endeavours to prevent it, or to
apprehend the murderer, this course of conduct will not of Itself ren·
der him either principal or accessory.
Russell on Crime, 10th Edition, p. 1846, referred to.
aa
1956
March 14
1956
Ve1nireddy
Sat yanarayan
Reddy and
three others
v.
The State of
Hyderabad
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956]
In the matter of corroboration of the evidence of a single witness against the accused what the law requirss is that there should be
such corroboration of the material part of the story connecting the
accused with the crime as will satisfy reasonable minds that the
man can he regarded as a truthful witness. The corroboration need
not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is
sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection
with the crime. The nature of the corroboration will depend on and
vary according to the particular circumstances of each case.
Bez v. Baskerville (1916) 2 K.B.D. 658, referrsd to.

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
247
assets of the assessee and that aspect of the question
1956
was not at all considered by the Privy Council. It Th c
..
•
. •
e otn11usstone,.
is not, therefore, necessary t? express any ?J.:>llll~n of Income Tax and
on the correctness or otherwise of that dec1s10n m Excess Profits Tax,
this case.
,
Madras
Having regard to all the circumstances adverted to
v.
h
h
f The South India
above, it is, therefore, clear t at t e payment o
Pictures Ud.,
Rs. 26,000 received by the assessee from the producers
Karaikudi
was in consideration of the surrender by the assessee
of the capital assets which it had acquired from the
Bhagu•atiJ.
producers under the three agreements in question
and constituted a capital receipt not liable to tax for
the assessment year 1946-47. The answer given by
the High Court to the referred question was,
therefore, correct and I would dismiss the appeal
with costs.
ORDER.
BY THE CouRT:-In accordance with the Judgment
of the majority, the appeal is allowed wjth costs
throughout.
VEMIREDDY SATYANARAYAN REDDY AND
THREE OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF HYDERABAD.
[VIVIAN BOSE and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.]
Crime, perpetration of-A person present but not aiding or abetting-Whether principal or accessory-Corroboration of the statement
of a single witness against accused-What the law requires.
There is no warrant for the extreme proposition that if a man
sees the perpetration of a crime and does not give information of it
to anyone else, he might well be regarded in law as an accomplice
and that he could be put in the dock with the actual criminals.
A person may be present, and, if not aiding and abetting, be
neither principal nor accessory; as, if A, happens to be present at a
murder and takes no part in it, nor endeavours to prevent it, or to
apprehend the murderer, this course of conduct will not of Itself ren·
der him either principal or accessory.
Russell on Crime, 10th Edition, p. 1846, referred to.
aa
1956
March 14
1956
Ve1nireddy
Sat yanarayan
Reddy and
three others
v.
The State of
Hyderabad
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956]
In the matter of corroboration of the evidence of a single witness against the accused what the law requirss is that there should be
such corroboration of the material part of the story connecting the
accused with the crime as will satisfy reasonable minds that the
man can he regarded as a truthful witness. The corroboration need
not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is
sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection
with the crime. The nature of the corroboration will depend on and
vary according to the particular circumstances of each case.
Bez v. Baskerville (1916) 2 K.B.D. 658, referrsd to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeals No. 28 to 31 of 1955.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and
order dated the 11th February, 1953 of the Hyderabad High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 1260 to
1263 of 1951/1952 arising out of the judgment and
order dated the 6th November, 1951 of the Court of
the Sessions Judge at w,.rangal in Original Criminal
Case No. 127 of 1950.
H. J. Umrigar, for. appellant No. 1.
K. R. Olwuilhry, for appellants Nos. 2 to 4.
Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Golchale, for the respondent.
1956. March 14. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
CHANDRASEKHA.RA AIYAR J.-The four appellants
and two others named Sheshaya and Pitchi Reddy,
who are all communists, were charged with the murder of one V enka takrishna Sh as try who was a Congress worker or leader.
The appellants were convicted of the offence but
the other two were acquitted by the Sessions Judge,
Warangal, Hyderabad State, on the astounding
ground that no overt acts were proved against them.
The appellants preferred appeals to the High Court
at Hyderabad and there was the usual reference for
confirmation of the death sentences imposed on them.
