Holding

Under Article 136 the Supreme Court cannot act as a substitute for a regular appeal and will not disturb the convictions as the trial and appellate courts’ findings were not affected by any procedural or legal infirmity, the evidence being reliable and sufficient.

Summary

The appellants, Gosu Jairami Reddy and others, were convicted for murder, rioting and offences under the Explosive Substances Act after allegedly hurling bombs and attacking the deceased with hunting sickles. They challenged the convictions before the Supreme Court under Article 136, arguing errors in the trial court’s findings on motive, the one‑hour delay in lodging the FIR, discrepancies between eye‑witness injury descriptions and the post‑mortem report, the non‑examination of certain witnesses and the non‑seizure of the jeep, and asserting an alibi. The Court held that Article 136 is an extraordinary jurisdiction and not a substitute for a regular appeal; it will not disturb findings of fact unless there is a procedural or legal infirmity, perverse judgment or miscarriage of justice. The evidence – credible eye‑witness testimony, established political motive, forensic findings and the totality of circumstances – was sufficient, and none of the alleged procedural lapses warranted interference. Consequently, the convictions and life sentences were upheld.

Issues considered

The scope and limits of Article 136 of the Constitution in criminal appeals
Whether the trial court erred in finding a political motive for the murder
Whether the one‑hour delay in lodging the FIR and the delay in sending it to the magistrate affect the credibility of the prosecution case
Whether the discrepancy between an eye‑witness’s description of injury and the post‑mortem findings creates reasonable doubt
Whether the non‑examination of the driver and other witnesses vitiates the prosecution case
Whether the failure to seize the jeep used in the incident undermines the prosecution’s case
Whether the alibi pleaded by accused A‑1 and A‑3 is sustainable

Legislation cited

Explosive Substances Act, 1908s. 3, s. 5
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302

Subjects

Article 136extraordinary jurisdictioncriminal appealmotiveeye‑witness testimonyalibidelay in FIRnon‑seizure of vehicleExplosive Substances Actmurderlife imprisonment

Judgment

[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
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]
B

Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 136 -:- Scope of - HELD: The extra-ordinary
jurisdiction of the Court under Article 136 is not and cannot
c
be a substitute for a regular appeal -Appellant cannot seek
reversal of views taken by the courts below simply because
another view was possible on the evidence adduced in the
I 1
case - It must be demonstrated that the view taken by the trial
D
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 - 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
---- _j
persons - The version of these eye-witnesses has been
accepted as truthful by the trial court as also the High Court
G
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
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 -
j ., 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 eye-
witnesses 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 non-
examination 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: G

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
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' r
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,
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 eye-
witness 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
,; 1
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] [520-
A-C; 521-C-D]
.J 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
··• t ..

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-
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
suspicion that the delay - if at all the time lag can be c
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) (524-
C-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,
the watchman told the witness that he had seen AG to
0
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] [52G-
B-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) [528-
E-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 non-
examination 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
G
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
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)

9. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere
with the view taken by the courts below. [para 42) [539-
F]

F Case Law Reference:
AIR 1955 SC 320 relied on para 10
AIR 1958 SC 1012 relied on para 10
AIR 1975 SC 1752 relied on para 10
G
2001 AIR sew 4786 relied on para 10
2006 (1 ) SCR 519 relied on para 10
AIR 1976 SC 985 relied on para 10
H 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 28 relied on para 10
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P. 515

1964 SCR 992 relied on para 10 A

1977 (2) SCR 901 relied on para 31

(1980) 3 sec 55 relied on para 32

2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 30 relied on para 32
B
AIR 2005 SC 2010 relied on para 32

2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 780 relied on para 32

(2009) 1o sec 362 relied on para 32
c
AIR 1954 SC 30 Vol. 41 relied on para 35

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION : Criminal
Appeal No. 1321 of 2006.

From the Judgment & Order dated 20.07.2006 of the High D
4. Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.
1112 of 2005.
WITH
Crl. A. No. 1327 of 2006.
E
Sushil Kumar, Ranjit Kumar, Guntur Pramod Kumar, K.
Rani Reddy, Guntur Prabhakar, T. Anamika, Chandra Mohani
Setty for the Appellants.

