Holding

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the convictions under Section 302 (and consequently under Section 326) unsustainable, and therefore set aside the convictions and sentences.

Summary

The case involved the murder of Gram Sarpanch Sitaram Anjanalelu, for which six persons were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. On appeal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld convictions of two accused (A‑1 and A‑3) only under Section 326 and acquitted the rest. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were the assailants who inflicted the fatal injuries, and whether the convictions could be altered to Section 302 with a life sentence. The Court found the testimonies of key witnesses (PW‑1 to PW‑4) unreliable due to inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and implausible circumstances. Consequently, it held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, set aside the convictions and sentences of A‑1 and A‑3, and acquitted them, while dismissing the remaining appeals.

Issues considered

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were the assailants who inflicted injuries causing death, attracting liability under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
Whether a conviction solely under Section 326 IPC is appropriate when the victim died, or the conviction must be altered to Section 302 with a higher sentence.
Whether the Supreme Court may reopen the appreciation of evidence under Article 136 of the Constitution when altering conviction and sentence is contemplated.
The reliability and admissibility of the testimonies of PW‑1, PW‑2, PW‑3, and PW‑4.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 136
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 134, s. 149, s. 302, s. 326

Subjects

murderSection 302 IPCSection 149 IPCSection 326 IPCreasonable doubtwitness reliabilityappeal under Article 136reappraisal of evidenceconviction alterationlife imprisonment

Judgment

A MALEMPATI PATIABI NARENDRA ETC.
v.
GHATIAMANENI MARUTHI PRASAD AND ORS. ETC.
* -
..,.
APRIL 27, 2000

B [K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 :

Section 302 read with Section 149-Murder-Testimony of witnesses-
Conviction and sentence-On appeal, Held, pmsecution has failed to estab-
c Lish the guilt of the accused-On re-appreciation of evidence, testimony of
prosecution witnesses not found reliable-Conviction and sentence, set aside.

Sections 302134, 3021149 and 326-Murder by inflicting grievous inju-
ries-Conviction under S. 326-Validity of-Held, assailants cannot escape .....
fmm conviction under S. 302 atleast with the help of Section 34 if not with
D
Section 149-High Cowt committed serious error by convicting the accused
only under S. 326.

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136-Concurrent findings regard-
ing appreciation of evid.ence-Inte1ference with-Held, n01mally not called
....
.,.. t

E for-Howeve1; in a case where the conviction is to be alteredfmm one under
S. 326 to that under S. 302 and consequent enhancement of sentence it would
be necessmy to re-apprise the evidence in the interest ofjustice-Penal Code,
1860-Ss. 302134 and 326.

Appellant-accused along with four others was prosecuted for an
F offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. The
prosecution case was that 'S' while proceeding towards his daughter's ......
house around 11 P.M. was attacked by accused persons with axe, knife

G
etc. etc. 'S' succumbed to his injuries on the spot. PW-1, son of the
deceased lodged a complaint against the accused persons including A-4.
However, the Investigating Officer found that A-4 was in jail when the
incident occurred. Consequently, A-4 was arraigned as an accused for
-
hatching criminal conspiracy to murder the deceased. On appreciation of
evidence, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons. How-
,.
ever, on appeal, High Court while convicting A-1 and A-3 only for the
offence under S. 326 IPC acquitted the remaining accused persons. Hence
H the present appeals.
720
'
+
M.P. NARENDRA ETC. v. G.M. PRASAD AND ORS. ETC. 721

-..... .... Disposing of the appeals, the Court A
HELD : 1.1. Prosecution has failed to establish that the accused
were the assa:Iants who attacked the deceased. On reappreciation of
evidence the testimony of PWs was not found reliable. Thus, on the
ground of reasonable doubt the comiction and sentence passed against A·
1 and A-3 is set aside. [728-B] B
1.2. PW-1 in his first written complaint stated that he saw A-4 who
is the father of A-1 to &-3 participating in the occurrence and a specific
role (inflicting axe bloWs on the deceased) has also been ascribed to that
accused. But when PW-1 gave evidence in Court, he adopted a dubious
strategy by saying that A-4 was not present at the scene of occurrence but c
he was a person having striking resemblance to A-4 giving axe blows a,_n
the deceased. Further, if PW-1 was present when the occurrence took
place, it does not stand to reason why he was completely spared by the
,Jr
assailants. It is difficult to believe thatif PW-1 was present, a young man of
33 like him could not have done even a bit to go to the rescue of his father D
and if he had done so, he would have sustained injuries, atleast some minor
-1 injuries. But the fact is that PW-1 did not sustain even a scratch on his
person. If PW-1 waited to rush to his dying father till the assailants
sfopped attacking him even then it is difl'foult to conceive that atleast the
clothes of PW-1 could not have been smeared with some blood, if not
E
copious blood. But nobody has noticed even a drop of blood on his clothes.
Thus, there is complete dearth of satisfactory explanation for relying on
the testimony of PW-1. [725-C; 726-C-D]

