“REPORTABLE”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.451 OF 2007

Boddella Babul Reddy           ….  Appellant

Versus

Public Prosecutor, High Court Of A.P.            …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  

whereby the High Court upset the judgment of the Trial Court, acquitting all  

the accused persons.  The High Court,  in the impugned judgment, has  

maintained the verdict  of  acquittal  in case of others while  the verdict  in  

case of  Boddella  Babul  Reddy (appellant  herein),  who was  the original  

accused  No.  1  (A-1)  was  upset  and  he  was  convicted  of  the  offence  

punishable  under  Section  302  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (hereinafter  

referred to as ‘IPC’ for short).

2. As many as 16 accused persons came to be tried for the various  

offences by the Trial Court including offences punishable under Sections  

1

147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302, IPC read with Section 149, IPC; Sections  

3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 (1) (b) and 27 of  

the Indian Arms Act.

3. As  per  the  prosecution  case,  all  the  accused  persons  and  the  

witnesses were the residents of village Sankarpuram of Proddatur Mandal  

in Kadappa District.  As usual, there were two factions in the village, one  

belonging to the Congress Party and the other belonging to the Telugu  

Desam Party.   All  the original  accused persons, including the appellant  

herein, belonged to the Telugu Desam Party.  These factions in the village  

resulted in bitter enmity in between the two groups.  While Boddella Babul  

Reddy  (appellant/A-1)  was  the  leader  of  the  party  faction  belonging  to  

Telugu Desam Party, one Chandra Sekhar Reddy (PW-7) was the leader  

of the faction belonging to the Congress Party.  In 1997, elections took  

place  in  the  Association  called  Water  Users  Association.   As  a  usual  

sequel of the elections, there were faction clashes and one of such clashes  

took  place  on  13.12.1998  between  these  two  groups  on  account  of  

passage which was used by both the groups.  The cases were filed which  

later  on ended in acquittal.   On 15.12.1998,  the party belonging to the  

Congress workers went to the field of one Ramireddy Ramasubba Reddy  

for shifting the heap belonging to that group.  However, Boddella Babul  

Reddy (appellant/A-1) is said to have caused obstruction for transportation  

2

of  the paddy crop.   This fact  was informed to one T.N.  Satyanarayana  

Reddy  (PW-9),  a  Bandobast Constable  posted  in  the  village  and  he  

promised that he would admonish the accused.

4. On  the  day  of  incident  i.e.  16.12.1998,  at  about  6.30  a.m.,  K.  

Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba  

Reddy (PW-4)  and K.  Gopal  Yadav  (PW-5)  along with  one Pilli  Pedda  

Yesanna  (the  deceased)  and  one  Gopireddy  Venkatarami  Reddy  (List  

Witness No. 6) went to the said field of Ramireddy Ramasubba Reddy to  

transport the hay along with a tractor which was brought for the purpose of  

transportation.  At that time, Boddella Babul Reddy (appellant/A-1), Bodella  

Malikarjuna Reddy, original accused No.2 (A-2), Yedula Nagamuni Reddy,  

original  accused  No.3  (A-3),  Mopuru  Ramanjaneyula  Reddy,  original  

accused No.4 (A-4) and Yeddula Maruthi Prasad Reddy, original accused  

No. 5 (A-5) armed with bomb and Yeddula Ramachandra Reddy, original  

accused No. 6 (A-6) armed with gun and Yeddula Manohar Reddy, original  

accused No. 7 (A-7), Yeddula Sankar Reddy, original accused No. 8 (A-8),  

Mopuru Naga Subba Reddy, original accused No. 9 (A-9), Mopuru Subba  

Reddy, original accused No. 10 (A-10), Mopuru Jayarami Reddy, original  

accused No. 11 (A-11), Yeddula Rajeswara Reddy, original accused No.  

12 (A-12), Boddella Madhusudhana Reddy @ Madhukesava Linga Reddy,  

original  accused  No.  13  (A-13),  Yeddula  Prabhakar  Reddy,  original  

3

accused No. 14 (A-14), Yeddula Konda Reddy, original accused No. 15 (A-

15),  Boddela Naga Ramesh Reddy,  original  accused No.  16 (A-16),  all  

armed with dangerous weapons like Eetakodavallu and spears came and  

attacked these persons.  There, A-1, the present appellant is said to have  

hurled bomb on the chest of Pilli Pedda Yesanna (deceased), resulting in  

his instantaneous death.