~ ' ~ 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
Gosu Jayarami Reddy (A2) & Gosu Jayaranga Reddy (A3)
8
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
driver of the jeep parked the jeep at the factory office when A 1
c
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 1O 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 147
IPC, two years under Section 148 IPC and life imprisonment
for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. They were
also convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment for the
G ~

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
sentence of three months simple imprisonment for the offence
H
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.
B
9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the
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.

' .J 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 F
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
,. 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
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

I
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

. ""
A maintainable before the High Court but the same has its own
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.
E
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
.. 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.
If a motive is proved it may supports the prosecution version.
8
But existence or otherwise of a motive plays a significant role t
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
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
F 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
G 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
H' towards the accused persons"
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. 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 rivalry was said
.> .J._ to be the motive for the killing of the deceased. Shri M .
Sanjeeva Reddy PW1, who was also the first informant had
·.; D
stood by his version regarding the political rivalry being the
cause for the murder of his father Chinna Pulla Reddy. So had
M. Rammohan Reddy PW 2 who had also in no uncertain terms
said that the rivalry between the two groups was the reason why
the deceased was done to death. The High Court appreciated
the above evidence and rightly observed: E

"From the above evidence, it is clear that there was
political rivalry between the accused party and the
' +l deceased party and the accused bore grudge against the
deceased on account of the refusal of the deceased to F
support them in the elections and on account of the defeat
of A-1 and A-3 in the ZPTC elections."

16. There is, in our opinion, no reason much less a
.J4 compelling one for us to take a view different from the one taken G
·-"< by the High Court. The prosecution case that these accused
appellants had a motive for the commission of the offence
alleged against them thus stood satisfactorily proved.

17. It was next contended that the incident in question
having occurred at 5 p.m. the first information report lodged at H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
~ ...
A 6 p.m. was delayed for which delay, the prosecution had offered
no explanation. It was further contended that the jurisdictional
Magistrate had received a copy of the FIR only at 1.05 a.m.
Keeping in view the distance between the place of occurrence
and the Police Station as also the distance between the Police • •
B Station and the jurisdictional Magistrate's court the delay in
lodging of the report and in sending a copy thereof to the
Magistrate were significant which would in the absence of any
valid explanation render the entire prosecution case, suspect.

18. There is in our view no merit even in this submission
c of the learned counsel. 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 suspicion that the delay - if at all the time lag can be • •
described to be constituting delay, was caused because the ~

D complainant, resorted to deliberations and consultations with
a view to presenting a distorted, inaccurate or exaggerated
version of the actual incident. No suggestion was made to PW1
the first informant that he delayed the lodging of the report
because he held any consultation in order to present a false or
E distorted picture of the incident. A promptly lodged report may
also at times be inaccurate or distorted just as a delayed report
may despite the delay remain a faithful version of what had
actually happened. It is the totality of the circumstances that •
would determine whether the delay long or short has in any way
F 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 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 '\
G 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 prosecution case especially when
no question regarding the cause of delay was put to the
Investigating Officer. If delay in the despatch of the First
H Information Report to the Magistrate was material the attention
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY· & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P. 525
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
~\. -· of the Investigating Officer ought to have been drawn to that A
aspect to give him an opportunity to offer an explanation for the
same. How far was the explanation acceptable would then be
a matter for the court to consider.