1.3. PW-2 and PW-3 also said in their examination-in-chief that an
assailant resembling A-4 had participated in the occurrence by hacking F
_,. the deceased with an axe on the head. However, when PW-2 was asked how
he was present in the village on that day when his grand-mother had
passed away on the previous evening, he put forward an excuse that he was
informed about the death of his grand-mother only on the next morning. It
is difficult to believe that PW-2 was unaware of the serious condition of his
grand-mother particularly because his parents who were living with him,
G
had already gone away to see the old lady in her death bed. On the other
..., hand, PW-3 admitted that he was a witness in another case againstA-1 to
A-4 some years ago and even his father was a witness against A-4 in a case.
Thus, it is difficult to place reliance on the testimony of such a witness as
PW-3 in the aforesaid background. [726-F; 728-A-B; D] H
+
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A 1.4. PW-4 examined as a corroborating witness has stated that he
was a watchman in a poultry farm and on the fateful day after his work
was over ,he was returning home around 11 P.M. when he saw accused
running With axe, knife etc. He went to the scene of occurrence and saw the
deceased lying injured and got the entire narration of the incident from
PW-3. During cross-examination, he said that it was his maiden appear-
B
ance in any court of law, but when he was confronted with Ext. D-17, he
admitted that he had deposed against A-4 earlier also. Further he admitted
that his watchman's work was limited to day time and thus could not
account for his presence at the scene of occurrence at 11 P.M. Thus,
reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of a witness like PW-4 also.
C [727-E-G; 728-A]

2. The Division Bench of the High Court has committed a serious
error in holding that the offence proved as against A-1 and A-3 is only
under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The assailants, who had .....
participated in the occurrence in which deceased was killed so brutally
D
cannot escape from conviction under Section 302 at least with the help of
'}
Section 34, if not with the Section 149 of the India.n Penal Code. The
conviction of the assailant or assailants who inflicted grievous injuries
which resulted in the death of the victim cannot be limited to S. 326 of the
Code. [724-D-E]
E ....
3. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, normally the
concurrent findings relating to the appreciation of evidence were not reo-
. pened. However, in the instant case, the sequc! is that conviction passed on
A-1 and A-3 will have to be altered to Section 302 IPC and the sentence has
to be enhanced to atleast imprisonment for life. In view of such a conse-
F quence befalling the convicted persons, it is necessary in the interest of
justice to make a reappraisal of the evidence. [724-G-H] ~

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
445 and 446 of 1998 Etc. Etc.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.1.97 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Cd.A. No. 900196 and Crl.R.C. No. 1082 of 1996.

M.N. Rao, Ms. K. Amareshwari, A.T. Rao, Tushar Rao, P. Thiruohangv,
A. Subba Rao, Ram Narayan, S.U.K. Sagar, G. Venkatesh, Ms. T. Anamika,
G. Prabhakar, L.N. Rao and G.R.K. Prasad for the appearing parties.
'
H
>-
+
M.P. NARENDRA ETC. v. G.M. PRASAD AND ORS. ETC. [THOMAS, J.] 723

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
THOMAS, J. For the murder of a Gram Sarpanch the sessions court
which tried the case convicted 6 persons for various offences including
criminal conspiracy to commit the said murder. But a Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on appeal filed by the convicted persons,
acquitted most of them and even regarding the two who were found guilty
B
the High Court has chosen to convict them only of the offence under Section
326 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years.
Hence they have appealed before us by special leave. The son of the deceased
filed a separate appeal by special leave challenging the judgment of the High
Court in so far as it is favourable to the accused. The State of Andhra Pradesh c
has also filed an appeal for restoring the conviction and sentence passed by
the trial court. We heard all the appeals together.

The incident happened on the night of 18.1.1993, on a public road.
Prosecution case is that the deceased Sitaram Anjanalelu, the Gram Sarpanch,
was proceeding to the house of his daughter Sujatha (who is married to A.K.
D
Rao). The time was around 11.00 P.M. when the deceased reached almost near
that house. Then 5 accused (all except A-4 Shashiah) jumped out from
ambush, and wayiaid the deceased. After surrounding him the accused
showered him with blows by using axe, knife and similar lethal weapons. The
victim died at the spot after sustaining extensive injuries. E