5. According  to  the  prosecution,  Bodella  Malikarjuna  Reddy  (A-2),  

Yedula Nagamuni Reddy (A-3), Mopuru Ramanjaneyula Reddy (A-4) and  

Yeddula Maruthi Prasad Reddy (A-5) also hurled bombs, which exploded  

and  caused  splinter  injuries  to  Y.  Chinna  Narayana  Reddy  (PW-1),  K.  

Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba  

Reddy (PW-4)  and K.  Gopal  Yadav  (PW-5) as also to  others including  

Gopireddy Venkatarami Reddy (List Witness No. 6).  Yeddula Prabhakar  

Reddy (A-14) is said to have assaulted Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1)  

with Eetakodavallu on his head while Yeddula Sankar Reddy (A-8) is said  

to have beaten him with spear stick on his right knee.  All other accused  

caused  injuries  to  the  others.   On  hearing  the  explosion,  T.N.  

Satyanarayana Reddy (PW-9) who was a constable on  Bandobast duty  

came  to  the  scene  of  offence.   It  is  also  alleged  that  Yeddula  

Ramachandra  Reddy (A-6)  had opened  fire  at  the  prosecution  witness  

referred to above.  Seeing that, even T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy (PW-9)  

4

opened fire into air so as to disperse the mob on which the accused ran  

away from the scene of the offence.  The injured persons were taken by K.  

Chandra Sekhar Reddy (PW-7) to the General Hospital, Proddatur, where  

Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1) is said to have given complaint and on  

that basis Crime No. 105/98 was registered and investigation began on  

that  basis.   The  investigating  team came to  the  spot,  i.e.,  the  field  of  

Ramireddy Ramasubba Reddy and usual investigation began.  The body  

of  the  deceased  Pilli  Pedda  Yesanna  was  sent  for  post  mortem  

examination and after the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against  

the 16 accused persons, including the present appellant.  Since the case  

was triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the matter was committed to  

the  Sessions  Court,  District  Kadappa  and  was  registered  as  Sessions  

Case No. 268/99.  At the trial, various charges were framed against the  

accused  persons.   The  accused  abjured  the  guilt.   As  many  as  15  

witnesses being PW-1 to PW-15 came to be examined before the Trial  

Court.   During  their  examination,  the  accused  persons  denied  the  

accusations.   The  present  appellant-accused  pleaded  that  he  had  no  

enmity with the Pilli Pedda Yesanna (deceased) who was a mere coolie  

and also did not belong to the Congress Party and that he was framed in  

this case as the person who hurled the bomb at the deceased with the  

active support of Varadarajulu Reddy, a Member of  Legislative Assembly  

(MLA)  belonging  to  the  Congress  Party  and  a  false  case  was  foisted  

5

against him.  The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution.  

In the opinion of the Trial Court, there was deliberate delay in giving the  

First  Information  Report  (FIR)  and  the  said  was  given  after  due  

deliberations  with  the  political  leaders,  so  as  to  implicate  falsely,  the  

persons belonging to the Telugu Desam Party.  The Trial Court also held  

that the offence was not established as also the medical evidence was not  

consistent with the oral evidence on record.  The Trial Court also pointed  

out that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries on the persons of  

the accused and as such the oral evidence, more particularly of PW-1 to  

PW-5,  who  were  the  Congress  Party  workers  and  who  were  inimical  

against the accused, could not be believed.  A Criminal Appeal was filed  

before the Andhra Pradesh High Court against this judgment vide Criminal  

Appeal  No.  1769/2004.   However,  the  High  Court  while  confirmed  the  

judgment  in  the case of  other  accused persons,  appellant  herein  (A-1)  

was,  however,  held  guilty  of  hurling  the  bomb on Pilli  Pedda  Yesanna  

(deceased) and was held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302,  

IPC.   It  is  this  judgment  which  has  fallen  for  our  consideration  in  the  

present appeal.

6. Assailing the judgment, Shri V. Kanakraj, Learned Senior Counsel,  

appearing on behalf of the appellant pointed out that there was no effort on  

part of the High Court while considering the judgment of acquittal by the  

6

Trial  Court  to meet the findings of facts given by the Trial  Court.   The  

Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the whole effort  on the  

part of the prosecution witness was on implicating the appellant (A-1), as  

he was the leader of Telugu Desam Party and it is out of fierce political  

rivalry that an FIR was given as late as after about 3 hours of the incident,  

though  the  same  had  occurred  at  7  A.M.  and  there  was  hardly  any  

distance between the place of the incident and the Police Station.  The  

Learned Senior Counsel further urged that the parrot-like evidence of Y.  

Chinna  Narayana  Reddy  (PW-1),  K.  Sudhakar  Reddy  (PW-2),  G.  

Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal  

Yadav  (PW-5),  which  was  discarded  by  the  Trial  Court,  giving  various  

reasons,  was  wrongly  accepted  by  the  High  Court,  though  all  the  

witnesses were fierce political opponents of the appellant herein.  It was  

also  pointed  out  that  T.N.  Satyanarayana  Reddy (PW-9),  who  was  the  

Constable for  Bandobast  duties, remained a mute spectator and did not  

even bother  to inform the Police,  which was his bounden duty.   It  was  

pointed out  that  though the claim of  the prosecution  was  that  Chandra  

Sekhar Reddy (PW-7) took the injured of the Congress Party in his tractor  

to the Government Hospital at Proddatur immediately, as per version of Y.  

Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), they reached only at 10 A.M. and it is  

after  their  reaching  the  Hospital  that  S.  Ramakrishna  Reddy  (PW-15),  

Taluk Circle  Inspector  and E.V.  Rami  Reddy (PW-14),  Head Constable  

7

came there and sent them to the Doctor for treatment and thereafter, his  

statement was recorded by E.V. Rami Reddy (PW-14), Head Constable, in  

presence  of  Circle  Inspector  of  Police  (PW-15).   The  Learned  Senior  

Counsel  further  invited  our  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  was  no  

justification  in  delay  in  lodging  the  FIR,  particularly  when  the  injured  

witnesses had reached Proddatur from Sankarpuram by a tractor and the  

distance being hardly 9 or 10 K.Ms. between the two places.  The Learned  

Senior Counsel, therefore, pointed out that the registration of the FIR at  

11.30 A.M. was itself a very suspicious circumstance.  The Learned Senior  

Counsel further stated that at the time of filing of the FIR, or as the case  

may be, recording the statement of the witnesses, admittedly, the leaders  

of  the  Congress  Party,  more  particularly,  the  local  member  of  the  

Legislative Assembly Varadarajulu Reddy was present  and, therefore,  it  

was obvious that the appellant herein was framed deliberately, he being  

the local leader and that was the reason why Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy  

(PW-1),  K.  Sudhakar  Reddy  (PW-2),  G.  Raghurami  Reddy  (PW-3),  R.  

Venkata Subba Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5) were giving a  

parrot-like  version  that  it  was  he  who  threw  the  bomb  at  Pilli  Pedda  

Yesanna (deceased).  Our attention was also invited to the other intrinsic  

material  on record that  very strangely,  where  the bomb was alleged to  

have exploded, there was absolutely no evidence of any explosive material  

or the ingredients of the bomb, whereas, such ingredients were found in an  

8

entirely different field, which would go to show that the prosecution had  

also  changed the  spot  deliberately.   The Learned Senior  Counsel  also  

pointed out the various discrepancies as regards the filing of the FIR by  

comparing  the  evidence of  the  eye-witnesses  with  the  evidence of  the  

Police  witnesses.   It  was  pointed  out  that  the  High  Court  had  not  

considered any of these materials while upsetting the verdict of acquittal  

and, therefore, the judgment of the High court was liable to be set aside.

7. As against this, Shri  I.  Venkat Narayan, Learned Senior Counsel,  

appearing on behalf of the State, supported the impugned judgment of the  

High Court and pointed out that the eye-witnesses, particularly those who  

were the injured witnesses, were, in one tone, speaking about the active  

role played by the appellant herein, who was undoubtedly a leader and,  

therefore,  the  High  Court  was  right  in  relying  on  the  eye-witnesses’  

account and upsetting the finding of the Trial Court.  Shri Venkat Narayan  

also urged that the eye-witnesses, more particularly, Y. Chinna Narayana  

Reddy (PW-1), K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3),  

R.  Venkata  Subba  Reddy  (PW-4)  and  K.  Gopal  Yadav  (PW-5)  were  

disbelieved  by  the  Trial  Court  for  the  fanciful  reasons,  which  was  the  

perverse appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court.   The Learned  

Senior Counsel further urged that even the time was mixed up because in  

the Post Mortem report, the undigested food was found and there was a  

9

very vital  omission on  the part  of  P.  Jayamma,  the wife  of  Pilli  Pedda  

Yesanna (deceased),  who was examined as PW-6 about the deceased  

having taken food in the morning before he left for the coolie work to the  

land  of  Ramireddy  Ramasubba  Reddy.   We  will  have  to,  therefore,  

examine the judgment of the Trial Court in light of the evidence led by the  

prosecution.

