REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1361 OF 2003

The State of Andhra Pradesh            ….Appellant

Versus

M.Narasimha Rao        …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. This appeal against acquittal at the instance of the State  

of Andhra Pradesh arises out of the following facts.

2. M.Narasimha  Rao,  the  respondent  herein,  and  the  

deceased T. Subbaiah were residents of village Veknuru.  

The deceased was married with PW2 and they had two  

sons  PWs.1  and  3.   Some  two  months  prior  to  the  

present incident, a quarrel had taken place between the  

respondent  and  PW1  in  which  PW1  had  suffered  a  

beating.  In order to avenge this insult, PW3 went to the  

house  of  the  respondent  and  gave  him  a  sound  

thrashing.  On 13th September 1995, PW3 planned to go  

on a religious journey to Pedakakani and while doing so,

Crl. Appeal No.1361/2003

he requested his mother PW2 and his father to sleep in  

his  house  while  he  was away.   Accordingly,  the  

deceased and PW2 went to the house of PW3 to sleep  

there  that  night.   At  about  mid  night  on  the  night  

intervening between 13th and 14th September 1995, the  

accused respondent reached the house of PW3 armed  

with a knife and on seeing a person sleeping on the cot  

in the verandah, and believing him to be PW3, attacked  

him administering several knife blows. On hearing the  

commotion, PW2 who was sleeping on a mat besides her  

husband’s cot, cried out in alarm and also attempted to  

intervene to save her husband, but the accused pushed  

her  down.  In the  meanwhile,  PW1 whose  house was  

close by also rushed to spot and he also witnessed the  

incident  and  attempted  to  catch  the  accused  who,  

however, managed to run away.  The accused thereafter  

went to the house of his maternal uncle PW6 who told  

him  to  get  out  of  the  house.    At  8  a.m.  on  14th  

September 1995 PW1 went to the Village Administrative  

Officer  PW8 and  narrated  the  incident  to  him.   PW8  

recorded  the  circumstances  in  writing  and  sent  the  

information to Police Station Avanigadda and a formal  

FIR was registered in the Police Station.  The accused  

was  thereafter  arrested  and on  the  completion  of  the  

investigation,  a charge sheet was filed under Sections  

449 and 302 of the IPC.  He pleaded false implication  

2

Crl. Appeal No.1361/2003

and  claimed  trial.   In support  of  its  case,  

prosecution examined 13 witnesses  in  all,  the  primary  

witnesses, being one PW1, the elder son of the deceased,  

who  had  come  to  the  place  of  incident  during  the  

occurrence  after  hearing  cries  of  his  mother  and had  

also attempted to apprehend him,  PW2, the wife of the  

deceased  and  mother  of  PW1  and  PW3,  the  younger  

brother of PW1, who had gone on a pilgrimage and was  

in  fact  the  cause  of  the  attack  and  PW8  the  Village  

Administrative  Officer,  who  had  recorded  the  first  

information  report.   Certain  other  witnesses,  who are  

not eye witnesses, were, however, declared hostile.  The  

prosecution also relied upon various documents such as  

the  post-mortem  report  and  circumstantial  evidence  

such  as  the  recovery  of  the  murder  weapon  at  the  

instance of the accused etc.  The trial court relying on  

the evidence of PW1 and PW2, both eye witnesses, and  

the closest relatives of the deceased, as corroborated by  

the  statement  of  PW3  with  regard  to  the  motive  

convicted the accused.  It held that though some of the  

witness had not supported the prosecution story, it was  

of  no  consequence  as  they  had  no  role  to  play  in  

determining the truthfulness of the eye witness account  

