This Article has been written by Ms. Karishma Singh , a 2nd year B.A LL.B student from Lloyd Law College
Case Title : Pedda Narayana & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 April, 1975
Petitioner : Pedda Narayana & Ors
Versus
Respondent : State of Andhra Pradesh
Date of Judgement : 08 / 04 / 1975
Case Details :
For the appellants, G. Narayanarao and P. Basi Reddy. For the respondent, P. Rama Reddy and P. P. Rao. FAZAL ALI, J., delivered the court’s verdict. Appellants A-1 through A-3 have been found guilty under sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as sections 148 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They have also been found guilty under sections 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1 through A-3 have been given life sentences under sections 302 and 34, and A-4 has been given the same sentence under sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Pen Under ss, no separate sentence was imposed in light of the sentences that were handed down. 147 and 148 I. P. C. The Additional Sessions Judge in the state of Andhra Pradesh, Anantpur, found the accused not guilty. The State’s appeal against the acquittal was granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and the appellants A-1 through A-4 were found guilty and given the sentences listed above. The current appellants have chosen to submit this appeal to this Court in opposition to these verdicts. Under section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, the appeal to the Supreme Court lies even on facts and as a matter of right because the High Court had handed down the life sentence after overturning the Additional Sessions Judge’s acquittal order.
Facts :
The execution case may accessibly be divided into four separate corridor- Part- I constitutes the immediate motive for the murder of the departed; Part 11 relates, to the visit of the departed to Anantpur where he was shadowed and hovered and forms the birth of the circumstance; Part III consists of the factual murderous assault on the departed performing in his death and the last part- Part IV- relates to the recovery of the dead body three days after the circumstance. This is rather an unfortunate case where the petitioners sought to hit upon a preconceived plan to do down with the life of the departed amped by hostility and abomination performing from the act of the deceased in broiling the indicted in a action over a financial sale. In order to understand the case put forward by the execution it may be necessary to give compactly a capsule of the four stages of-. the execution case. Part- I. The story of the execution begins with, the purchase of a jeep byA-1 and his family being jeep No.A.I.A. 2781 from one Kona Rama Subbareddi for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. In order to meet the consideration of the jeepA-1 and his family had espoused a sum of Rs. 6,900/- on April 18, 1964 from the departed after executing a promissory note in his favour. As this plutocrat wasn’t paid byA-1 to the departed, the departed brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Anantpur for realisation of the quantum. Some time in the time 1969A-1 filed an Insolvency Petition before the Subordinate Judge showin- his debts to the tune o@Rs./-. The suit filed by the deceased was posted on February 6, 1969 for substantiation to be given byA-1 and this appears to have been the immediate provocation and occasion- for planning the murder of the deceased by the petitioners. Part- II. In view of the fact that the suit was posted to February 6, 1969 the deceased along with P.W. 1 who will henceforth be appertained to as Chinna- progressed to Anantpur on February 5, 1969 and reached there at 8- 30P.M. It’s said that while P.W. 1 China and the departed were alighting from the machine they sawA-1,A-2 andA-4 sitting in the jeep near the petrol pump which is positioned near the machine- stage. Chinna and the departed also went to the house of N. Narayana Rao, P.W. 20 who was their counsel and stayed there for the night. On the coming day i.e. February 6, 1969 the suit was suspended and after the adjournment of the case Chinna and the deceased went to the place where they were staying and on the way some persons with big mustaches appear to have hovered them. Chinna, still, didn’t take the trouble seriously and progressed to his destination. Part- III. On the night of February 6, 1969 the departed and Chinna went to substantiation a picture called” Tenali Ramakrishna” in Raghuveera Pictures and it’s said that some of the indicted had also followed the departed and went to see the cinema show. After returning from the picture, while the two persons videlicet Chinna and the departed were pacing south to north and had covered 20 bases from the hostel where they had taken their food, suddenly a jeep came and stopped near the departed. According to the executionA-1 toA-3 got down from the jeep along with three other non-natives and girdled the departed. Chinna was about one bara down from the departed. laterA-2 picked the departed with a dagger on his stomach andA-1 picked him on the left side of the casket and when the deceased was about to fallA-3 is said to have picked the departed with a dagger on his left knee. When Chinna P.W. I wanted to intermediate he was hovered by the three foreigner- who were fortified With daggers and was pushed away by those non-natives. Before the departed could fall down on the ground he was put into the jeep and carried down.