8. Considering  the  evidence of  Y.  Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1),  

who  was  injured,  it  must  be noted that  this  is  not  a  bomb injury.   His  

version is that he was assaulted by Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy (A-14) with  

Eetakodavallu on his head and by Yeddula Sankar Reddy (A-8) with spear  

stick on his right leg below the knee on his right little toe.  There are two  

injuries on this witness as per the evidence of Dr. K. Venkata Narayana  

(PW-11), the Medical Officer, as also on the basis of Exhibit P-5, which  

was a Wound Certificate of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1).  However,  

it  is  obvious  from  Exhibit  P-1,  as  also  the  evidence  that  Y.  Chinna  

Narayana Reddy (PW-1) had received the injury on account of an axe.  

There was no mention of the spear stick in the medical certificate.  The  

witness had stated before the Police that he was beaten by Eetakodavallu,  

therefore, there is a contradiction in his evidence about the weapon, with  

which he was beaten.  Eetakodavallu is a hunting sickle, which is entirely  

different from the axe.  Dr. K. Venkata Narayana (PW-11), in his evidence,  

10

admitted that the injury on his knee could be caused by a fall  and that  

there was no injury on the right toe of the injured.  Therefore, there was no  

consistency in  between the evidence of  this  witness and that  of  Dr.  K.  

Venkata Narayana (PW-11), the medical witness.   

9. So far as evidence of K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2) is concerned, he  

deposed that the appellant hurled a bomb on the dorsum of his right hand  

and that Yeddula Manohar Reddy (A-7) beat him with a spear stick and  

Mopuru  Ramanjaneyula  Reddy  (A-4)  hurled  a  bomb  at  him  and  he  

received a splinter injury on his left ankle.  These injuries were found by  

Dr.  K.  Venkata Narayana (PW-11), who certified them vide Exhibit  P-4.  

However, this witness never stated as to who had caused him injury on his  

head.   

10. As  regards  G.  Raghurami  Reddy  (PW-3),  he  claimed  that  he  

suffered  a  splinter  injury  on  account  of  the  bomb  hurled  by  Yeddula  

Maruthi  Prasad  Reddy  (A-5).   R.  Venkata  Subba  Reddy  (PW-4)  also  

suggested that he received a splinter injury on his back with a bomb hurled  

by Yedula Nagamuni Reddy (A-3).  Dr. K. Venkata Narayana (PW-11) also  

found a lacerated injury on the right side of his chest.  K. Gopal Yadav  

(PW-5) also had suffered a splinter injury from a bomb hurled by Bodella  

Malikarjuna Reddy (A-2).  The Trial Court, therefore, rightly came to the  

conclusion that excepting the splinter injury received by injured witnesses  

11

on  account  of  the  bomb  being  hurled,  other  injuries  were  never  

corroborated by the medical evidence on record.

11. It  has  also  come  on  record  that  Yeddula  Sankar  Reddy  (A-8),  

Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy (A-14) and one Yeddula Venkateswara Reddy  

also received injuries in the same incident, whose wound certificates are  

marked as D-6 to D-8 respectively.  This was corroborated by the evidence  

of T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy (PW-9), the Bandobast Constable also who  

claimed that he was informed by the Congress Party workers that three  

Telugu Desam Party workers had received injuries in the incident.  The  

medical certificates, as well as the evidence of Dr. K. Venkata Narayana  

(PW-11)  shows  that  these  were  the  grievous  injuries  and  were  not  

superficial or minor injuries.  As compared to the injuries of G. Raghurami  

Reddy  (PW-3),  R.  Venkata  Subba  Reddy  (PW-4)  and  K.  Gopal  Yadav  

(PW-5),  the injuries suffered by K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2) were  more  

serious.   It  was  an  admitted  position  that  these  injuries  were  never  

explained by the prosecution.  As held in Ram Sunder Yadav & Ors. Vs.  

State of Bihar [1998 (7) SCC 365],  this Court has held that though in all  

the  cases,  the  prosecution  was  not  obliged  to  explain  the  injuries,  the  

prosecution has to, however, explain the injuries on the accused, where  

the  evidence  consists  of  interested  and  inimical  witnesses  and  where  

defence alleges a version which competes in probability with that of the  

12

prosecution.  Therefore, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the  

injuries on Yeddula Sankar Reddy (A-8) and Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy (A-

14) were not explained by the prosecution.  It is on this basis that the Trial  

Court  entertained  a  doubt  about  the  version  of  the  prosecution.   This  

suspicion about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses became all the  

more serious on the basis of the evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy  