~ ~ 19. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the B
appellants that there were certain erasures and interpolations
in the first information report which according to them
suggested a manipulation and raised a doubt about the
registering of the first information report. A similar contention,
it appears was raised even before the Trial Court, who repelled
the same holding that the only discrepancy in the first
c
information report was a correction of FIR No.84 to First
Information Report No.85. The Trial Court further held that the
J
t said correction was wholly immaterial and did not affect the
:• prosecution version. Before us, an attempt was made by the
learned counsel for the appellants to argue that the correction D
made in the first information report altered the FIR number from
86 to 85 meaning th~reby that the first information report had
been ante timed. There is no merit in that contention either. The
trial court has in our opinion correctly found that the over-writing
in the First Information Report was limited to converting the digit E
4 to digit 5 in the number assigned to the FIR. This correction
is visible to the naked eye. The contention that the correction
had the effect of converting FIR No.86 into FIR No.85 is not
.... supported by the record. As a matter of fact the correction
' J
simply altered the FIR number from 84 to 85. In the F
circumstances, unless the correction is shown to be of any
significance, nothing much turns on the same. Learned counsel
for the appellants were unable to demonstrate that the correction
o! the .Firs~ Information Report No.84 to 85 suggested any
_. d1stort1on in the prosecution case or prove that the first
-J G
inform~tion ~eport was false or ante timed. It is also signjficant
~hat neither.'" the memo of appeal before the High Court nor
m the special leave petition filed before this Court had the
appellants pursued the challenge or urged the alleged·

H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A interpolation in the First Information Report as a ground
warranting rejection of the prosecution case.

20. That brings us to the substance of the prosecution case
which essentially comprises the depositions of M. Sanjeeva
8 Reddy PW1, M. Rammohan Reddy, PW2 and M. Veeranjaneya
Reddy PW 3. According to M. Sanjeeva Reddy PW 1, late Shri
Chinna Pulla Reddy, Ramamohan Reddy, Hanumantha Reddy,
Veeranjaneya Reddy, Mabu and driver Shankar started from
Kavetimasumdram in a Tata Sumo Jeep driven by Shankar on
31st of July, 2001 and reached Tadipatri at 4 p.m. From the
C house of the deceased at Tadipatri the aforesaid persons
including the deceased travelled to Sanjjaladinne village and
reached the slab polishing factory by 5 p.m. The driver of the
vehicle drove through the gate of the factory premises and then
reversed the same for parking the jeep facing the gate. It was
D at this stage that A1 to A5 came .:unning through the gate into
the factory. A2 was armed with bombs while the other accused
were armed with hunting sickles. A2 hurled two bombs, one of
which fell on the bonnet of the Jeep and exploded while the
other bomb exploded on the left side door of the vehicle. All of
E them were terrified by the sudden attack and started running
away for shelter. The witness ran towards labour room of the
factory on the west side and stood behind the workers room
from where he witnessed the occurrence. He saw that when the
deceased was running to the office room of the factory Gosu
F Ramachandra Reddy A1 hacked him with a hunting sickle on
his head. Similarly Gosu Rajagopal Reddy A3 also hacked the
deceased on the neck. Because of the blows sustained by the
deceased he fell down at a distance of 3 ft. from the office room.
A3 instigated the others to kill the deceased whereupon A4 and
G A5 also hacked the deceased. The witness was stunned out
of fear and remained frozen at the place from where he
-
watched the occurrence, while the accused left the place from
the same gate carrying their hunting sickles stained with blood.
21. The witness goes on to state that PW 3 M.
H
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P. 527
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
_.I -·
Veeranjaneya Reddy also came to the spot after the occurrence A
and saw the dead body of the deceased.'. Mabu and
Ramamohan Reddy were sent by the witness to the Village to
inform his mother and brother. The witness himself went to-the
Police Station and lodged a report at Tadipatri Police Station,
Ex.P1. The police arrived at the spot and conducted an inquest B
between 7 p.m. to 1O p.m. with the help of electric lights and
two petromax lamps. At the inquest the watchman told the
witness that he had seen A6 to A 10 outside the factory gate. It
was on the basis of the said statement that the names of A6
to A 10 were also included as persons responsible for the c
commission of the offence. Despite extensive cross.
examination nothing material has been extracted from the
witnesses which could possibly discredit his testimony nor was
any specific contention based on the said statement made in
the courts below or urged before us.
D
22. To the same effect are the depositions of PW 2 and
PW3 who too have fully supported the prosecution 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 E
also the High Court in appeal. In the absence of any material
contradiction in the version given by these witnesses and in the
absence of any other cogent reason rendering the depositions
.....,. ~ ) unacceptable, we see rio reason why the said version should
not be accepted as truthful. F

23. Deposition of D. Dastagiramma PW4 has also
substantially supported the prosecution version although she
was declared hostile by the public prosecutor on account of her
, refusal to identify the accused. According to this witness she G
-1 was staying in the slab factory of the deceased Pulla Reddy in
a labour room. Pulla Reddy had come to the factory along with
PW1, PW2 and PW3. Hanumantha Reddy and Mabu, Driver
Shankar was also with him in the white jeep. They reached the
factory at 5 p.m. The Jeep was reversed by the driver and
H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20111 9 S.C.R.

