Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which partly allowed the appeals against the trial court's judgment in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1980. The prosecution case pertained to a bomb attack on 21 May 1979 between 8 and 8:30 PM in Bitragunta-Bengole village, where the deceased, a fancy and wine shop owner and Panchayat member, was killed by bombs allegedly hurled by the accused. The incident was attributed to political rivalry and personal enmity between the deceased and A-1, who was Sarpanch of the village and ran a cloth shop adjacent to the deceased's shop. The accused persons included A-1 S. Srihari Naidu, A-2 T. Venkaiah Naidu, A-3 S. Mallikarjuna Naidu, and others. On the date of occurrence, the deceased was talking to witnesses when A-1 to A-3 and others emerged from behind a lorry; on A-1's instigation, A-2 and A-3 hurled bombs, one hitting the deceased's back and exploding, causing massive injuries that led to instantaneous death. An FIR was lodged by the deceased's brother at about 10:30 PM after a delay of two hours. The trial court convicted A-1, A-5, and A-6 under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC and other offences, sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting A-2 and A-3 of the main charges. On appeal, the High Court set aside the conspiracy conviction and acquitted A-5 and A-6, but convicted A-1 under Section 147 IPC, and A-2 and A-3 under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and also under Section 9 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, maintaining life sentences. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of A-2 and A-3 and convicting them, and whether the evidence of P.W.4, a relative, and P.W.6, an independent witness, was reliable despite delay in recording statements and absence of injury to P.W.6. The appellants argued that the FIR was prepared after deliberations and delayed, that there was a prior written report Exh D-17 which made Exh P-2 not the first information report, that P.W.6's presence was doubtful as he was not mentioned in the FIR and his statement was recorded next morning, and that P.W.4 and P.W.10 were interested witnesses. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and held that although the presence of P.Ws 1 and 2 at the scene was doubtful, the conviction could be sustained on the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.6. P.W.4's testimony as a relative was subjected to close scrutiny and found credible, corroborated by P.W.6, an independent witness. The court explained that P.W.6 did not sustain injury because the first bomb hit the deceased, shielding him, and the second bomb exploded sideways without hitting the deceased. The delay in recording P.W.6's statement was attributed to his duty timings and unavailability, which was not a valid ground to reject his testimony. The court reiterated the principle that an appellate court should be slow in reversing an order of acquittal unless there are good and strong grounds, and found that the High Court's interference was based on credible evidence. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 1983 filed by A-1 abated due to his death on 2 August 1992, and the appeals filed by A-2 and A-3 were dismissed, upholding their conviction and life sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder and Unlawful Assembly - Conviction under Sections 147, 149, 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Trial court acquitted A-2 and A-3 of murder charges, but High Court reversed acquittal and convicted them under Section 302/149 IPC relying on eyewitness testimony; Supreme Court held that appellate court can reverse acquittal only on strong grounds, and here evidence of P.W.4 (relative) and P.W.6 (independent) was credible and corroborated, establishing guilt - Held that conviction under Section 302/149 IPC was justified (Paras 1-5). B) Criminal Law - Explosive Substances Offences - Sections 8 and 9 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - High Court convicted A-2 and A-3 under Section 9 for hurling bombs and maintained conviction of A-1 and A-3 under Section 8; Supreme Court upheld these convictions based on medical evidence and eyewitness accounts that bombs hit deceased causing fatal injuries - Held that involvement in bomb attack proved beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-5). C) Evidence Law - Eyewitness Testimony - Related and Interested Witnesses - Evidence of a relative witness can be accepted if it withstands close scrutiny and is corroborated by independent witness; here P.W.4's testimony corroborated by P.W.6, an independent witness, and minor discrepancies like no injury to P.W.6 or delay in recording statement did not render testimony unreliable - Held that testimony was credible (Paras 1-5). D) Criminal Procedure - First Information Report - Delay and Antecedent Report - FIR Exh P-2 lodged after two hours delay and alleged prior report Exh D-17 not produced; Supreme Court noted that presence of P.Ws 1 and 2 at scene doubtful due to non-mention in case diary statement of P.W.6, but conviction can be sustained on other evidence even ignoring their testimony - Held that defective/delayed FIR not fatal when other reliable evidence exists (Paras 1-5). E) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Principles for Interference - Appellate court should be slow in reversing order of acquittal unless there are good and strong grounds; Supreme Court examined evidence and found High Court's reversal based on credible eyewitness testimony was justified - Held that interference with acquittal was proper in circumstances (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the appellants under Sections 147, 149, 302 IPC and Sections 8, 9 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, based on the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.6; whether the delayed FIR and alleged prior report affected the prosecution case
Final Decision
Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 1983 filed by A-1 S. Srihari Naidu abated due to his death on 2 August 1992. The appeals filed by A-2 and A-3 were dismissed, upholding the High Court's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC and Section 9 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
Law Points
- Appellate court should be slow to reverse acquittal but can interfere on strong grounds
- evidence of related witness can be accepted if corroborated by independent witness and withstands close scrutiny
- delay in recording statement not fatal if explained
- absence of injury to eyewitness not a ground to discard testimony when circumstances explain
- conviction can be sustained on credible evidence despite defective FIR