(PW-1) that they came to the Hospital by 9.30 or 10 A.M. and after some  

time,  S.  Ramakrishna  Reddy (PW-15),  Circle  Inspector  and  E.V.  Rami  

Reddy (PW-14), Head Constable came there and took them to the Doctor  

for treatment and then the statement of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1)  

was recorded by the Head Constable, while Exhibit P-1 (Complaint given  

by PW-1)  suggests  that  it  was  recorded at  10.35 A.M.   This  was  also  

fortified by the endorsements of Dr. K. Venkata Narayana (PW-11).  The  

evidence of E.V. Rami Reddy (PW-14), Head Constable is that he along  

with  S.  Ramakrishna  Reddy  (PW-15),  Circle  Inspector  came  to  the  

Government  Hospital  at  10  A.M.  and  found  six  injured  persons  in  the  

Hospital  and then the injured were interrogated and the requisition was  

given to the Medical  Officer for treatment.   It  is  admitted by E.V. Rami  

Reddy (PW-14) that when he and S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15), Circle  

Inspector reached the Government Hospital,  M.L.A. Varadarajula Reddy  

had already come to the Hospital and the legal advisors on behalf of the  

Congress Party were also found there.  It was then that S. Ramakrishna  

13

Reddy (PW-15), Circle Inspector inquired the names of the accused, place  

of the incident, the injures and the nature of the weapons from them and  

issued  a  requisition  to  the  Medical  Officer.   In  his  evidence,  S.  

Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15), Circle Inspector admitted that he had come  

to know that M.L.A. Varadarajula Reddy had visited the Hospital, but could  

not say the purpose for which he had come there.  The Trial Court then  

noted the admission on the part of this witness that he noted the names of  

the assailants, the weapons used by them and the place of the injuries in  

the requisition (Exhibit P-10).  However, when we see Copy of requisition  

(Exhibit P-10), the same was received by the duty Doctor at 9.30 A.M. on  

15.12.1998.   Even  Dr.  K.  Venkata  Narayana  (PW-11)  admitted  in  the  

evidence that he received that requisition at 9.30 A.M. on that day and the  

names of the injured were noted on the right side.  The Trial Court has,  

therefore, rightly held that the information had already reached the Police  

Inspector even before 9.30 A.M., as it  is only after the information was  

received by him about  the  injured etc.  that  he (the Inspector)  sent  the  

requisition  (Exhibit  P-10)  to  the  Police  and,  therefore,  the  Complaint  

(Exhibit P-1), which was supposed to be an FIR was hit by Section 162 of  

the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), as the information was already  

collected by S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15), Circle Inspector much prior  

to 9.30 A.M. and, therefore, it is the requisition (Exhibit P-10), which should  

become an FIR and not  the  Complaint  (Exhibit  P-1).   The Trial  Court,  

14

therefore, expressed its suspicion about the Complaint (Exhibit  P-1), on  

which heavy reliance is being placed by the prosecution.

12. The Trial Court then also relied on the decisions in  The State of  

Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sahai & Ors. [1981 Crl. L.J. 1034], V. Satyamaiah &  

Ors.  Vs.  State  of  A.P.  [1978(1)  A.P.L.J.  83],  Raghunath  and  Ram  

Kishan & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [2003 Crl. L.J. 401] and  

Mool  Chand Vs.  Jagdish  Singh  Bedi  &  Ors.  [1992  Crl.  L.J.  1539],   

wherein it was held that it was unusual for a factionist to take advantage of  

every  situation  and  occurrence  and  there  is  incurable  tendency  in  the  

factionists  to  rope  in  the  innocent  members  of  the  opposite  faction  

alongwith the guilty and twist and manipulate the facts with regard to the  

mode and manner of the occurrence so as to make their case appear true  

with the innocent members of the opposite faction also as participants in  

the  occurrence.   The  Trial  Court,  therefore,  went  on  to  scrutinize  the  

evidence  of  the  eye-witnesses  Y.  Chinna  Narayana  Reddy  (PW-1),  K.  

Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba  

Reddy  (PW-4)  and  K.  Gopal  Yadav  (PW-5)  with  greater  care.   It  was  

observed that S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15), Circle Inspector admitted  

in his Cross-Examination that he received a telephone information about  

the  commission  of  offence  at  9  A.M.  from Sankarpuram Village  that  a  

person had died.  He stated that he had not made any entry in the General  

15

Diary and that he went to the party people of the appellant.  On this basis  

of  the  evidence,  the  Trial  Court  found  that  even  the  evidence  of  the  

Investigation Officer (PW-15) was an improved version.  On examination of  

the evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), K. Sudhakar Reddy  

(PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba Reddy (PW-4)  

and  K.  Gopal  Yadav  (PW-5),  the  Trial  Court  found  that  Pilli  Pedda  

Yesanna  (deceased)  was  not  a  leader,  he  was  a  mere  coolie.   The  

deceased  was  also  found  wearing  a  sweater,  which  was  not  possible  

unless he was  a watchman to the field  throughout  the night.  The Trial  

Court,  therefore,  expressed  a  doubt  and  in  our  opinion,  rightly  that  

Chandra Sekhar Reddy (PW-7) and Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1),  

