http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  403 of 2004

PETITIONER: Gonchi Rajashekhar Reddy, etc

RESPONDENT: State of A.P. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/04/2006

BENCH: K.G. Balakrishnan & Arun Kumar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(With Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2004) K.G. Balakrishnan, J.

       Twenty eight accused were tried by the Additional  Sessions Judge, Hindupur for various offences and the  Sessions Judge convicted A-1 to A-7, A-9 to A-14, A-16 and A- 21 to A-23 for the offence punishable  under Section 302 read  with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to suffer  imprisonment for life. However, A-8, A-15, A-17 to A-20, A-24  to A-28 were acquitted.  The second accused contended to be a  juvenile at the time of commission of  the crime and filed a  separate appeal before the High Court.  His conviction and  sentence was stayed and the matter was remitted  for fresh  trial.

       The High Court, in an appeal preferred by the convict- accused confirmed the conviction and sentence entered by the  Sessions Court.  They have filed the two instant appeals before  this Court.

Brief facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are  thus.   There were two political groups in a small village by  name Susankota. One group was under the leadership of  Narasimha Reddy who had at some time been the Village  Administrative  Officer. The other political faction was under  Narasimha Reddy alias Appaiah. The appellants in this case  are the followers of Appaiah.  The prosecution case was that  on 10-12-1997 PW-1 Ramalakshmamma and PW-2 Sreelatha,  wife and daughter of deceased Sanjeeva Reddy were sleeping  on the ground floor of their house.    While PW-4 is the  elder  brother, PW-6 and PW-7 are the children of deceased  Narsimha Reddi.    On the date of the incident i.e. 10-12-1997,  at about 2.30 AM, PW-1 to PW-3 heard some noise outside  their house.  They woke up and saw A-1 to A-9 and other  accused trespassing into their house by breaking open the  doors. They dragged deceased Sanjeeva Reddy  into the hall  and  then A-1, A-2, A-6 and A-4 caused various injuries to  him.  It is also alleged that A-1 drenched a piece of ’banian’  (undervest)  with kerosene, lit the same and threw it on the  body of Sanjeeva Reddy, who died instantaneously.   The  accused who had trespassed into the house,  also caused  damage to the household articles.

       PW-6 and PW-7 who are the children of deceased

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Narsimha Reddy deposed that on hearing the noise outside  their house,  they opened the front door of the house and saw  their father deceased Narsimha Reddy running to his bedroom  and closing the door. However,  the accused persons broke  open the door of the room and killed Narsimha Reddy.   Though PWs 6 and  7 tried to intervene, they were attacked by  A-1, A-3,A-5, A-6, A-13 and A-21.  Deceased Narasimha Reddy  was attacked by all the accused persons and he died on the  spot. There is also an allegation that after causing  these two  murders, the accused went to the house of PW-8 and  committed mischief  in his house and later  the accused  went  to the houses of PWs-11, 12 and 14 and caused damage to the  household articles.  It is alleged that earlier on the same day,  leader of the Appaiah group had been killed on the outskirts of  Susankota village. The news of this murder spread quickly  and according to the prosecution the accused persons, who  belonged to his group, unleashed a reign of attacks on the  opposite group and caused the death of Sanjeeva Reddy and  Narasimha Reddy.  Previously also there were some criminal  assaults by the rival groups against each other  and cases are  said to have been  pending before  First Class Judicial  Magistrate, Hindupur.    Proceedings under Section 107 of the   Cr. P.C. were said to have been pending before the Sub- Judicial Magistrate, Penukonda. According to prosecution  when Appaiah was returning to the village  alongwith one  Nanjireddy (A-19), they were way-laid and attacked. Appaiah  died on the spot  but Nanjireddy escaped unhurt and he gave  the news to his followers whereafter the present incident  happened resulting in the death of the  two deceased persons,  namely Sanjeeva Reddy and Narsimha Reddy.

       To prove the murder of Sanjeeva Reddy,  evidence of PWs  1 to 5 has been relied upon.  Of course, all the five witnesses  are closely related to deceased-Sanjeeva Reddy, being his wife,  brother and other close relatives, but in our opinion, the mere   fact of their relationship itself is not sufficient to discredit their  evidence. They are all residents of the same house and their  presence could not have been doubted in any way.  It is  important to note that all the accused are known to these  witnesses and there could not have been any case of mistaken  identity. The appellants have no case that PW-1, PW-2 and  PW-4 who are respectively the wife, daughter and brother of   deceased Sanjeeva Reddy had no acquaintances with the  appellants and, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon  for the purpose of identification.    A consistent version has  been given by all the eye witnesses about the assault and  murder  of the deceased Sanjeeva Reddy.   Although there is a  vague suggestion  that these witnesses were not present on  the date of the incident as they had gone to attend  a marriage  in another village which was about 40 kilometers away and  that  they were brought back after  the death of the Sanjeeva  Reddy, this suggestion does not appear to be correct as the  witnesses have given a detailed version regarding the  incidents. PW-1 deposed that she saw 15 persons breaking  open the door of the room upstairs and she clearly identified  A-1 to A-6, A-9, A-12 to A-14, A-16, A-22 to A-24.  They  dragged  her husband Sanjeeva Reddy out and A-1 hacked  him twice with an axe and A-2  attacked him on the forehead   and left side of the  chest, A-6 caused injuries on the left eye  and A-4 inflicted two injuries on the chest.  She also deposed  that A-16 got a  ’banian’  (undervest)  drenched in kerosene,   lit it and threw it on the deceased.  PW-1 went downstairs  and  saw accused A-7, A-8, A-25 to A-28, A-20, A-18 and A-23. At  about 6 ’o clock  in the morning she gave the Exhibit P-1  report and mentioned the names of the assailants in the  F.I.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

