Holding

The conviction of the appellant under sections 120‑B/302 IPC and related offences is upheld as the evidence of PW‑4 and PW‑6, corroborated by other independent witnesses, is credible and sufficient.

Summary

The case concerned the murder of Pallamareddi Ramanareddi by bombs allegedly hurled by Tallurri Venkaiah Naidu (appellant) and co‑accused. The trial court acquitted several accused but convicted the appellant under sections 120‑B/302 IPC and related provisions. The High Court set aside the trial court's acquittals and upheld the appellant's conviction, relying on the testimony of a relative witness (PW‑4) and an eye‑witness (PW‑6) despite challenges about their interest and delayed statements. The appellant appealed, arguing that the FIR was delayed, the witnesses were unreliable, and the appellate court should not disturb the trial court's findings. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the witnesses, held that the relative's testimony was corroborated by independent eye‑witnesses, and found no fault with the High Court’s reasoning. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction, while a separate appeal abated due to the appellant's death.

Issues considered

The adequacy and reliability of testimony of a relative witness and an eye‑witness in establishing the appellant's participation in the bomb attack.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and recording statements vitiates the evidence.
Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court's acquittal of the appellant.
Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain conviction under sections 120‑B, 302, 147, 148, 149 IPC and the Explosive Substances Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378
Explosive Substances Act, 1908s. 3
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 120-B, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302

Subjects

murderconspiracybomb attackeyewitness testimonyrelative witnessappellate reviewIndian Penal CodeExplosive Substances Actevidentiary reliability

Judgment

TALLURRI VENKAIAH NAIDU AND ANR. ETC. A
v.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AUGUST 21, 1996

[FAIZAN UDDIN AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] B

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 120-B/302 and 302/109.

Code of Climinal Procedure, 1973 : Section 378.

R>:plosive Substances Act, 1908: Section 3. c
Murder--Conviction-Validity-Number of accused-Enemity between
accused and deceased-Deceased talking to witnesse:r-Emergence of accused
persons on scene-Bomb thrown by accused persons 011 the instigation of
other co-accused--Trial-Acquittal-Appeal prefmed before High Court-Ac- D
quittal of some accused by High Court and conviction of appellant-Ap-
peal-Sustainability of conviction of appellant-Held 011 facts evidence of
PW-4, patemal uncle of the deceased, was fully corroborated by other inde-
pendent witness-Held the implication of appellant in crime was fully estab-
lished.
E
Witnes:r-Relative witnes:r-Acceptance of-Safeguard:r-Relative wit-
ness should be subjected to careful and close scruti117If such a witness
stands scrutiny there is no reason not to accP.pt his testimony-Mere fact that
witness is related to deceased is no ground to reject his testimony if othe1wise
found to be truthful.
F
Acquittal-Appeal against-Power of High Cowt to inteifere-Appellate
Court should be slow in reversing the order of acquittal unless there are good
and strong grounds for inteiference-Reasoning of the Trial Cowt in rejecting
the evidence of prosecution witnesses.found high!)' discrepant and er-
roneou:r-Reversal of tlial cowt's order by High Cowt held justified. G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
425 of 1983 Etc.

From the Judgment and order dated 28.2.83 of the Andhra Pradesh
High.. Court in Cr!. A. No. 784 of 1980. H
1
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A U.R. Lalit, B. Kanta Rao and Ms. Sudha Gupta for the Appellants.

Ms. K. Ameraswari and G. Prabhakar for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
In Sessions Case No. 8 of 1980, the three appellants were variously
charged and tried along with three other co-accused and the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, Nellore by a judgment dated
24th May, 1980 convicted S. Srihari Naidu, the appellant No. 1 as well as
R. Ramasubha Reddy and Ganapam Ghealla Reddy, the accused Nos. 5
c and 6 respectively under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Penal
Code. A/6 has also been convicted under Section 302/109 IPC as well as
under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. All the three were
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on each count, but all sentences
were directed to run concurrently. The trial Court acquitted A-2, A-3 and
D A-4 from all the offences they were charged with. A-1 to A-5 and A-6 were
also acquitted of some of the other charges that were framed against them.
The convicted accused, namely, A-1, A-5 and A-6 preferred an appeal in
the High Court. The State of Andh~a Pradesh also preferred an appeal
against the acquittal of A-2 to A-4 as well as against A-1 and A-5 who was
acquitted of some of the other offences. The High Court held that charge
E under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC was not established against
any of the accused persons and therefore set aside the conviction under.
Section 120-B/302 IPC. The High Court also allowed the appeal of A-5 and
A·6 and :>et aside their conviction and sentence on all counts. But the High
Court found the appellant herein A-1 guilty of the offences under Section
F 147 IPC and after setting aside acquittal of A-2 and A-3 namely , T.
Venkaiah Naidu and S. Mallikarjuna Naidu respectively, they were found
guilty under Section 148 IPC. The High Court also held A-2 guilty for the
offence under Section 302 IPC and A-1 and A-3 guilty under Section
302/149 IPC. A-2 and A-3 are fuither held guilty under Section 9. of
G Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and convicted them accordingly and all the
three were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction of A-1
and A-3 under Section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act was also main-
tained bat no separate sentence has been awarded on that eoimt. A-1 has
filed Cr. A. No. 741/83 against his aforesaid conviction and A-2 and A-3
have filed Cr!. A. No. 425/83 against the common judgment. We are
H informed at the very outset by the learned counsel for the appellants that
·~·
T.V. NAIDU v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR H.C. OF AP. 3

