Read Time: 09 minutes

While disregarding an observation that the eyewitnesses were planted witnesses merely on the ground that they were all interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased, the Top Court on Monday said,

"Merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the aforesaid ground."

A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna made this observation while allowing an appeal filed one M. Nageswara Reddy who had challenged the order of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

As per the case of the prosecution, a total of 11 accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with hunting sickles, came from behind the sumo vehicle and surrounded it near Dr. Kabir Clinic at Gayithri Estate, Kurnool, in which the deceased Rajasekhar Reddy and his brother M. Nageswara Reddy (PW1) and other supporters Shaik Akbar Basha (PW3), P. Sekhar (PW7) and S. Venkagamuni (PW8) were travelling, and S. Rajesh (PW6) was the driver.

Accused Nos. 1 to 3 forcibly opened the front left side door and dragged out the deceased and immediately hacked him with hunting sickles indiscriminately while Accused Nos. 8 to 11 hit the glass windows of the sumo vehicle with hunting sickles and broke the glasses.

Accused Nos. 9 & 11 hacked the driver Rajesh (PW6) and he sustained bleeding injuries on his right shoulder, hand and side ribs, while Accused Nos. 4 to 7 chased PW1, PW3, PW7 & PW8 and when they were fleeing injuries were caused to PW7 and later all of them fled away.

The deceased Rajasekhar Reddy died on the spot whereas PW6 & PW7 were taken to Government General Hospital, Kurnool. On the report of LW1 (Nageswara Reddy) a case was registered against the accused.

To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined all seventeen witnesses - PW1, PW3 & PW5 were the eye witnesses to the incident and PW6 & PW7 were the injured eye witnesses who sustained injuries during the incident.

The trial court held Accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148 & 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and one year R.I. for the offence under Section 148 IPC and acquitted Accused Nos. 4 to 11 of all the charges levelled against them.

In the appeals filed by both the parties, High Court acquitted the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the complainant, confirming the acquittal of accused Nos. 4 to 11.

No major/material contradictions were found in the deposition of the eye-witnesses and injured eye-witnesses by the Top Court.

Another reason given by the High Court was that the FIR was not registered at the time as claimed by the prosecution, but it was registered many hours after the occurrence and sent to the Magistrate with unexplained delay did not sit well with the Supreme Court.

"...the FIR was lodged within seven hours. As per the prosecution, it was lodged immediately. The interpolation of the time of the incident, 0.30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., could not be explained as the same was not raised before the trial Court. No question on the same was asked to the concerned witnesses. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of seven hours cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case", noted the bench.

The Court further noted that PW6 being an injured eye-witness, his presence ought not to have been doubted and being an injured eye-witness, as per the settled proposition of law laid down by the Court in catena of decisions, his deposition has a greater reliability and credibility.

Referring to the High Court's recording that the same reasoning which was adopted by the court below for acquitting accused Nos. 4 to 11 will also be equally applicable to accused Nos. 1 to 3, the top court held that the roles attributed to Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Accused Nos. 4 to 11 were different.

"Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are the main assailants. They are identified by the 15 eye-witnesses/injured eye-witnesses. The overt acts of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are different than that of Accused Nos. 4 to 11. Therefore, the case of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 is not comparable with the case of Accused Nos. 1 to 3."

Accordingly, the impugned judgment was set aside with a direction to Accused Nos. 1 to 3, to surrender to undergo the remaining sentence, within a period of four weeks.

Cause Title: M. Nageswara Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others