who had contested election against the appellant herein being present on  

the scene, the appellant  would chose to throw bomb at an insignificant  

coolie  like  Pilli  Pedda  Yesanna  (deceased),  leaving  Chandra  Sekhar  

Reddy  (PW-7)  and  Y.  Chinna  Narayana  Reddy  (PW-1),  who  had  not  

claimed that it was the appellant who threw the bomb at them.  The Trial  

Court also expressed its doubts on the basis of sketch of scene of offence  

(Exhibit  P-21),  which  shows  no  traces  of  explosion  of  any  explosive  

substance at the scene of offence.  The Trial Court also expressed doubts  

about the evidence of S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15) on account of his  

not  having  shown  in  the  sketch,  the  places,  where  the  explosion  took  

place,  which  were  four  in  number,  according  to  the  witness.   While  

16

appreciating the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses, it is deduced by  

the Trial Court that in all probability, there were 10 bombs in the hands of  

the appellant  (A-1),  Bodella Malikarjuna Reddy (A-2),  Yedula Nagamuni  

Reddy (A-3), Mopuru Ramanjaneyula Reddy (A-4) and Yeddula Maruthi  

Prasad Reddy (A-5) and out of these, 6 exploded and 4 of them caused  

splinter injury to each one of the injured.  It was found that this evidence of  

the witness was not corroborated by T.N. Satyanarayana Reddy (PW-9),  

the Police Constable, who visited the scene of offence immediately at that  

time.  Though he was declared hostile, the Trial Court has relied on his  

evidence  to  the  effect  that  immediately  after  receiving  the  sounds  of  

explosion, he came there running.  The Trial Court, therefore, deduced that  

the bombs were thrown by both the groups, more particularly because the  

injuries on Yeddula Sankar Reddy (A-8) and Yeddula Prabhakar Reddy (A-

14),  which  had remained unexplained,  were  far  from serious and were  

caused because of the explosion of the bombs.  On this, the Trial Court  

deduced the theory of free fight between both the groups, both armed with  

explosive bombs.  The Trial Court, therefore, held that the evidence of T.N.  

Satyanarayana  Reddy  (PW-9),  the  Constable  did  not  corroborate  the  

evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-

2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba Reddy (PW-4) and K.  

Gopal Yadav (PW-5).

17

13. This well considered judgment of the Trial Court has been upset by  

the High Court and in its judgment, the High Court relied on the Exhibit P-1  

[Complaint  given  by  Y.  Chinna  Narayana  Reddy  (PW-1)].   Very  

significantly, barring the evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1),  

K.  Sudhakar  Reddy  (PW-2),  G.  Raghurami  Reddy  (PW-3),  R.  Venkata  

Subba Reddy (PW-4) and K.  Gopal  Yadav (PW-5),  there is  hardly  any  

consideration in the High Court’s judgment, more particularly of the mix up  

of timings as regards the Complaint (Exhibit P-1), on which heavy reliance  

was placed by the High Court.  We have seen the Complaint (Exhibit P-1)  

very carefully, where it is specifically alleged that the Telugu Desam Party  

was led by the appellant herein.  It  is reported that both the parties, on  

13.12.1998, had fought in connection with using the road and the witness  

(PW-1) himself and his party people were accused in that case and were  

absconding.  It is then suggested on 16.12.1998, in the morning at 7.30, he  

(PW-1) and the other persons went to cart the paddy hay of Ramireddy  

Ramasubba Reddy and while they were bundling the hay, the 16 accused  

persons came there and the appellant (A-1), Bodella Malikarjuna Reddy  

(A-2), Yedula Nagamuni Reddy (A-3), Mopuru Ramanjaneyula Reddy (A-

4) and Yeddula Maruthi Prasad Reddy (A-5) were holding bombs in their  

two hands, Yeddula Ramachandra Reddy (A-6) was holding a gun and  

other persons were holding hunting sickles and spears and the appellant  

raised loud cries shouting not to leave anybody there and kill all of them.  It  

18

is also reported that it was the appellant (A-1), who hurled a bomb on Pilli  

Pedda Yesanna (deceased).   The said bomb exploded and Pilli  Pedda  

Yesanna (deceased) fell down and died on the spot; then the others also  

started hurling the bombs.   Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1) then refers  

to his being hacked by other accused persons with a hunting sickle and on  

the right knee with the spear.   He then refers to an injury caused on his  

little finger because of the spear.  He then refers to the police firing a gun.  