· A-1, namely S. Srihari Naidu died during the Pendency of this appeal on A
2nd August, 1992 and therefore, Cr!. A. No. 741/83 abates .
....
~
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 21st May,
1979 between 8 - 8.30 PM when the deceased Pallamareddi Ramanareddi,
a resident of village Bitragunta-Bogole, had closed his shop. The deceased
B
was running a fancy shop and wine shop in bagole village. He was also a
member of Panchayat, A-1 to A-4 are also residents of the same village
where A-1 was having a cloth shop adjacent to that of the fancy shop of
the deceased. A-1 was also a Sarpanch of the village and there were
.>
political rivalaries between the deceased and A-1, A-2 is the son-in-law of
A-1 and A- 3 is the nephew of A-1. According to the prosecution, prior to c
the occurrence in question, there were certain incidents on account of
which certain criminal case was pending against the deceased due to which
there was enmity between them. This apart, the A-1 was indulging in cotton
market gambling and the deceased made complaints to the Police and the
Police began to keep watch on the activities of A-1 and hence A-1 was
D
I having grudge against the deceased. It is said that since A-1 to A-3
#
entertained grudge against the deceased, they issued threats to his life. On
the date and time of the occurrence, the brothers (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) of
the deceased had closed the shop while the deceased was standing in front
of his shop along with his clerk. At that point of time, P.Ws. 5, 8 and 9
arrived there. The deceased was talking to them and when they proceeded, E
P.W.6 arrived there and when they were busy in talking, A-1 to A-3 along
with three other persons emerged from behind a lorry standing there and
on the instigation of A-1, A-2 and A-3 hurled bombs at the deceased. The
bomb hurled by A-2 hit the deceased on his back and exploded. The bomb
hurled by A-3 fell near the deceased and exploded. The deceased fell down F
and died instantaneously.

The further prosecution ease is that Vijayasena Reddy, P.W. 1, the
younger brother of the deceased opened the shop, dictated a report to his
~
another brother Valmati Parandhama Reddy, P.W. 2.• and took it to the
police station, Bitragunta, where he lodged a written report (Exh. P-2) at G
about 10.30 PM on the basis of which FIR was recorded by the Sub-In-
spector, P.W. 23. The Police inspector, P.W. 20 recorded the statements
of some of the witnesses during the night and the statement of others were
recorded next morning. An inquest P-25 was prepared between 7 to 9 A.M.
next day. H

)
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Dr. M. Venkataratnamma, P.W. 16 performed an autopsy on the
dead body of the deceased, who as per his post mortem report, Exh. P- 6,
found a single injury on the pe.rson of the deceased which is as follows :

"A quadrangular, la.cerated, burnt injury in between both the
scapular region, measuring about 9' to 10' in length, in all sides.
B The depth of the would is about 3" in the middle upto the spinal
column and on either side of the spinal column, the the depth of
the wound is about 4" to 5", upto the lungs and heart. Both the
lungs and the posterior surface of the heart, in its lower portion
are charred. The heart is charred, at its lower portion about 1" x
c 1". The laceration and charring of muscles extends upto the middle
of the back, that is 10th thorasic Vertabrae. The posterior portions
of the Vertabrae from 1st to 10th are broken and burnt, exposing
the spinal column. Spinal cord is also damaged, Ribs from 2nd to
8th on either side were broken and charred. All the muscles are
cha:rred in the middle of the wound, and deeply carcerated,
D peripherally. The surr01mding skin is blackish, about 2" to 3" all
round the wound."