A parked facing towards the gate, when five persons came
running from the gate. One person was having bombs while the
remaining were armed with hunting sickles. Both the bombs
thrown at the jeep exploded whereafter PW 1 to PW 3 ran away.
PW 1 had run towards the Labour room while the five
B assailants surrounded the deceased China Pulla Reddy. At this
stage the witness ran away due to fear to the back side of the
factory and left for Ramapuram her parents' village.

24. Eswaraiah PW5 was also a labourer who was working
C in the factory of the deceased Pulla Reddy. This witness was
taking care of the poultry in the factory owned by the deceased.
Since some of the birds had escaped from the factory, he was
chasing them back into the factory. At about 5 p.m. he heard a
loud noise from the factory. He returned to the factory within 10
minutes and found that Pulla Reddy had been hacked and was
D lying dead in a pool of blood at a short distance from the jeep.
This witness saw PWs 1 to 3, Mabu, Hanumantha Reddy near
the dead body but did not see the assailants as they had run
away from there.

E 25. It is evident from the depositions of the three witnesses
referred to above that the deceased Pulla Reddy had come to
his factory accompanied by PW 1 M. Sanjeeva Reddy, PW 2
M. Rammohan Reddy, PW 3 M. Veeranjaneya Reddy and
Shankar the driver of the sumo jeep and that the deceased was
F killed inside the factory by five persons. The depositions of PWs -
4 and 5 substantially supports the prosecution case and proves
the presence of the deceased Pulla Reddy, and PWs 1, 2 and
3 apart from Shanker, the driver of the Sumo jeep inside the
compound of the factory at 5 p.m. on 31st July, 2001 when the
incident took place. Once the presence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 was
G established by their own depositions which have remained
unshattered and the supporting evidence of PWs 4 and 5, the
version given by the said three witnesses cannot be brushed
aside lightly.
H 26. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P. 529
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
,,.I_,

A 1, A4 and A5 contended that since the accused p~rsons A
belonged to a different village in the absence of any evidence
to show, that they knew that the deceased was visiting his
factory it would be difficult to believe that they were lying in wait
to assault and kill him. There is indeed no evidence to show
~ 1
that the accused persons knew about the visit of the deceased B
to his factory but that does not in our view, make any material
difference. What is important is that the stone polishing factory
was owned by the deceased and was not far from his house
at Tadipatri. A visit by the owner of the factory was not so
improbable that the accused could not expect the same c
especially when those with a sinister design like a cold blooded
murder, could lie in wait if necessary to strike at an opportune
time. The fact that a factory owned by Accused No.1 was in
::--
.[ close proximity to the factory of the deceased, made it all the
more easy for the assailants to carry out their nefarious design. D
That the deceased had been killed in the factory, is not even
questioned by the defence as indeed the same cannot be
questioned in the light of the deposition of the witnesses
examined by the prosecution. The depositions of the eye
witnesses PWs 1 to 3 are clear and free from any
E
embellishments hence completely reliable. It is also difficult to
believe that the witne·sses who are closely related to the
deceased would screen the real offenders and falsely implicate
the appellants only because of the political rivalry between the
.... -l ~
two groups.
F
27. Mr. Kumar next argued that the weapons allegedly
used by the appellants were said to be hunting sickles,
whereas the injuries found on the person of the deceased were
said to have contused margins which could not be caused by
a hunting sickle. It was also argued that while the eye witnesses G
... I
had attributed to A3 an injury on the neck of the deceased no
such injury was reported by the doctor in the post mortem
examination. This was, according to the defence, a major
contradiction, that would render the prosecution story doubtful.
H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