Part-IV. P.W. 16 and the Inspector of Tadipatri went to Cherlepalli on February 9, 1969, to conduct an investigation. There, P.W. 16 learned that a body had been found near the Taticherla Railway gate. The, police party continued to that spot and found a dead body lying on its back with wounds on the body. The body was, in any case, in a swelled condition. After the usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants, and proceedings for an inquest were initiated in accordance with Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We could make reference to here that the F.I.R. for the situation was stopped by P.W. I Chinna on February 6, 1969 preceding the Sub-Overseer of Police, Anantpur Police headquarters and is Ext. P-1 for the situation. The took in Extra Meetings Judge after thought of the proof created before him vindicated the blamed disregarding,, the characteristic benefits of the proof delivered before him on simply broad grounds and what he called innate impossibilities emerging out of the case. In its appeal of the accused’s acquittal, the High Court ruled that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no right to acquit the accused and that the reasons he gave were completely unconstitutional. As a result, the High Court reversed the acquittal order and found A-1 to A-4 guilty. The quittance of A-5 was, nonetheless, maintained by the High Court and we are not worried about him in this allure.
Contentions :
The lawyer appearing for the applicants tried to support the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge and pointed to several circumstances which, according to him, cast serious doubt on the veracity of the accusation. Firstly, it was contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in holding that the F.I.R. did not include the obvious acts charged, the accusation story must be considered an afterthought. Dealing with that aspect of the matter, the High Court observed that the F.I.R. filed soon after the incident and the informant had no reason to mention the entire F.I.R. who was to speak and testify at the trial. We fully agree with the reasoning of the High Court. In fact we find Ext. P1 that all the relevant details which the F.I.R. must contain The names of the accused were clearly stated, the circumstances leading to the killing of deceased Linganna were explained. It was also mentioned that the accused got down from the jeep together with three strangers and stabbed the deceased and then took away in the jeep. It is also mentioned that the incident happened because the deceased had filed a civil suit against A-1 who was the motive behind the murder. Thus, the details of the record emerged from the broad picture presented by the prosecution, no doubt in the F.I.R. which was left behind very soon after the incident. In our opinion, it is also not customary to mention every detail in the F.I.R. Chinna P.W.1 must have been very upset because several assailants suddenly attacked the deceased Linganna and her dead body was carried away. It was in that mental agony that he could not register an F.I.R. Therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that the grounds for dismissal of the charge advanced by the Additional Sessions Judge are completely unacceptable in law. It was also the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the investigation report does not mention in this column the details of the alleged acts committed by the various accused. A certain judge actually assumed, without any legal basis, that since no details were mentioned in the required column of the investigative report, it is assumed that the eyewitnesses did not mention the obvious actions in their statement to the police.
Judgement :
In their decision, the High Court noted that the Court had sufficient evidence to identify the deceased’s body. Although it is true that the deceased person’s body was bloated, P.W. 16, the Sub-Inspector, testified that the body’s features were quite clear and visible. P.W. 19 took the body’s photographs, and the High Court was satisfied that the body could be easily identified after seeing them. P.W. I Chinna who was completely known to the departed and who had went with him to Anantpur and in whose presence the homicide occurred said that he went to where the body was lying and recognized the body. The High Court likewise brought up that P.W. I said that the belt, M.O. 6 which was generally worn by the departed was additionally found on the dead body, which totally secures the issue. In spite of the fact that P.W. I was questioned at exceptionally extraordinary length it was not proposed to him that the dead body found was not that of the departed. Another co-villain and the deceased’s son were also able to identify the deceased’s body. In these conditions, consequently, there was bountiful proof to demonstrate the ID of the dead body and the finding of the took in Extra Meetings Judge depends on a misreading of the proof on this point.
We have been shown all of the evidence from P.W. 1, 2, and 3, who are all independent witnesses. The accused haven’t shown any animosity toward them, so we don’t see any reason to doubt their testimony. Therefore, in order to accept the prosecution’s case, the High Court correctly believed their evidence. We find no mistake of regulation in the methodology made by the High Court.
It was, still, submitted by Mr. Basi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners that this was a case in which another view was also possible on the substantiation and, thus, the High Court ought not to have obtruded with the order of vindication passed by the learned fresh Sessions Judge, as held by this Court in several cases. After going through the substantiation and circumstances of the present case, still, we’re easily of the opinion that the rate of the cases decided by this Court is wholly irrelevant to the instant case and, thus, the contention advanced by the counsel for the petitioners in this Court is overruled. This isn’t at each a case where a alternate view was possible.
Held :
As a result, all of the appellants’ convictions and sentences under sections 364 and 34 of the I.P.C. are overturned. The sets of conviction and sentence under s. 302 read with s. 34 to the extent that A-1 to A-3 are concerned are maintained. A-4’s appeal is granted, the High Court’s conviction under sections 147, 302, and 149 is overturned, and he is found not guilty and ordered to be released immediately. The allures of A-1 to A-3 are excused.
References :