statement. PW-2, the daughter of the deceased was sleeping in  the upstairs  rooms. She heard a commotion  and switched on  the lights.  She saw the accused entering  the room and  dragging the deceased Sanjeeva Reddy and causing injuries to  him. She had identified  the 15 persons who had come  upstairs.    PW-4, the brother of deceased Sanjeeva Reddy,   was sleeping downstairs in the house.  On hearing some  noises, he switched on the lights and saw the appellants trying  to break open  the door.  They were carrying sticks and other  weapons.  He deposed that the appellants went upstairs and  when he reached there, he saw  deceased Sanjeeva Reddy  in a  pool of blood. This witness had  spoken of the various acts  committed by the accused while causing death of  Sanjeeva  Reddy.  In view of the consistent  version given by these  witnesses,  the Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had  proved the guilt of the accused.  The  learned Sessions Judge  meticulously  considered the depositions of all these  witnesses.   

Counsel for the appellants contended that the whole  prosecution story is highly improbable. It was argued that   Appaiah  had been murdered earlier on that day and it is  highly improbable that rather than performing his funeral,  his  close relatives would mount an attack  on the deceased on the  very same night.  The plea raised by the counsel for the  appellant cannot be accepted in view of the direct evidence  given by the witnesses. There were two political parties headed  by different leaders and the enmity and passion to assault   members of the rival group was ever so much that  they would  retaliate at the  earliest point of time.           Coming to the second incident of murder, it is pertinent  to note that the house of deceased Narasimha Reddy was near   the house of deceased Sanjeeva Reddy.  PWs 6 and 7 are the  key witnesses examined to prove this incident.  PW-6 and PW  7 are the daughter and son respectively of deceased  Narasimha Reddy.  These witnesses were sleeping in the hall.   At about 2.30 AM they heard a commotion outside the house.  They woke up and switched on the lights  and saw  about 30  persons breaking open the iron-grilled door and entering the  house. The first accused caused an injury on the right hand  and A-2 dealt a blow on the head of PW-7. The accused then   broke down the TV set and other household articles.    Though  these two witnesses pleaded for mercy,  the accused did not  accede to their pleas and caused various injuries on both of  them and then they headed towards the bedroom where  the  deceased Narasimha Reddy was sleeping.  The first and  the  sixth accused dragged  the deceased out of the bedroom.  The  first accused attacked the deceased with an axe.  A-2, A-3 and  A-8 also indiscriminately inflicted injuries on the deceased as  a result of which  he died immediately.  The fact that PWs 6  and 7 sustained injuries on their hands is not disputed. PW-7  had sustained injuries on his right hand and also on the right  shoulder.  These witnesses gave a consistent version regarding  the incident.   

       The medical evidence adduced in this case satisfactorily  proved that the two deceased had sustained series of injuries  which resulted in their death.  The motive for the murder is  also spoken of by the witnesses.  There was no delay in  dispatching the FIR to the Magistrate.  All these facts inspire  confidence in the prosecution case.

       The learned counsel for the appellants contended that  because of the political rivalry, it is likely that some of these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

appellants must have been falsely implicated  to avenge some  past enmity.  It may be true  that in  political murders there  may be a likelihood of revenge,   but if the witnesses have  spoken of the incidents consistently  and given meticulous  evidence corroborated  by other items of evidence,  the  possibility of false implication can be ruled out especially when  the witnesses know the assailants and there is no likelihood of  any mistaken identity.

       The learned Counsel further contended that the evidence  of PW-1 regarding the lodging of FIR is highly suspicious and  it is quite possible that the original complaint itself was  substituted.  This argument has been built up on the basis of  the evidence of PW-1 that PW-1 in her evidence stated that she  informed PW-5 as to what had happened in her house and  PW-5 later informed the police and the Sub-Inspector of Police  Parigi was suppressing this information.   We do not find  much force in this contention.  PW-1 was elaborately cross- examined and she stated that she gave the entire narration of  the incident and based on this, F.I. statement was prepared.   Mainly because there is some contradiction in the statement of  PW-1, it cannot be said that the FIR was lodged later and that  the police had prior information and the same was not  recorded.  The witnesses had been examined after a long  period and it is possible that some mistakes may occur when  they give evidence before the Court.

       The learned Counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal  No. 403 of 2004 contended that A-15 was acquitted by the  Sessions Court on the ground that PW-5 did not give evidence  about the presence of A-15 and only PW-4 gave evidence  against A-15 and as there was no corroborative evidence to  support the evidence of PW-4, he was acquitted and the same  reasoning would apply to A-7.  But this plea raised by the  appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 2004 is not fully  correct.  The presence of this appellant is spoken of by PW-3  and PW-7.  There is ample corroboration and his presence is  spoken of by more than one witnesses.  We do not think that  he is entitled to acquittal.

       In these appeals, we see no reason to take a view  different than the courts below and the conviction and  sentence entered  against all the appellants are only to be  confirmed.  The appeals are without any merit and, therefore,  dismissed.