Jn the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died to shock and massive
destruction of the tissues and the spinal cord as a result of the burn injury.
E In the opinion of the doctor, depth could be instantaneous as the injury
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

At the trial, the appellants and the acquitted accused pleaded false
implication due to enmity, However, the learned trial Judge, convicted A-1,
A-5 and A-6, as said earlier, which findings have been reversed by the High
F Court so far as A-2, A-3 A-5 and A-6 are concerned. The High Court
acquitted A-4 to A-6 but convicted the three appellants, as said above,
against which these two appeals have been directed.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the·
FIR, Exh. P-2, was prepared after due deliberations and made after a long
G delay. It was submitted that prior to the report, Ex. P-2, made by P.W.1,
the village Munsiff - P.W. 22 had already intimated the incident to the
police by a written report Ex. D- 17. He, therefore, submitted that Ex. P-2
cannot be regarded as the First Information Report. He submitted that in
the FIR, the presence of other witnesses has been mentioned but the
H presence of PW.8 is conspicuously missing, who is said to be the star
T.V. NAIDU v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR H.C. OF AP. 5

witness of the prosecution. He also submitted that PW. 6 cannot be A
accepted as an eye-witness for the reason that though he is said to be
talking to the deceased at the time of the occurrence, he sustained no injury
when two bombs were hurled at the deceased and hence his presence at
the place of occurrence is ruled out. Secondly, since his statement was
recorded at about 9 A.M. the next morning, after a long delay, it raises a B
serious doubt about the presence of P.W.6 at the place of occurrence. It
has also been submitted that the conduct of P.W. 6 is such that it is difficult
to place reliance on his testimony. As regards the evidence of P.W. 4 and
P.W. 10, learned counsel urged that no relevance can be placed on them
because P.W. 4 is the uncle and PW. 10 had worked under the deceased
and thus both were interested witnesses. c
We have critically examined the evidence on record through the
assistance of the ~earned counsel for the parties and also perused the
judgments of the two courts below. It is true that it appears that the report
Ex. P-2 lodged by P.W. 1 was prepared after deliberations. The incident D
had occurred between 8 to 8.30 P.M. while this report was dictated by P,)V.
·, 1 in the shop and lodged at about 10.30 P.M. after two hours though the
police station is situated close-by at a distance less then one mile. In the
case diary statement of P.W. 6, who is the star witness of the prosecution,
the presence of PWs. l and 2 at the place of occurrence has not been E
mentioned. It is just possible that the two brothers of deceased, P.Ws, 1
and 2 arrived later at the place of scene after getting information of the
occurrence which resulted into late reporting to the police. The presence
of P.Ws. 1 and 2, therefore, becomes highly doubtful at the place and time
of occurrence.
F

The question; therefore, arises whether there is convincing evidence
and material on record to sustain the conviction of the appellants even if
the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is ignored. We have examined the evidence
of P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. P.W. 4 as said earlier, is the paternal uncle of G
the deceased who is also having a shop in the same vicinity where the
incident had occurred and therefore his presence at the place of occur-
rence cannot be doubted. He categorically stated that after closing his shop
at about 8.00 PM he went to the centre and saw the deceased talking to
P.W. 8 in front of this shop and it was at that point of time that A-1, A-2
and A-3 along with two others were seen going towards the lorry standing H

\
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A near the shop of the deceased. He further deposed that A-1 to A-3 and
three other accused went behind the deceased and A-1 exhorted to hurl
bombs at which A-2 and A-3 hurled the bombs at the deceased. The boAflb
hurled by A-2 hit the deceased at his back and the bomb hurled by A-2
fell near him and exploded. Similar is the evidence of P.W.6 who deposed
B that he was working as steam-man in Loan-shed Bitragunta and was going
to his duty and had reached the place of occurrence where he saw the
deceased talking to P.Ws. 5, 8 and 9 and when they proceeded ahead, the
deceased accosted him and started talking to him. It was shortly thereafter
that A-1 to A-3 along with three other persons emerged from behind the
lorry and on the instigation of A-1, A-2 threw a bomb which hit the
C deceased on his back and A-8 also threw a bomb which fell near the
deceased and exploded. The statement of A-4 is thus corroborated by the
evidence of an independent witness P.W. 6. The note of caution sounded
for accepting the evidence of a relative witness is that it should be
subjected to careful and close scrutiny and if such a witness stood the test
D of careful and close scrutiny, there is no reason not to accept his testimony.
In the present case we find that the evidence of P.W. 4 not only with-stood
the said test but is also corroborated by the evidence of an independent ·-
witness P.W. 6. Nothing turns on the conduct of P.W. 6 in going to his
place of duty along with his brother and change of his dress etc.