After that he refers that they all (injured) came to the Government Hospital  

and were being treated.  There is an endorsement that this statement has  

been given at 10.35 A.M., while it was dispatched to the Court at 1.04 P.M.  

Significantly enough, there is also a report given by Yeddula Prabhakar  

Reddy (A-14) on the same day at 7.45 A.M., wherein the hurling of the  

bomb is attributed to the complainant party.   

14. Once we see the evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1) in  

the light of evidence of E.V. Rami Reddy (PW-14), Head Constable and of  

S. Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15), Taluk Circle Inspector, the falsity of the  

evidence of this witness becomes clear.  Though in his Examination-in-

Chief, he claimed that all of them along with the woman folk were taken in  

the tractor of Chandra Sekhar Reddy (PW-7) to the Government Hospital,  

that claim appears to be incorrect.  In his Examination-in-Chief, E.V. Rami  

Reddy  (PW-14),  Head  Constable,  who  claimed  to  have  gone  to  the  

19

Hospital,  admits  that  S.  Ramakrishna  Reddy  (PW-15),  Taluk  Circle  

Inspector asked him to accompany him at 9 A.M. to Sankarpuram and the  

Sub-Inspector also accompanied him.  According to him, the requisition  

(Exhibit P-10) was prepared at 9 A.M. and was sent to the Doctor, who  

received it at 9.30 A.M.  He, in fact, denied that he went to the Hospital at  

10 A.M.  As compare to this, the evidence of Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-

15), Circle Inspector suggests that he alongwith other staff and E.V. Rami  

Reddy  (PW-14)  proceeded  to  Sankarpuram  since  he  received  an  

anonymous call at 9 A.M. about the incident.  He then suggests that on the  

way, near one Village Pedda Settypalli, at about 9.15 A.M., he received the  

information that the injured were taken to the Hospital and, therefore, he  

sent his Sub-Inspector and the staff to go to the scene of offence and he  

alongwith  V.  Rami  Reddy  (PW-14),  Head  Constable,  returned  to  

Government Hospital at about 10 A.M. and it was then that V. Rami Reddy  

(PW-14) recorded the statement of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1) in  

the Government Hospital.  It is, therefore, obvious that these two police  

witnesses are contradicting each other in the matter of the timings and also  

the timing of the Complaint (Exhibit P-1).  On this backdrop, when we see  

the evidence of Dr. K. Venkata Narayana (PW-11), the Medical Officer, it is  

seen that  at  9.30 A.M. itself,  the Doctor examined K.  Sudhakar  Reddy  

(PW-2) on the requisition of SHO (Rural), who was accompanied by Police  

Constable 674, who was none else, but V. Rami Reddy (PW-14).  This  

20

requisition  is  said  to  have  been  sent  by  PW-14  and  PW-15.   S.  

Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15) has given a graphic description and timings  

as to when he examined all the injured witnesses.  Now, if K. Sudhakar  

Reddy  (PW-2)  was  available  at  9.30  A.M.  itself  and  a  requisition  was  

already prepared even before 9.30 A.M., there is no question of Y. Chinna  

Narayana Reddy (PW-1) registering the FIR at 10.35 A.M.  V. Rami Reddy  

(PW-14)  has  also  admitted  that  even  by  the  time  they  reached  the  

Hospital,  M.L.A.  Varadarajula  Reddy  was  stated  to  have  come  to  the  

Hospital and the legal advisors were also found in the Hospital.  All this  

creates a big suspicion about the Complaint (Exhibit P-1), as also evidence  

of  Y.  Chinna Narayana  Reddy (PW-1).   Shri  Kanakraj,  Learned Senior  

Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants pointed out that this very  

vital aspect has not at all been considered by the High Court.  Once it is  

proved  that  the  FIR  itself  was  given  with  the  consultation  of  the  legal  

advisors and in the guidance of the local Member of Legislative Assembly  

who  was  inimical  towards  the appellant  herein  on account  of  the party  

factions,  the  whole  story  and  more  particularly,  the  part  played  by  Y.  

Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1) becomes suspicious.   