The appeals were heard by a Bench consisting of
Deshpande J. and Dr. Mir Siadat Ali Khan J. and
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
249
they disagreed with each other. Deshpande J. held
that the evidence did not establish the. guilt of the
appellants and he acquitted them. On the other hand,
Dr. Mir Siadat Ali Khan came to the conclusion that
the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt. He confirmed the convictions but
reduced the sentences to imprisonment for life. Owing
to this difference of opinion, the matter was referred
to a third Judge, Manohar Persbad J. and he agreed
with the finding of guilty given by his learned brother Dr. Mir Siadat Ali Khan. We granted special
leave to the appellants to come before this court.
The facts of the occurrence, as alleged by the
prosecution, are these. On the evening of 19-1-1949,
the deceased Venkatakrishna "Shastry of the village
of Maturpeta and five other persons, who were Congress workers like him, were returning to the village
from a tank. One of the communist leaders called
Nagabhushan Rao had been arrested a month or two
previously and the communist party believed that
Venkatakrishna Shastry was responsible for the
arrest. So a large group of communists, about 25 or
30 in number including the accused, armed with guns
and swords, paid a visit to Maturpeta to wreak
vengeance against the Congress group led by .Venkatakrishna. Shastry. They ran into the Congress group
as they were getting back to the village after the
evening stroll. P. W. 14, a dhobi boy named Gopai was
one of the camp followers of this communist group.
Venkatakrishna Shastry and his co-workers ·were tied
up with their own clothes and were led to the village
chavadi over which a Congress flag was flying. A rope
was brought from the house of P.W. 17 and the members of the Congress group were tied with this rope
and led some distance away from the village to a
red-gram field, and all of them were beaten by their
enemies; except Shastry, the rest were driven away
from the place.
Sh~stry was tied with the rope and
taken in the eastern direction by Mangapaty (the
dalam or troop leader) and the accused. P.W. 14 was
following the group carrying a bundle of their clothes
on his head. After a short halt at the village of
1956
Vemireddy
Satyanarayah
Reddy and
three other$
v.
The State of
Hyderabad
ChandrasekharR
Aiyar J.
1956
Vemireddy
Satyanarayan
Reddy and
three others
v.
The State of
Hyderabad
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar J.
250
SUP:R.EME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
Suknevedu, where some food was taken, the party
went toward.s a mango-tope near a brook, four or five
miles away leading Venkatakrishna Shastry as the
captive. The deceased, Gopai (P.W. 14) and some
of the accused remained on the hank of the brooklet.
The others went a little beyond and one of them
came back with orders that Venkatakrishna Shastry
should be fetched. Venkatakrishna Shastry was taken
along and when the moon was at the meridian, the
rope with which he was led was tied round the neck
of the deceased into a noose. Two of the accused
pulled one end of the rope and two others at the
other end in opposite directions.
Venkatakrishna
Shastry was thus strangled to death. A pit was dug
and the body of Venkatakrishna Shastry was buried
in the river-bed. P. W. 14 saw all this from a distance
of twenty yards in clear moonlight.
Two or three days later, after some wanderings in
the jungle and mountain-dens P.W. 14 left the company of his masters who were implored by the boy's
father P. W. 7 to permit him to take the boy away.
Next morning a report was sent by P.W. 2 the
police pate! about the abduction of Venkatakrishna
Shastry and investigation was begun. On 8-2-1949,
that is about twenty days after the occurrence, some
bones of a human-body were discovered in the riverbed as the result of crows and vultures hovering
round the place. The police Patwari (P. W. 10) sent
a report about this discovery. The police arrived on
the scene and exhumed the body which was identified
as that of Venkatakrishna Shastry. This was on
9-2-1949. It was sent for post-mortem examination.
The condition in which the body was at the time of
exhumation is stated in a panchnama that was then
prepared. The results of the post-mortem examination are spoken to by the doctor P.W. 7.
Being the only witness for the commission of the
crime, the dhobi boy (P. W. 14) was subjected to severe
criticism by Mr. Umrigar who held the dock brief for
the appellants. He described him as an accomplice
and as an unmitigated liar and he asked us not even
to look at his evidence. P.W. 14 does not satisfy the
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
251
definition of an accomplice; he falls somewhat short
of the requirements which would confer on him this
status.
According to the evidence, he left his
parents' roof after a quarrel with his father and
while wandering in the jungles he was picked up by
the communists only 3 days before and taken as
their servant on promise to give him food. His main
duty appears to have been to go with the group
carrying their bundles of clothes on his head. It was
in this capacity that he was not only able to see the
abduction of the deceased but also to witness the
actual murder. He took no part whatever in the commission of the offence or in any active or passive
preparations for the same. He was not a particeps crimines. After securing his release from his temporary
masters, he went back with his father to the village.