of  PW1  and  PW2.   The  court  accordingly  held  that  

though PWs 6 and 9 with respect to the extra judicial  

confession and the recovery of weapon of murder had  

3

Crl. Appeal No.1361/2003

not  supported  the prosecution, this factor would  

have  no  effect  on  the prosecution story.  The court  

also  observed  that  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  the  

incident  had happened at  night  and PW2 was an old  

woman 75 years of age and must have been completely  

traumatized by the events, the mere fact that the FIR  

had been lodged at about 10 a.m. or the special report  

had been delivered four hours later, could not detract  

from the prosecution story.  The trial court, accordingly,  

convicted  and  sentenced  the  accused  to  undergo  

imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC but  

did not record any conviction under Section 449 of the  

IPC.  An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court  

of the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The Division Bench by  

its judgment dated 18th April 2002 reversed the findings  

of the trial court and acquitted the accused.  In doing  

so,  the  High  Court  observed  that  as  some  of  the  

witnesses, PWs.4, 5, and 6, who had reached the place  

of incident soon after the incident, had turned hostile  

and PW9, the witness  of  the  extra judicial  confession  

had also not supported the prosecution, the reliance on  

the  statements  of  PWs.1  and  2  alone  was  a  matter  

which needed examination with care.  It observed that  

PW2  was  the  wife  of  the  deceased  and  was  an  eye  

witness  but  as  PW1  had  come  to  the  spot  after  the  

occurrence and had not been present at the time of the  

4

Crl. Appeal No.1361/2003

incident,  it  appeared that  he  was  not  an  eye-

witness,  and  the  court had  to  be  extremely  careful  

before recording a verdict of  guilt  on the basis  of  the  

statement  of  a  solitary  witness.   The court  then held  

that the incident had been happened at about mid night  

of the 13th and 14th September and the FIR had been  

lodged after  8 hours though the  Police  Station was 7  

km. away from the place of incident and in the fact that  

the special  report had been delivered 4 hours later to  

the  Magistrate’s  Court,  which  was  in  the  same  

compound  as  the  Police  Station  was  also  belated  

exercise.  The present appeal has been filed by the State  

of  Andhra  Pradesh  challenging  the  order  of  the  High  

Court and after the grant of leave, the matter is before  

us.

3. The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has,  first  and  

foremost,  pointed  out  that  there  was  no  reason  

whatsoever to disbelieve PW1 and PW2 as they were eye  

witnesses to the incident and also the closest relatives of  

the deceased.  It has been further pointed out that only  

witnesses,  who  could  be  expected  at  the  night  in  a  

residential house, would be the immediate members of  

the  family  and  to  look  for  evidence  beyond  these  

witnesses  was  difficult  to  accept.   It  has  also  been  

pleaded that there was no delay in the lodging the FIR  

as the statement had been made by PW2 to the Village  

5

Crl. Appeal No.1361/2003

Administrative Officer at about  8  a.m.  and it  was his  

duty  to  forward  the information  to  the  Police  

Station and if in doing so, some time had been taken as  

the Police Station was 7 km. away from the village, there  

was absolutely no delay in registration of the FIR.  It has  

been further submitted that the delay in the delivery of  

the  special  report  would  become  insignificant  in  the  

light of the categoric eye witness evidence.