15. Considering evidence of Chandra Sekhar Reddy (PW-7) that they  

had started from the Village at about 8.10 or 8.20 A.M. and that they were  

traveling in a tractor, it cannot be said that they would reach only at 10.35  

21

A.M.  We have seen the evidence of K. Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2) as also  

the other witnesses like G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba  

Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5).  The evidence of all  these  

witnesses is full of contradictions and omissions.  Most of these witnesses  

figured of the accused in the counter case.  Therefore, their evidence was  

bound  to  be  appreciated  little  carefully.   We are  not  satisfied  with  the  

judgment of the High Court and more particularly, the appreciation of the  

evidence,  mainly  of  Y.  Chinna  Narayana  Reddy  (PW-1),  K.  Sudhakar  

Reddy (PW-2),  G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3),  R. Venkata Subba Reddy  

(PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5).  The High Court does not seem to  

have exercised the caution that it was expected to, more particularly, in  

view of the fierce enmity between the accused party and the complainant  

party.  On the other hand, the appreciation of the evidence by the Trial  

Court appears to be more satisfactory to us.  We are, therefore, not in a  

position to accept the evidence of these eye-witnesses, particularly against  

the appellant herein.

16. The  High  Court  also  has  nowhere  considered  the  other  

circumstance that there was no explosive substance found at the place  

where allegedly the bombs were exploded.  On the other hand, they were  

found somewhere else.  That is clear from the evidence of Ramakrishna  

22

Reddy (PW-15), Circle Inspector.  Even the High Court has noted this in  

the following words:-

“In the absence of any traces of bomb blast on the ground,  there is a doubt whether they received injuries on account of  throwing  of  one  bomb  against  the  deceased  or  due  to  explosion of any other bomb.  Though the presence of PW-1  to PW-5 is helpful regarding the overtacts attributed to A-1 in  attacking the deceased, there is a doubt regarding the culprit  who  hurled  bombs  against  the  witnesses  at  the  time  of  incident.”

This shows that the role of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-1), K.  

Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba  

Reddy (PW-4) and K.  Gopal  Yadav (PW-5) and more particularly,  their  

evidence regarding the overtact attributed to the appellant herein was not  

above  suspicion.   We  are  also  surprised  that  insofar  as  Bodella  

Malikarjuna Reddy (A-2), Yedula Nagamuni Reddy (A-3), Yeddula Maruthi  

Prasad  Reddy  (A-5),  Yeddula  Manohar  Reddy  (A-7)  and  Yeddula  

Prabhakar  Reddy  (A-14)  are  concerned,  the  High  Court  chose  to  

disbelieve  the  evidence  of  Y.  Chinna  Narayana  Reddy  (PW-1),  K.  

Sudhakar Reddy (PW-2), G. Raghurami Reddy (PW-3), R. Venkata Subba  

Reddy (PW-4) and K. Gopal Yadav (PW-5) on the ground that there was  

no  corroboration  to  the  evidence  of  each  witness  about  the  injuries  

received by the respective accused person.  The High Court expressed the  

view that  the  prosecution  witness  might  have  received  splinter  injuries  

while running away from the scene and it was not possible for them to  

23

observe as to which accused hurled bombs against each of them.  Once  

the benefit  of  such kiosk has been given to  the other  accused against  

whom  the  appeal  was  filed  by  the  State,  in  our  opinion,  the  same  

advantage should  have been given even to  the appellant  herein,  more  

particularly because he was admittedly a leader and the version against  

him was absolutely parrot-like.  We are, therefore, not convinced about the  

correctness of the judgment of the High Court.  The High Court has not  

exercised the caution that was expected to while dealing with the judgment  

of  acquittal  by the Trial  Court.   It  has also left  out of consideration the  

important findings regarding the FIR and the other important circumstance  

that  before  the  FIR  was  given,  the  lawyers/legal  advisors  had  already  

reached the place alongwith their leader, who was a Member of Legislative  

Assembly.   The  High  Court  has  also  not  further  considered  the  

contradictions between the evidence of Y. Chinna Narayana Reddy (PW-

1),  Dr.  K.  Venkata  Narayana  (PW-11),  the  Medical  Officer,  E.V.  Rami  

Reddy (PW-14),  Head Constable  and S.  Ramakrishna Reddy (PW-15),  

Circle Inspector inter se.   

17. For  all  the  above  reasons,  we feel  that  the  High  Court  was  not  

justified in interfering with the well considered judgment of the Trial Court.  

We, therefore,  allowing the appeal,  set  aside the judgment of  the High  

Court and restore that of the Trial Court.  The appellant is reported to be  

24

undergoing the punishment; he shall be forthwith released unless required  

in any other matter.  

       ………….…………………J.         (V.S. Sirpurkar)

        ….. ….…………………….J.         (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)

New Delhi; January 6, 2010.

25

Digital Performa

1. Case No. : Criminal Appeal No. 451 OF 2007

2. Cause title : Boddella Babul Raddy Versus

Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP

3. Judgment heard by : Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar      Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma

4. Judgment reserved by : Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar

5. Date of C.A.V. : 19.11.2009

6. Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 06.01.2010 (Wednesday)

26