Holding

The High Court judgment is not a proper judgment under Section 354 CrPC and is set aside.

Summary

The State of Andhra Pradesh prosecuted ten accused for forming an unlawful assembly and murdering a man returning from a canal, with several eye‑witnesses (PW‑1, 3, 4, 6, 7) testifying to the gruesome attack. The Sessions Court convicted the accused under IPC sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, imposing death, life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court acquitted all the accused, but the Supreme Court held that the High Court judgment failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it neither marshalled the prosecution evidence nor formulated clear points for decision. The Court observed that the High Court perfunctorily concluded that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond doubt despite the presence of eye‑witness testimony. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a proper appraisal of the evidence. The interim bail orders were cancelled and the case was ordered to be heard as early as possible. The appeal by the State was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court judgment acquitting all accused complied with the requirements of Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Whether the evidence of eye‑witnesses was sufficient to sustain the convictions under IPC sections 147, 148, 149 and 302.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 354
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 326

Subjects

murderunlawful assemblyeye‑witness testimonySection 354 CrPCappellate reviewevidence appraisalacquittalremand

Judgment

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v. A
y GOWTHU RANGHUNAYAKULU AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 19, 1986

[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] B

Criminal Procedure Code, 19~3-Section 354-High Court Judgment
acquitting all accused-Evidence of prosecution witness who were eye-
witnesses to a gruesome murder-Not at all considered and marshalled-:
Points for decision not formulated-Judgment set aside-Case remanded lo
High Court .
- ...( c
The ten accused persons forming themselves into an unlawful assembly
in. the house of A-1 and arming themselves with spears, sticks and crow-bars
~- attacked the deceased while he was returning from the canal carrying water in
'Kavadi'. As a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased he died. All the ten
accused were charged under s. 147 J.P.C. accused A-1, A-4, AS and A-6, who D
were armed with deadly weapons were also charged under s. 148 I.P.C. and
accused A-1 to A-10 were further charged under s. 302 read with s.149 I.P.C.

The trial Court acquitted A-4, A-9 and A-10 of all the charges levelled
against them. Accused A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-8 were convicted u/s.147
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Accused E
·A-1, A-5 and A-6 were convicted u/s. 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years. Accused A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-6 were
convicted u/s 302 read with s.149 I.P.C. and sentenced to death. Accused A-3,
A-7 and A-8 were also convicted u/s. 302 read withs. 149 I.P .C. but sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life.
F

l
The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the convicted accused and
acquitted all of them of the charges levelled against them and rejected the
reference.

Allowing the appeal of the State to this Court,
G
HELD: 1. The judgment passed by the High Court acquitting all the
accused is not a proper judgment in accordance with the provisions of s. 354 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The learned Judge has not at all
r· considered and marshalled the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the
prosecution particularly the evidence of PWs. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 who were eye
witnesses to the gruesome murder committed in the morning at about 7.30 a.m. H

327
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) I S.C.R.

A The names of all the seven accused appea·red in the F.l.R. [330 q

2. The learned Judge approached the case from wrong angle and without
properly formulating the points for decisions and without any proper appraisal
of the evidences adduced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
persons and also without adverting to the reasoning of the Sessions Judge, has
B perfunctorily come to the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove
beyond doubt the case against the accused even though there are eye-witnesses )
P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 to the occurrence. [330 E]

3. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the case is remitted

c
back to the High Court for deciding it i» accordance with law on a proper
appraisal and marshalling of the evidence on record as early as possible.
>I

[330 F-G]
)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 12
of 1978
D From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.1976 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Referred Trial No. 2 of 1976.

K. Ram Kumar for the Appellant.

G. Narasimhulu and S.K. Mehta for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.C. RAY, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and
order dated 19.4.1976 made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the
Referred Trial No. 2 cif 1976 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 159, 168 and 169 of
F l 976 acquitting all the 7 accused who were convicted and sentenced by the ~
Sessions Court, West Godawari Division at Eluru, Andhra Pradesh in Sessions ·-
Case No. 71 of 1975.
The prosecution case in short is that on 23rd July, 1974 at 7.30 a.m. the
accused persons forming themselves into an unlawful assembly in the house of
the lst accused and arming themselves with spears, sticks and crow-bars
G attacked the deceased while he was returning from the canal carrying water in
what is locally known as "Kavadi". When the deceased reached the house of the
l st accused, ali the ten accused came fmn behind and the 2nd accused gave a
blow with a stick on the back of the head of the deceased as a consequence of
which he fell down on his back. Then the lst accused speared the deceased on
H his face and legs, the 5th accused poked the deceased on his right wrist with a
crow-bar and the 6th accused speared the deceased on his legs and hands. The
ANDHRA PRADESH v. G. RANGHUNAYAKULU [RAY, J.] 329

