The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in a murder case, where Accused No.2 was convicted for offenses under Sections 148 and 302 of the IPC. The case involved the unfortunate demise of a lawyer who was elected as the convenor of the Congress party recently. The judgment sheds light on the reliability of witness testimonies and the importance of evidence in criminal proceedings.
Facts
- PW-4 to PW-6 did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile witnesses.
- Accused nos. 5 and 9 died during the trial.
- PW-1 to PW-3 provided testimony supporting the prosecution but accused threatened them and ran away.
- The appellant-accused no.2 initially expressed intention to surrender for consideration of permanent remission but later decided not to surrender.
- The appellant-accused no.2 was convicted for offenses under Sections 148 and 302 of the IPC.
- PW-4 did not mention the presence of the appellant-accused no.2 during the incident.
- The deceased was murdered by eleven accused using hunting sickles near Miduthuru.
- The deceased was suspected by the appellant-accused no.2 for a raid and seizure conducted by the Excise Police.
- The deceased, a lawyer, was elected as the convenor of the Congress party twenty days before the incident.
- The appellant-accused no.2 and other accused were allegedly supported by communist party leaders.
- The deceased contested an election against the appellant-accused no.2 for the Water Users Association presidency.
- The incident occurred on July 26, 1997, resulting in charges under Sections 120-B, 148, and 302 of the IPC.
- Accused nos.1 to 4 and accused nos.10 and 11 convicted for offences under Sections 148 and 302 of the IPC.
- Accused nos.6, 7, and 8 found not guilty and acquitted.
- Charge under Section 120-B of the IPC not proved against any accused.
Also Read: Judgment on Interim Stay of Bail Orders: The Case of Liberty vs. Judicial Discretion
Arguments
- The learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the impugned judgment.
- He stated that the prosecution failed to establish the motive for the murder.
- He argued that the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3, who were interested witnesses, should be disregarded.
- According to him, if these testimonies are discarded, there is insufficient evidence against the appellant-accused no.2.
Also Read: Zaveri & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIL: Legal Precedent on Guarantor Liability
Analysis
- PW-1 and PW-3, closely related to the deceased, provided meticulous testimony.
- Post-mortem evidence by PW-19 showed 16 injuries, with Accused no.3 specifically linked to one assault.
- PW-1’s complaint was promptly lodged with no delay.
- Multiple witnesses confirmed roles of accused, including Accused no.2 assaulting with a hunting sickle.
- Witness testimony was consistent, reliable, and not disputed, even by witnesses not related to the deceased.
- Recovery of hunting sickles and blood-stained handles supported the witnesses’ claims.
- Witnesses who didn’t support prosecution lacked material contradictions in their statements.
- The medical officer’s opinion aligned with the injuries caused by hunting sickles.
- Eyewitness testimony, even if from a family member, can be relied upon if credible.
- Cross-examination revealed no significant contradictions or omissions in witness statements.
- The judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court should not be disturbed in the given circumstances.
- The opinion was formed after examining the seized hunting sickles.
Also Read: The Disputed Quarrel: Legal Analysis of the Case Involving Muthu and Kesavan
Decision
- The appellant-accused no.2 is granted one month’s time to surrender for the remaining sentence.
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The State is directed to consider granting permanent remission to the appellant-accused no.2 after surrender, similar to co-accused.
Case Title: THATIREDDIGARI MAHESHWARA REDDY Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (2024 INSC 495)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002132-002132 – 2011