It is true he did not divulge the secret of the murder
to any one else except to his own father. But who
would, in view of the. atrocities and terrorism that
prevailed in that region during the relevant time?
It required a very courageous man to have proclaimed
the truth, needless of consequences to himself, and we
cannot credit the dhobi boy with so much of fearlessness. The learned counsel urged that if a man sees
the perpetration of a crime and does not give information of it to anyone else, he might well be regarded
in law as an accomplice and that he could be put in
the dock with the actual criminals. There is, however, no warrant for such an extreme proposition.
On the other hand, the following short passage from
Russell on Crime, 10th Edition, page 1846, will show
its untenability:-
"But a person may be present, and, if not aiding
and abetting, be neither principal nor accessory; as,
if A, happens to be present at a murder and takes no
part in it, nor endeavours to prevent it, or to apprehend the murderer, this course of conduct will not
of itself render him either principal or accessory".
Indeed, there can be no doubt that the evidence
of a man like P. W. 14 should be scanned with much
caution and we must be fully satisfied that he is a
witness of truth, especially when no other person
1956
Vemireddy
Satyanarayan
Reddy and
three others
v.
The State of
Hyderabad
Chandrasekhara
MyarJ.
1956
Vemireddy
Satyanarayan
Reddy and
three others
v.
The State of
Hyderabad
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar }.
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
was present at the time to see the murder. Though
he was not an accomplice, we would still want
corroboration on material particulars in this particular case, as he is the only witness to the crime
and as it would be unsafe to hang four people on bis
sole testimony unless we feel convinced that he is
speaking the truth. Such corroboration need not,
however, be on the question of the actual commission
of the offence; if this was the requirement, then we
would have independent testimony on which to act
and there would be no need to rely on the evidence
of one whose position may, in this particular case, be
. said to be somewhat analogous to that of an accomplice, though not exactly the same. What the law
requires is that there should be such corroboration
of the material part of the. story connecting the
accused with the crime as will satisfy reasonable
minds that the man can be regarded as a truthful
witness. In the leading case. of Rex v. Baskerville(')
it was pointed by Lord Reading C.J. that "the corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused
committed the crime; it is sufficient if it is merely
circumstantial evidence of his connection with the
crime. The nature of the corroboration will depend
on and vary according to the particular circumstances
of each case. What is required is some additional
evidence rendering iti probable that the story of the
accomplice is true and that it is reasonably safe to
act upon it.
Judged by this test, we can say that the evidence
given by P.W. 14 has been amply corroborated.
It was not disputed for the appellants that there is
abundant evidence consisting of the testimony of
several witnesses in support of the truth of the narrative given by P.W. 14 regarding the abduction of the
deceased. This evidence was given not by mere onlookers but by men like P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9, who
were with the deceased when the communist group
came upon them· and who were themselves badly
beaten up by the gang before being released from
impending death at the ·merciful intervention of
(1) [1916) 2 K.B.D. 668
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
253
some one of them. They say that at the time of the
release the accused retained the deceased with·them
and took him away in the direction of Mulgupad.
From this stage,P.W.14takes us to the rivQr bank
where the deceased and he were allowed to sit. The
accused went into the river bed and later on orders
were issued by the appellant ;No. 1, the deceased was
led by a rope from the bank by Muthyalu (4th appellant). The rope was tied round the neck of the
deceased into a noose and pulled in opposite directions by two of the accused on each side and Shastry
was thus strangled to death. His body was buried
in a pit dug in the river bed. The rope which was
found round the neck of the dead body when it was
exhumed is said to be the rope with whichP.Ws. 3 to
6 and 9 were tied up and as the one that the members
of the gang brought from the house of Silam Brahma-.
reddi (P.W. 17) earlier that evening when the
village was raided and the Congress workers were
marched to the Congress flag.
.
There is also evidence that the party of the
accused when they first encountered the party of the
deceased asked who and where was Venkatakrishna.