.- '""
A 28. It is true that PW 1 has in his depositions attributed
an injury to A 3 which according to the witness 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 in the light of the evidence on record and
B the fact that it is not always easy for an eye witness 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. A murderous assault is often a heart-
rending spectacle in which even a witness wholly unconnected
c the assailant or the victim may also get a feeling of revulsion
to
at the gory sight involving merciless killing of a human being in
cold blood. To expect from a witness who has gone through
such a nightmarish experience, meticulous narration of who hit
whom at what precise part of the body causing what kind of '.

injury and leading to what kind of fractures or flow of how much
D
blood, is to expect too much. Courts need to be realistic in their
expectation from witnesses and go by what would be
reasonable based on ordinary human conduct with ordinary
human frailties of memory and powe. to register events and their
details. A witness who is terrorised by the brutality of the attack
E cannot be disbelieved only because in his description of who
hit the deceased on what part of the body there is some mix
up or confusion. It is the totality of the evidence on record and
its credibility that would eventually determine whether the ~
)..
prosecution has proved the charge against the accused. Having
F said that let us see the nature of the injuries that were noticed
by Dr. Satyanarayana Reddy PW 6, who conducted the post
mortem on the deceased and examine whether the
discrepancy pointed out by the defence makes any real dent
in the prosecution case. The witness has described the injuries
G as under:
'
"EXTERNAL INJURIES

1. Incised injury over left side of head Fronto parietal area
15 ems x 2 ems x bone deep. Bones fractured. Brain
H
I

GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P. 531
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
matter seen out side through the injuries. Margins A
contused.

2. Incised injury over the occipital area of head on right
side 8 ems x 2 ems. bone deep, margins contused.

3. Incised injury over left side of face 6 ems. x 2 ems. B
muscle deep. Margins contused.

4. Incised injury over the lower Jaw extending on both side
of face 16 ems. x 3 ems. x bone deep, margins contused,
mandible fractured. c
5. Incised injury over lower lip on left side 7 cm x 2 cm.
muscle deep, margins contused.
,. .: 6. Incised injury over right clavicle 6 cm x 2 cm bone deep,
..., margins contused, right clavicle fractrured . D

7. Incised injury over left shoulder 6 cm x 2 cm muscle
deep, margins contused.

8. Incised injury over left side of chest below clavicle 15
E
cm x 2 cm cavity deep, margins contused. Lung tissue
protruding over through the injury.

9. Incised injury over the palm of left hand near wrist 2 cm
.... ) ..'I x 1 cm tissue deep, margins contused.
F
10. Incised injury over the palm of left hand near little finger
2 cm x 1 cm tissue deep, margins contused.

11. Incised injury over the dorsal aspect of left forearm
upper 1/3 5cm x 2 cm muscle deep, margins contused.
G
I 12. Incised injury over the back of left scapular area 4 cm
x 2 cm muscle deep, margins contused.

Deep dissection and internal examination: Skull:
fracture of left frontal and left parietal bone present.
H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

.. ,_
A Fracture of occipital bone right side fractured. Brain
underlying the fractured bones extensively injured.
lntracranial haemorrhage present. Hyoid normal fracture of
mandible present. Fracture of right clavicle present. Thorax

B
on left side fracture of ribs from 1 to 3 present. Lung tissue
protruding out through the injury. Left lung extensively
. • ..
injured. Extravasations of blood about 800 cc present in t-
left thoracic cavity. Heart chambers empty. Right lungs
normal and pale. Stomach contain digested food, Liver
normal and pale. Kidneys normal and pale. Extravasations
c of blood surrounding all external injuries. The injuries are
ante mortem in nature. Rectum empty. Bladder empty.

Opinion : The deceased would appear to have died of
shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries, especially
injuries to vital organs. Brain: caused by injuries No.1 and ./..
D 2 and injury to left lung caused by the injury No.8 and died
15 to 18 hours prior to post mortem examination. Injuries
would have been caused by sharp weapons like sickles.
The P.M. certificate is Ex.P.3. Injuries 1 to 12 are ante
mortem in nature. The above injuries sufficient to cause to
E death in ordinary course of nature."