rest of the accused then beated the deceased with sticks.indiscriminately. The A
deceased cried "Bobu". This was heard by his wife (P.W.5) from her house
which is situated about 150 yards. She immediately ran to the scene of
occurence and saw accused 1 to 8 and two others entering into the house of the
!st accused. P.W. 5 then sent intimation to her brother P.W. 2 ~ho was
working as labourer in a sugar factory through P.W. 8. RW. 2 and others took
the deceased to Bhimadole Police Station in a cart which is about 4 kms. away B
from their house and lodged the F.I.R., Ex. P-1 wherein all the names of
accused Nos. Al to A4 and A6 to A8 as well a• the nature of injuries inflicted on
the person of the deceased were mentioned. This FIR was registered at 9.30
a.m. and a case u/s 326 l.P.C. was registered. Subsequently, the deceased was
found dead on examination by the D"octor, P.W. 12 at the Govern~ent
Hospital, Eluru. The F.I.R. was then altered to one u/s 302 I.P.C. The C
Inspector of Police made inquest of the dead body and the inquest report has
been marked as Ex. P5. All the IO accused were cliarged u/s 1471.P.C. The
accused Al; A4, A5 and A6 who were armed with deadly weapons were also
charged u/s 148 I.P.C. and accused Al to AIO were charged uf.s 302 read with
section 149 I.P.C. They were all committed to the Court of Sessions.

The Sessions Judge after coruiidering the entire evidence and also hearing
.the counsel for the prosecution as well as the defence found that accused Al to
A3 and A5 to A8 were guilty of the offence u/s 147 I.P.C. and alsou/s302 read
,with section 149 l.P.C. Al, A5 and. A6 were also held guilty u/s 1481.P.C. The
accused A4, A9 and AIO were however acquitted of the offence u/s 1471.P.C. E
Accused A4 was also not found guilty ofoffence u/s 1481.P.C. The accused Al,
A5 and A6 who were convicted u/s 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. were
sentenced to death and they were directed to be hanged by their necks till their
death subject to confirmation by the High Court. A3, A7 and A8 were
convicted u/s 302 read with section 149 1.P.C. and they were sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life. A2 was also convicted u/ s 302 read with section F
149 1.P. C. and he was sentenced to death and directed to be hanged by his neck
till death.subject to confirmation by the High Court. The accused Al to A3 and
A5 to A8 who were convicted u/s 147 I.P.C. were sentenced. to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for o.ne year. Al, A5 and A6 were convicted u/s 148
l.P.C. and they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the
above sentences were to run concurrently.
G

Against this judgment and order 3 criminal· appeals being Criminal
}- Appeal Nos. 159/ 1976, 168/ 1976 and ~69/ 1976 were filed. These criminal
appeals along with R.T. No. 2of1976 were heard by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad and the learned Judge by his order dated 5th May, 1976
acquitted all the accused of both the charges of rioting and murder levelled H
330 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) I S.C.R.

A against them and set aside the convictions and sentences allowing all the appeals
and rejecting the reference.
It is against this judgment and order the instant appeal on special leave
was filed before this court by the State. This court granted special leave to
appeal by its order dated 11.1.1978 and also ordered issue of bailable warrants
B against each of the accused persons in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety to
the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru. l

We have heard the learned .coumel for both the parties .and we are
constrained to hold that the judgment passed by the High Court acquitting all
the dccused is not a proper judgment h accordance with the provisions of !
C Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Prooxlure 197.3- The learned Judge has not
at all considered and marshalled the evidences examined on behalf of the
prosecution particularly the evidences of PWs 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 who were eye
witnesses to the gruesome murder committed in the morning at about 7.30 a.m.
The names of all the 7 accused appeared in the F.l.R. lodged by PW-2 in the
Police Station at 9.30a.m., Ex. Pl and fa. P.23 and P.24 dated 23.7.1974. The
D learned Judge did not formulate properly the points for decision and did not
marshal the evidences on record and did not come to specific finding on each of
the points for determination by recording specific reasons for arriving at the
decision. It is really unfortunate that the learned Judge approached the case
from wrong angle and without properly formulating the points for decision and
without any proper appraisal of the evidences adduced by the prosecution to
E prove the guilt of the accused persons and also without adverting to the
reasonings of the Sessions Judge, has pe1functorily come to the finding thatthe
prosecution has failed to prove beyond c1.oubt the case against the accused even
though there are eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 to the occurence.

In our considered opinion, this judgment is not in accordance with the
F mandatory requirements as laid down in Section 354 of the Code of Criminal ~
Procedure. We therefore, set aside the judgment and order ofacquittal passed -·
by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and remit the case back to the High
Court, Andhra Pradesh for deciding the case in accordance ·With law on a
proper appraisal and marshalling of the evidences on record as early as possible.
The order of interim stay is vacated and bail bonds are cancelled. The records be
G sent to the High Court forthwith. Th., High Court will be free to consider
whether the accused will be enlarged c n bail.

A.P.J.

H