E The evidence of P.W. 6 has been seriously assailed by the learned
counsel for the appellants on the ;ground that he did not sustain any injury
inspite of the fact that two bombs were hurled one of which hit the
deceased and other fall near him and exploded. But the fact cannot be lost ·
sight of that the first bomb had hit the deceased on the back while P.W. 6
F was standing facing the deceased. There was hardly any occasion for the
first bomb to hit P.W. 6 as he was covered by the body of the deceased.
The bomb particles would have gone side-ways. The second bomb which
fell by the side of the deceased also exploded and emitted smoke, it
appears that the splinters of the se.cond bomb had travelled to some other
direction as admittedly, the second bomb had fallen by the side of the
G deceased but no part of it hit even the deceased, it is therefore, difficult to
accept that since no injury was caused to P.W. 6 by the second bomb, his
presence becomes doubtful. As regards the late recording of the police
statement of P.W. 6 it may be stated, that the fact that he was present at
the place of the occurrence became known to the investigating agency only
H after the mid-night and since P.W. 6 had left for duty somewhere in the

j
T.V. NAIDU v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR H.C. OF AP. 7

Logoshed where he remained till 6 AM he was not available for interroga- A
tion. The police statement of P.Ws. 5, 8 and 9 were recorded at the same
time when the statement of P.W. 6 was recorded. This short delay in
.., recording the case diary statement of P.W. 6, for the aforesaid reason.
> cannot be a valid ground, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, to reject his testimony. The presence of P.W. 6 at the place of B
occurrence is testified by the independent witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 5 , 8
and 9 and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Similar is the
evidence of P.W. 10. From the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 6
coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 8 and 9, as well as that of P.W. 10,
the implication of the appellants in the crime is fully established.
>
c
Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the High
Court should not have interferred with the well reasoned judgment of the
c trial court and should not have reversed the findings recorded by the trial
.Court. In support of this submission, learned counsel cited various
authorities of this Court. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the D
well settled law that the appellate court should be slow in reversing the
order of acquittal unless there are good and strong grounds for inter-
ference. We have examined the reasonings of the trial court and the High
Court and find that the reasoning of the trial court in rejecting the evidence
of P.Ws. 4 and 6 is highly discrepent and patently erroneous which could
not be accepted at all. The evidence of P.W. 4 has been rejected on the E
ground that he is an interested witness being an uncle of the deceased. But
as said earlier, the mere fact that the witness happens to be a close relative
· is no ground to reject his testimony if his evidence is otherwise found to
be truthful. As discussed above, we find no infermity in the evidence of
P.W. 4. The evidence of P.W. 6 and other eye witnesses has been rejected F
by the trial court on the ground that after the bomb had exploded P.Ws.
4, 6 and other witnesses would not have been able to see the miscreants
who had hurled the bomb due to smoke after explosion. But this reasoning
is not only faulty but perverse and could not be accepted. It may be noticed
,._. that all the eye witnesses have deposed that· they first saw the accused G
::r~ persons A-1 to A-3 and three others emerging from behind the lorry
{ stationed near place of occurrence and on exhortation by A-1 the other
accused A-2 and A-3 hurled the Bombs. It would be but natural that such
exhortation would have attracted the attention of witnesses and they would
:A have seen the accused/appellants hurling the bombs. It is common
knowledge that the smoke will follow later after the bombs are hurled and H

-·•
s SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A exploded. The trial Court was, therefore, patently wrong in holding that
the eye witness would not have seen the occurrence due to the smoke
amitted from the explosion of bombs. The High Court has given cogent
and plai1sible reasons for rejecting the aforesaid finding of the trial court
and accepting the evidence of said eye-witnesses, we find ourselves in
agreement with the view tak1~n by the High Court.
B
Learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that there was
failure of electric supply and the electric light was intermittently going off
and the shops were also closed by 8.00 P.M. and, therefore, it was not
possible for the witnesses to see the accused person and the incident. But
c on scrutiny of record we find that evidence is quite contrary to the
aforementioned submissions. The evidence goes to show that there was no
failure of electricity at the time of occurrence. If the electric failure was so
frequent, the shop-keepers would not take the risk and they would keep
the Patromax ready for the occasion. In these facts and circumstance of
the case we find no grounds for any interference in the impugned judg-
D ment.

In the result, Cr!. A. No. 425/83 is dismissed. The appellants are on
bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender to serve
out the remaining sentence. However, Cr!. A. No. 741/83 abates due to the
death of sole appellant S. Srihari Naidu.
E
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

+

'..._