29. Two aspects are clear from the above. First is that
injury no.6 (supra) was found over the right clavicle. The injury
was bone deep and the clavicle fractured. A witness who has .. ...
F. a momentary view of the incident which is over within a few
minutes may not have his testimony rejected only because
instead of describing the injury to the clavicle he described the
same to be an injury to the neck. It is not a case where the
witness attributes an injury to the assailants on a vital part like
the head but no such actual injury is found in that region of the
G
body. Instead an injury is found say on the leg or any other
portion of the body. 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 to be an injury in
H an area that is proximate.
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P. 533
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
~----~
30. The other aspect is that the deposition of the doctor A
establishes the fact that the injuries noticed on the dead body
of the deceased had been inflicted by sharp cutting instrument
like sickles. It is further stated by the doctor that in all
probabiliting the deceased might have died on receipt of the
•-\ -( first injury itself. There is nothing in the examination of the eye- B
witnesses from which the court may infer that the injuries found
in the post mortem examination of the deceased could not have
been caused by sharp edged sickles that the accused were
carrying with them and are said to have used in the course of
the incident. The argument that there is a material contradiction c
between the ocular evidence on the one hand and the medical
evidence on the other must therefore fail and is hereby rejected.

31. It was then contended on behalf of the appellants that
).i -/
the prosecution had dropped Shankar the driver of the Sumo
__.. Jeep and Hanurnantha Reddy who according to the defence D
witnesses could have given true account of incident if at all they
were accompanying the deceased on the date of the
occurrence. It was argued by Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior
counsel for the appellants that the non-examination of Shankar,
the driver of the Jeep assumes importance because according E
to the prosecution version the driver had after entering the
factory premises reversed the Jeep and parked it facing the
gate. This part of the case could be supported only by the driver
j.
-l
and since the driver had been given up at the trial the
prosecution case that the vehicle was parked facing the gate, F
must be deemed to have remained unproved. The parking of
the vehicle in the manner suggested by the prosecution was
according the learned counsel material in as much as unless
the prosecution introduced the theory of the vehicle being
parked by the driver facing the gate the so-called eye-witness G
..,.. I to the occurrence would have had no opportunity to see the
accused persons entering the factory with bombs and sickles.
We regret to say that there is no merit in that contention either.
It is well-settled that every witness that the prosecution may
have listed in the charge-sheet need not be examined. It is H,
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

.. ,..
A 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 witnesses have been cited to
establish the very same fact is no reason why the prosecution
B must examine all of them. The prosecution in the present case ~ •
examined three eye-witnesses to prove the incident in question.
There was no particular fact that could be proved only by the
deposition of the driver and not by other witnesses. That
Shanker was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time, and
c that he reversed the vehicle and parked it facing the gate, were
facts 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 vehicle was parked facing the gate
by Shankar driver of the vehicle after reversing the same. So
also the non-examination of Hanumantha Reddy does not, in
' -<
D
our opinion, make any dent in the prosecution case or render
the version given by three eye-witnesses who have supported
the 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 the non-examination of other
E
witnesses would become inconsequential. This Court in Nirpal
Singh v. State of Haryana ( 1977) 2 SCC 131 stated the
principles in the following words:

"The real question for determination is not as to what is ~ >
F the effect of non-examination of certain witnesses as the
question whether the witnesses examined in Court on
sworn testimony should be believed or not. Once the
witnesses examined by the prosecution are believed by
the Court and the Court comes to the conclusion that their
G evidence is trust-worthy, the non-examination of other
witnesses will not affect the credibility of these witnesses. ""
It is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses
after witnesses on the same point. In the instant case, once
the evidence of the eye witnesses is believed, there is an
H end of the matter."
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P. 535
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
32. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in A
State of UP. v. Hakim Singh and Ors. (1980) 3 SCC 55,
Nandu Rastogi alias Nandji Rastogi and Anr. v. State of Bihar
(2002) 8 SCC 9, Hem Raj & Ors. v. State of Haryana (AIR
2005 SC 2010), State of MP. v. Dharkole @ Govind Singh
and Ors. (AIR 2005 SC 44) and Raj Narain Singh v. State of B
UP. & ors. (2009) 10 sec 362.

33. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the failure
of the Investigating Officer to seize the Jeep must give rise to
an adverse inference and discredit the entire prosecution story. C
That submission needs notice only to be rejected. 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 throwing of bombs one of which
had exploded on the bonnet of the vehicle and the other on the D
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 marked Ex.P20 supports the prosecution case and
proves that explosive mixture used in manmade bombs was E
found in the same. The relevant part of the report is as under:

"The above items are analysed and Potassium, Chlorate,
Chloride, Arsenic, Sulphide, Sulphate are found in both of
them. F
The above radicals are the resultant components and
residues of explosive Potassium Chlorate, Arsenic Sulphide
and Sulphur after explosion. This explosive mixture is used in
countrymade bombs of throw type."
G
34. In the light of the above the non-seizure of the Jeep
made no difference to the veracity of the prosecution case.
35. Time now to examine the plea of alibi set up by
accused Nos.1 and 3. In support of their plea the accused have H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R

• - )<,

A examined four witnesses viz. Thirupalu DW1, Radha Kumari,
DW2 and Prem Nagi Reddy DW 3 and Shri Jageeshwara
Reddy D.W.4 as witnesses. Based on the depositions of the
said witnesses the defence has attempted to prove that A1 and
A3 were at Anantpur from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the date of the
B incident, and were not therefore responsible for the murder of
deceased Pulla Chinna Reddy committed at 5 p.m. on 31st
July, 2001. The Trial Court has carefully examined the evidence
adduced by defence but rejected the plea that accused A1 and
A3 were at Anantpur at the time of the incident. The High Court
has affirmed that finding upon a reappraisal of the evidence on
c record. What we have to examine is whether the concurrent
finding on a question which is a pure question of fact namely
whether accused A1 and A3 were at Anantpur at the time of
incident leading to the murder of deceased Pulla Chinna Reddy
took place in his stone polishing factory at Village Sajjaladinne - '
D
warrants any interference. We may at the threshold say that a
finding of fact concurrently recorded on the question of alibi is
not disturbed by this Court in an appeal by special leave. The
legal position in this regard is settled by the decision of this
Court in Thakur Prasad v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR
E 1954 SC 30 Vol. 41

"The plea of alibi involves a question of fact and both
the courts below have concurrently found that fact against
the appellant. This Court, therefore, cannot, on an appeal
F by special leave, go behind that concurrent finding of fact." ~· '

36. That apart the plea of alibi has in our opinion been
rightly rejected by the courts below even on an appraisal of the
evidence on record. We may in this regard briefly refer to the
defence evidence adduced in support of the plea. Thirapalu,
G
DW1 an Agriculturist from Tadipatri Mandal, deposed that 3% I '-..
acres of land owned by him was compulsorily acquired by the
Government for a public purpose. No compensation for the
acquisition was however paid to him. It was in that connection
that the witness had approached A1 for help before the RDO
H
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P. 537
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
at Anantpur. According to the witness A1 and A3 apart from A
Krishna Reddy, Gopal Reddy and one Ranga Reddy reached
Anantpur and went to the house of Paritala Ravindra to attend
a meeting organized at his residence. After the meeting, they
went to a hotel and then to the R&B Bungalow at Anantpur to
meet the Hon'ble Minister Sri Nimmala Kristappa. After A 1 had B
spoken to the Minister for a few minutes they went to the office
of RDO where they met some persons including Radhakumari,
DW2 who had come there in connection with the grant of a fair
price shop licence. Accused No.1 entered the RDO office and
talked to one Allabakash, the clerk in the said office, who dealt c
with payment of compensation and from there they went to
Panchayatraj office and then to the office of Superintendent of
Police when Jagadeeswara Reddy, DW4 informed them about
the murder of Pulla China Reddy. According to the witness, the
' " police detained A3 in the SP office itself. Thereafter the witness 0
returned to his village. There are in deposition of this witness
certain striking features that need to be noticed. The witness
had neither any notice nor any other record suggesting
acquisition of land owned by him which was said to be the
reason for his alleged visit to Anantpur. Secondly, A1 and A3
E
had according to the witness gone to the office of the RDO and
talked to one Allabaksh posted as a clerk there. No application
to the RDO or any other authority for that matter was made
either by the witness or by the accused on his behalf.
Surprisingly the witness does not even talk to Allabaksh the
clerk although it was his case in connection with which the F
accused had accompanied him to that office. So also there was
no evidence to corroborate the version given by the witness that
there was any meeting at the house of Partitala Ravindra, nor
any evidence to show that any Minister had visited Anantpur
on that day. G
37. Radhakumari DW2 in her deposition stated that she
had studied up to 10th standard and had made an application
for the grant of a fair price shop licence. On th~ date of ~he
incident she is said to have come to Anantpur m connection H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 9 S.C.R.