4. The  learned  counsel  for  the  accused  respondent  has,  

however,  pointed  out  that  the  High  Court  having  

recorded an acquittal, the reappraisal of the evidence by  

this Court,  was not justified.   On merits,  it  has been  

pleaded that PW1 was not an eye witness and there was  

absolutely no justification for the trial court to have held  

otherwise.    It  has  further  been  pleaded  that  the  

evidence  of  PW2  was  at  variance  with  the  medical  

evidence and the fact that she had not seen the incident  

was borne by the fact that the FIR had been belatedly  

recorded and the special  report  delivered belatedly  as  

well.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  

gone through the record.  It is true that interference by this  

Court on a reappraisal of the evidence should not ordinarily  

be made particularly in the case of an acquittal appeal but if  

it  is  found that  the  judgment  of  acquittal  recorded by the  

6

Crl. Appeal No.1361/2003

High  Court  was  not  justified on the evidence, it would be a  

travesty  of  justice  for  this Court  to  ignore  this  aspect  

and the circumstances may, thus, warrant that the exercise  

be performed.  We see that the case hinges on the testimony  

of PW1 and PW2.  PW2 was the wife of the deceased and the  

mother of PW1.  The prosecution story is that PW3 had gone  

to a pilgrimage with his family and requested his parents to  

sleep in his house at night so as to guard the house and the  

accused thinking that the person sleeping in the verandah  

outside  the  house  was PW3 attacked  the  deceased  with  a  

knife and killed him instantaneously.  The fact that there had  

been ill will between the families of the deceased, particularly  

PW1 and PW3 on the one side, and the accused on the other  

is  clear  from  the  evidence  of  PWs1,  2  and  3.   It  is  also  

significant that the accused while running away had called  

out that he had killed PW3 and would now kill PW1.  It is  

obvious that the intended victim of the attack was PW3 and  

he managed to escape as he was not at home and his aged  

father  paid the  penalty  on the  mistaken impression of  the  

accused.  In this background, the evidence of PW1 and PW3,  

is  completely  trustworthy.  PW2  stated  that  she  had  been  

sleeping beside her husband’s cot in the verandah when she  

had heard a noise and had looked up and seen the accused  

attacking her husband and while she was looking on he had  

caused some additional injuries as well.  It is also her case  

that  her  cries  had  attracted  PW1,  whose  house  was  at  a  

7

Crl. Appeal No.1361/2003

distance  of  25  to  30  yards from  the  house  of  deceased  

and  who  had  reached  the place  during  the  attack  and  

had also attempted to catch hold the accused but he had  

pushed him aside and then run away.  For the High Court  

therefore to hold PW1 was not an eye witness is erroneous.  

We also see that eye witness account is fully corroborated by  

the medical evidence.  The Doctor, PW11 who conducted the  

post-mortem had found several cut injuries on the face and  

neck of the deceased.  They are reproduced hereinbelow:

“A cut injury of  0.5 cms below the  nose  extending  both  sides  1  cms  below the lobule of both ears size 30  cms  x  5  cms,  bone  deep,  severing  muscles,  vessels,  nerves  and  fracturing maxilla and mandible and  roots of  teeth.  2.  A cut injury of  1  cms below upper lip extending upto  angle  of  mandible  on left  side  and  upto  the  angle  of  mouth  on  right  side,  size  15  cms  x  5  cms x  bone  deep  severing  muscles,  vessels,  nerves and fracturing mandible and  roots of teeth. 3. A cut injury of over  chin extending both sides,  left  side  upto  sterna  mastoid  muscle,  right  side upto the angle of mandible, size  25  cms  x  5  cms  x  bone  deep  severing  muscles,  vessels,  nerves,  fracturing  mandible  on  right  side.  Brain  and  meninges;  left  caroled  vessels  are  cut  severed  stomach  contains-partially digested rice.”

8

Crl. Appeal No.1361/2003

6. The  violence  and intensity of the attack shows  

that it must have taken place over a couple of minutes and  

it  would not only have enabled PW1 to reach the place  of  

incident but also PW2 to have properly identified the accused  

as he was also a resident of the same village.  It is in the  

statement of PW1 that his house was adjoining the house of  

PW3 and it was, accordingly, possible for him to rush to the  

scene so as to give him the status of an eye witness.  As a  

matter of fact, in the cross examination, there is no serious  

suggestion that he had reached the place after the incident  

and  after  the  accused  had  run  away  and  the  broad  

suggestion  is  that  the  deceased  had  been  killed  by  some  

unknown person as he had many enemies in the village and  

the surrounding area.

7. To our mind, therefore, as the eye witnesses have fully  

supported  the  prosecution  story,  and  the  fact  that  the  

witness of the extra judicial confession PW9 or the recovery of  

the weapon etc. did not support the prosecution, would not  

detract from their evidence.

8. We are also of the opinion that there is no delay in the  

recording  of  the  FIR.   It  cannot  be  ignored that  PW2 had  

witnessed the murder of her husband and that too in a most  

brutal and bloodcurdling manner as the evidence is that the  

injuries had led to a huge amount of bleeding.  PW-2 was a  

9

Crl. Appeal No.1361/2003

lady of 75 years of age but she had  nevertheless  given  the  

statement  to  the  Village Administrative  Officer  at  

about 8 a.m. and the information had been forwarded to the  

police station.  If  any delay occurred after 8 a.m. it was a  

matter which was beyond the control of PW2.  In any case, in  

the light of the fact that information had been conveyed to the  

police station at 10 a.m. of what had happened at 1 or 2 a.m.  

in a remote village 7 km. away from the police station, we are  

of the opinion that there was no delay in the lodging of the  

FIR and if there was some delay, it stood explained. In the  

face of unimpeachable evidence the late delivery of the special  

report by itself would do no great damage to the prosecution  

story.   We,  accordingly,  allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the  

judgment  of  the  High  Court  and  convict  the  accused  

respondent under Section 302 of the IPC and sentence him to  

undergo RI for life and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of  

fine, to undergo SI for 15 days.  The accused respondent be  

taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence.

…………………………..J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

………………….…………… ……..J.

(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

New Delhi,

1 0

Crl. Appeal No.1361/2003

August 27, 2010. 1 1