Shastry. The assailants, who were armed to the
teeth, indulged in threats to kill all of them. The
deceased was a.. Congress leader and it is not surprising
that he was singled out for terrific, punishment, while
the others were let off with a good thrashing and admonitions that they should give up their Congress affiliations. It is but natural in the circumstances that
they should take a.way the deceased to a distant
place to do a.way with him. That he was so led by
the group of the accused is also corroborated . by the
evidence of Yesob (P.W. 12) who was watching his
jawar crop on the night in question in a neighbouring
field.
Let us now turn J;o the exhumation of the dead
body, the inquest report, the post-mortem certificate,
and the evidence of the doctor (P. W. 7). The patwari
of Sa.krivedu (P. W. 10) sent a report on the 8th
February, 1949, that he had information that a dead
body lay buried in the river-bed. The report has not
1956
Vemireddy
Satyanarayan
Reddy and
three others
v.
The State of
Hyderabad
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar J,
1956
Vetnircddy
Satyanarayan
Reddy and
three others
v.
The Stale of
Hyderabad
Chaudrasckliara
Aiyar J.
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956]
been filed but its purport about the condition of the
body is given in the inquest report as unidentifiable.
Two police sub-inspectors and some constables reached the river-bed the same day and exhumed the body.
Its then condition is described in these words in the
inquest report:
"It was noticed that a rope of Chinna and Ambara was wrapped from neck to the waist. Both
hands were missing and out of the two legs one was
attached to the body with little flesh.
The bones of
the other separated leg (the down part of the knee)
and the bones of one hand were found in the pit.
There were some hairs in the head. The flesh of the
face was rotten and decayed. Teeth are safe and
sound. There is rotten flesh from the neck to the
buttocks. It appears that this dead body is of a
Hindu Brahmin".
The panchnama is signed by two persons, one of
whom HAS BEEN EXAMINED AS P.W. 16.
He,
along with the witnesses who gave evidence as cosufferers with the deceased in the communist raid of
that evening, have identified the body as that of
Venkatakrishna Shastry. The doctor's post-mortem
certificate is exhibit 2 and according to it the body
was putrified and even the marks of strangulation
could not be detected; both the palms had been cut
out, the left hand was severed completely; there was
only the left eye in a rotten condition; the right eye
was not found, the right ear was not there. Examined
as P.W. 7, the doctor has said that the face of the
corpse could not be identified, as the scalp was eaten
away by mud, and the bony structure of the face was
present.
In the face of this evidence, the learned counsel for
the appellants contended with much force that identification must have been impossible and that the witnesses who speak to the same should be disbelieved.
Two factors are, however, overlooked in this argument.
Though the body was in an advanced state
of decomposition and many parts of the limbs were
missing and even the flesh in the face was gone, it
would not have been difficult for close associates of
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
255
Venkatakrishna Shastry to say that it was his corpse,
from the general features form, outline, contour build
of the body, and the appearance of such of the limbs
as were available to see.
His friend Madhusudhana
Rao, P. W. 15, was working with the deceased for
some years in the Congress office and knew him well
indeed.
There is his evidence about identification.
More important still is the identification of the rope
round the neck of the body, the dhoti with the violet
border that was on its waist, and the janjam or the
holy thread. The rope was brought from the house
of Brahma Reddy (P.W. 17).
It was the one which
was tied in loops round each member of the Congress
group as they were led from the village to the redgram field; it was the rope that was used to lead
Venkatakrishna Shastry to the brooklet; and it was
the rope that was found round the neck of the dead
body when it was unearthed.
The bordered dhoti
which was on the corpse belonged to Venkatakrishna
Shastry. From these external marks, and the general
features, friends of the deceased like P.Ws. 3 to 6 and
9 and P.W. 17 in whose house Shastry was living
could say, we think, that the body buried in the
waist-deep pit in the bed of the river was that of
Venkatakrishna Shastry.
Whether he is regarded as an accomplice or as the
sole witness of the offence P.W. 14 has been corroborated in such a manner that his evidence about the
steps taken by the accused immediately prior to the
perpetration of the murder carries conviction to our
minds. The connection of the accused with the crime
must be held to have been made out.
We have also
to accept that the dead body recovered was that of
Venkatakrishna Shastry and no question of the absence of the body arises.
For this gruesome and revolting murder the appellants have got only imprisonment for life for which
they must be thankful to the difference of opinion
that arose among the learned Judges of the High
Court.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
81
1956
Vemireddy
Satyanarayan
Reddy and
three other&
v.
The State of
Hyderabad
Chandrasekhara
Aiyar J.