. ,_
A with an interview for the grant of the licence and met A 1 in the
ROO office along with OW1 Thirapalu. The witness further
claimed that she was selected for the grant of licence in
pursuance of the interview held on 31st July, 2001.

38. In her cross examination the witness admitted that she
8
did not receive any appointment letter for the fair price shop
dealership at Sajjaladinne. She denied the suggestion that no
interview was fixed for 31st July, 2001 before the RDO
Anantpur. The witness admitted that the dealership was
cancelled but denied that the cancellation was because of
c malpractices alleged against her. What is significant is that the
witness did not have any supporting material like a copy of the
application for the grant of fair price shop licence or a copy of
the interview call inviting her for interview on 31st July, 2001 or
a copy of the letter informing her that she was selected and
D appointed pursuant to the said interview. In the absence of any
evidence to corroborate the version of the witness that she was
indeed at Anantpur on 31st July, 2001, the courts below were
justified in rejecting the same.

E 39. Prem Nagi Reddy, DW3 also claims to be at Anantpur
on 31st July, 2001. He was there in connection with a Review
meeting allegedly fixed by the High Command of TOP. The
meeting was held in the House of Paritala Ravindra at Anantpur.
A 1 and A3 and few others accompanied them to SP office at
F about 5 pm.

40. In cross-examination the witness admitted that he was
a prominent TOP leader and had contested, though
unsuccessfully, the assembly elections against Shri J.C.
Oiwakar Reddy thrice. That the deceased Chinna Pulla Reddy
G was a close associate of Oiwakar Reddy and that Pulla Reddy
was a senior congress party leader in Tadipatri Mandal was
also admitted by this witness. That A 1 and A3 had contested
MPTC elections as TOP candidates and got defeated at the
hands of the congress party candidate was also admitted just
H as he admitted that there was no record to prove that a TOP
GOSU JAIRAMI REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF A.P. 539
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
review meeting on 31st July, 2001 was held at Anantpur. The A
witness also admitted having been convicted in crime No. 17
of 1999 under Section 324 r/w Section 140 IPC and having
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
and a fine but acquitted by the Appellate Court. He expressed
ignorance about his being an accused in crime no.58 of 1988 B
under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC, Sections 3 and 5 of E.S. Act
and Section 25(1)(b)(a) of Arms Act of Yadiki P.S. He admitted
that he was an accused person in crime No.59 of 1992 under ·
Sections 3 and 5 of E.S. Act registered in police Station
Tadipatri, Crime No.1 of 1993 under Section 7(1) (a) of. Crl. Law c
Amendment of Act, Crime No.127 of 1994 under Section 136
of R.P. Act and Crime No.4 of 1996 under Section 307 r/w
Sections 149 IPC and 3 & 5 of E.S. Act regi~tered in town
Police Station Tadipatri.

41. The courts below have rejected the testimony of this D
witness also and in our opinion rightly so. The close affiliation
of this witness to the party to which they belong and his
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 E
alibi raised by the accused in their defence.

42. In the circumstances we see no reason to interfere with
"-. the view taken by the courts below. These appeals accordingly
fail and are hereby dismissed. F

RP. Appeals dismissed.