The backgrow1d for the said occurrence, as pictured by the prosecution,
is that the deceased was a Congress leader and 4th accused Shashiah belonged
to CPI and as between them there were enough causes for rivalry including
an election which was held to the Board of Directors of a Co-operative
F
Society in which a panel set up by the deceased had trounced the candidate
set up by the 4th accused. The newly elected Board of Directors initiated
proceedings against the 4th accused (who held the office of President of the
same society earlier) for misappropriation of the funds of the society. There-
upon 4th accused entered into a conspiracy with other accused for liquidating
the deceased Sitaram Anjanalelu. Accused 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of 4th G
accused and accused Lal Bahadur is his nephew. P.W.l (Pattabhi Nai:endra)
is the son of the deceased. He lodged a complaint in writing with the police
on the same night in which he said that he was walking a few yards behind
his father and witnessed the incident in which all the accused (including the
4th accused Shashiah) launched the attack on his father. But the investigating H
+
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A officer came to understand that A-4 was interned in a jail on the previous
day in connection with some other case, and therefore, it was impossible for
him to be present at the scene of occurrence. So the investigating officer
charge- sheeted the remaining accused mentioned in the complaint for the
offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
B Nonetheless, A-4 was also arraigned as an accused on the allegation that he
had hatched a criminal conspiracy with the other accused to finish the
deceased off.
·~.

Dr. J. Krishnamurthy (PW-10) conducted the autopsy on the dead body
of the deceased. He noticed 17 incised injuries out of which 10 were on the
c head, 3 injuries among them were the most serious injuries and the brain of
the deceased was lacerated.

At the outset, we have to point out that the Division Bench of the High
Court has committed a serious error in holding that the offence proved as
against A-1 and A-3 is only under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The
D assailants, who had participated in the occurrence in which deceased was
killed so brutally, cannot escape from conviction under Section 302 at least
with the help of Section 34, if not with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The c.onviction of the assailant or assailants who inflicted grievous injuries
which resulted in the death of the victim cannot be limited to Section 326
E of the Indian Penal Code.

On the conspectus of the facts of this case, the only inquiry which the
court needs to conduct is whether any one of the accused was among the
assailants who inflicted injuries on the deceased. If the finding is in the
affirmative then that accused cannot escape conviction under Section 302
F
with the aid of Section 34, if not with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

As this is an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, normally,
we would not reopen the concurrent findings relating to the appreciation of
evidence. But in this case if we adopt that standard, the sequel is that
G conviction passed on second and third a~cused will have to be altered to
Section 302 1.P.C. aiid the sentence has to be enhanced to at least imprison-
ment. for life. In view of such a consequence befalling the convicted persons,
we feel it necessary in the interest of justice to make a reappraisal of the
evidence in order to reach our conclusion regarding the reliability of the
evidence of the prosecution.
H
+
M.P. NARENDRA ETC. v. G.M. PRASAD AND ORS. ETC. [THOMAS, J.] 725

If the testimony of PW 1 is believable, the corollary is that the testimony A
of PW2, PW3 and PW4 can also be believed because each of them has
identified the other as present at the scene. The consequence is that the
accused(except A4) cannot escape conviction under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. PW2 and PW3 are the other two
witnesses who said that they were residing in the house of A.K. Rao(son-in-
B
law of the deceased) and on hearing the hue and cry from the nearby road
they rushed out and saw the assailants showering blows on the deceased with
axe and knife, etc.

Would PWl have been present at the place when the occurrence took
place? We have noticed some hurdles in the way for believing that he c
witnessed the occurrence. The foremost amongst such hurdles is the unam-
biguous version given by PWl in his first written complaint that he saw
A4(Shashiah) who is the father of Al to A3, participating in the occurrence
and a specific role (inflicting axe blows on the deceased) has also been
ascribed to that accused. But it was later understood that A4 was in fact D
locked up in a jail during that very night pursuant to a conviction imposed
on him by a criminal Court on the previous day. Jail records as well as the
court proceedings conceived would have proved that fact and hence the police
could not array A4 (Shashiah) as a 'participus criminus'. That might be the
reason why police allotted a different role to A-4 (Shashiah) as the chief
conspirator over the murder of the deceased. When PWI gave evidence in E
Court, he adopted a dubious strategy by saying that A4 was not present at
the scene of occurrence but he saw a person having striking resemblance to
A4 giving axe blows on the deceased.

Though to be interned in jail is a misfortune, it became a blessing to F
A4. If he was not then in jail, what would have been the disastrous
consequences for him. We have no doubt that PWI would certainly have
stuck to his version regarding A4's role in the same manner as he gave in
his written complaint. If the Court had believed PWl, in that situation A4
would have been convicted of the offence under Section 302 l.P.C. Now, we
have no manner of doubt that PW2' s present version, that he identified an G
assailant having close resemblance with A4, is nothing but a canard concocted
for the pwpose of escaping from the charge of a rank perjury.

In this context, it must also be borne in mind that Al, A2 and A3 are
the children of A4. If the father could have been falsely implicated in the H
+
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 3 S.C.R.
A murder of the deceased, why not the rchildren also be arrayed with the same
angle. Hence, the possibility of false implication of Al, A2 and A3 cannot
be lightly glossed over. So, we must seriously consider whether PWl wit-
nessed the occurrence at all or he would have reached the place of occurrence
only after hearing about his father's mishap.
B Apart from the above insurmountable hurdle, if PWl was present when
the occurrence took place, it does not stand to reason why he was completely
spared by the assailants. It is difficult to believe that if PWl was present, a
young man of 33 like him could not have done even a bit to go to the rescue
of his father and if he had done so, he would have sustained injuries, at least
c some minor injuries. But the fact is that PWI did not sustain even a scratch
on his person. Yet another aspect is that if PWI waited to rush to his dying
father till the assailants stopped attacking him even then it is difficult for us
to conceive that at least the clothes of PWl could not have been smeared with
some blood, if not copious blood. But nobody has noticed even a drop of
D blood on his clothes.

We are in complete dearth of satisfactory explanation for such broad
features staring at the reliability of PWl's version. Attached to the above
features is another odd feature. The FIR has been prepared on the strength
of a written complaint furnished by PWl. He said that the complaint was
E scribed by his nephew who was residing 13 kilometers away from the place.
That scribe was not examined as a witness. We do not know how that scribe
was brought to this place from such a distance and at what time. There
certainly would have been confabulations and deliberations before preparing
the written complaint.
F
It is pertinent to notice that PW2 and PW3 also said in their exami-
nation in chief itself that an assailant resembling A4 had participated in the
occurrence by hacking the deceased with an axe on the head. But even they
refrained from saying more than that, lest, any assertion that A4 participated
in the crime would contaminate their testimony. When we read the further
G portion of the testimony of PW2 and PW3, we have come across reasons to
be slow in acting on such testimony as well.

PW2 admitted that he was doing contract work in an industrial estab-
lishment owned by deceased's brother (Venugopal Rao). The defence counsel
seriously disputed that claim of PW2. It was sought to be made out that PW2
H
+
M.P. NARENDRA ETC. v. G.M. PRASAD AND ORS. ETC. [THOMAS, J.] 727

could not have been present on that night even in that village because his ·A
grand mother had passed away on the previous evening. When PWI was
asked about that fact, he said that the parents of PW2 had gone to other
village as they got the information that his grand mother was very serious
and she died at 7 .00 p.m. PW2 would clearly have anticipated that he would
be confronted with that question during cross-examination. So he put forward
B
an excuse that he was informed of the death of his grandmother only on the
next morning. It is difficult for us to believe that PW2 was unaware of the
serious condition of his grandmother particularly because his parents who
were living with him, had already gone away to see the old lady in her death
bed.
c
PW3 (Pothuraju), an employee under deceased' s son-in-law A.K. Rao
said that he was residing in one of the rooms of the house of A.K. Rao. His.
evidence is in tune with PWI and PW2 and so he also said that a person
resembling A4 was one of the main assailants. Why did he also say that? PW3
being a dependant of A.K. Rao appears to be speaking in tune with his master D
because he admitted that he was a witness in another case against Al to A4
which was tried in 1980. He also admitted that even his father was a witness
against A4 in a case tried in 1968. We have difficulty to place reliance on
the testimony of such a witness as PW2 in the aforesaid background.

Although PW4 did not see the occurrence or any part of it, prosecution E
examined him as a corroborating witness. He said that he was a watchman
of the poultry farm of one A. Koteswararao and after his work was over on
the date of occurrence, he walked home and on the way, he saw these
accused(except A4) running with axe, knife, etc. The time was about 11.00
p.m. then. A little later, PW4 saw the three witnesses (PWI, PW2 and PW3) F
and PW4 went to the scene of occurrence and saw the deceased lying injured
and he got the entire narration of the incident from PW3. Normally, a witness
like PW4 would be sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the eye
witnesses. When Counsel for some of the accused cross-examined him, he
said that it was his maiden appearance in any court of law on that day. But
when another Counsel appearing for the remaining accused confronted him G
with Ext. D-17 (a copy of his deposition which he gave in 1957 in another
case), he admitted that he had deposed against A4 even in 1957. As the
defence strongly disputed his claim that he was employed by Koteswararao,
he had to admit, to a Court question, that there is no record to show that he
was so employed. Even that apart, he said that his watchman work was H
728 SUPREME COORT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A. limited to the day time. If so how could he account for his presence at the
scene of occurrence at 11.00 p.m.? The above are features which dissuade
us from placing reliance on his testimony as a witness of truth.
/
For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to hold that prosecution has
succeeded in establishing that the accused in this case were the assailants who
B attacked the deceased. We entertain a reasonable doubt on: that score.

In the result, we allow the appeal filed by Al and A3 and set aside
the conviction sentence passed on them. They are acquitted. The remaining
appeals are dismissed.
c S.V.K. Appeals dismissed.