REPORTABLE            

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1616 OF 2005

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH                     …APPELLANT

VS

THUMMALA ANJANEYULU                        ….RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State of Andhra  

Pradesh impugning the judgment of the High Court of that State whereby  

the  respondent  herein,  the  sole  accused,  has  been  acquitted  for  an  

offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.  The prosecution story  

is as under:

2. The accused Thummala Anjaneyulu by name, developed intimacy  

with Suguna, daughter-in-law of PW-2.  On the 6th of January 1997 PW-

2 found the respondent and his daughter-in-law in his cattle shed and  

that too in a compromising position.  PW-2 raised an alarm on which the  

respondent ran away leaving behind a lungi and underwear belonging to  

him.  Suguna was thereupon made to leave PW-2’s house the next day.  

At about 4 p.m. on the 7th January 1997, the deceased Bhoomaiah went  

to the house of PW-6 for the purpose of organizing a Panchayat between  

G.Kistaiah and G. Ramulu with respect to some agricultural land.  PW-3,  

the wife of the deceased, and another lady, Manemma by name, and his

sister-in-law also followed  

the deceased to oversee the outcome of the Panchayat.  Several other  

persons too were present at that time including the accused and PWs. 3,  

4, 5, and 6.   During the Panchayat proceedings the deceased suspected  

that  the  accused  was  casting  an  evil  eye  on  PW-3  and  Manemma  

aforesaid.  He thereupon confronted the accused and asked him as to  

why he was looking at the ladies whereupon the accused took out a knife  

and stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest which resulted in a  

serious injury to him.  Bhoomaiah was immediately removed (in a tractor  

belonging to PW-1, his younger brother) to Eldurti for medical aid but he  

succumbed to his injuries on the way on which the body was taken to  

the Eldurti Police Station instead.  PW-1 also gave a report Ex.P1 which  

was registered as a FIR by PW-10 the Sub-Inspector of the Police Station  

for  an offence  punishable  under  Section  302  of  the  IPC.   The  Police  

Officer  also  visited  the  place  of  occurrence  and  made  the  necessary  

enquiries  and  also  dispatched  the  dead  body  for  its  post-mortem  

examination  to  the  Government  Hospital,  Medak  and  further  handed  

over investigation to PW-11.  The accused surrendered to the police and  

during the course of his remand made a disclosure statement leading to  

the recovery of the alleged murder weapon.  On the completion of the  

investigation by PW-11, a charge-sheet was filed and the accused was  

ultimately brought to trial.   

Crl.Appeal   No.1616/2005

2

3. The  prosecution  in  

support of its case relied on the evidence of PW-3 to PW-6, PW-3 being  

the wife of the deceased, and PWs. 4, 5, and 6 being co-villagers of both  

the accused as also the deceased.  The doctor, who had conducted the  

post-mortem examination, had, in the meanwhile passed away, and the  

post-mortem  report  was  accordingly  not  proved  by  the  prosecution.  

When the appeal came up before a Division Bench of the High Court, this  

flaw was noticed and by its order dated 17th September 2003, a direction  

was issued that the post-mortem report be proved by somebody who was  

familiar with the hand writing of the deceased doctor.  The post-mortem  

report was, accordingly, proved by one Dr. P.Chandrasekhar.   

4. The trial court relying on the evidence of PW-2 with regard to the  

motive  and  that  he  had  seen  his  daughter  in  law  Suguna  in  a  

compromising  position with the deceased a day prior to the murder and  

the eye witness account of the other four witnesses held that the case  

against the respondent was proved beyond doubt.  The trial court also  

noticed that the FIR did not refer to either PW-3 or Manemma as being  

present  although  the  names  of  PWs.  4,  5  and  6  and  several  other  

persons, who had not been examined, had figured as eye witnesses.  The  

Court  observed  that  the  prosecution  story  as  given  in  the  FIR  was  

slightly discrepant vis-a-vis the statements in court inasmuch that in the  

FIR the story projected was that the accused had stabbed Bhoomaiah on  

account of annoyance as Suguna had been sent away whereas in the  

Crl.Appeal   No.1616/2005

3

evidence  in  court,  it  

appeared that this story had been deviated from and the murder was  

attributed to the fact that the respondent had been ogling at PW-3 and  

Manemma during the Panchayat.  The Court observed that in the light of  

the above facts,  the presence of  PW-3 was doubtful.   The trial  court,  

however, held that notwithstanding this apparent discordance there was  

absolutely no reason whatsoever for the other witnesses to have falsely  

named the accused as the assailant as they were truly independent.  The  

trial  court,  accordingly,  convicted the accused under Section 302 and  

sentenced him to imprisonment for life.  An appeal was, thereafter, taken  

by  the  accused  to  the  High  Court  and  the  High  Court,  has,  by  the  

impugned judgment,  acquitted the accused primarily on the plea that  

there was no evidence as to whether a Panchayat had been called to  

settle the dispute between Kistaiah and Ramulu and as PW3’s name had  

not been mentioned in the FIR or in the inquest report as an eye witness,  

her presence was doubtful.  The High Court, while referring to PWs.4, 5  

and 6 held that they too could not be believed for the simple reason that  

there appeared to be some discrepancy as to the motive for the attack.  

This is what the Court had to say:

“The  fact  that  the  names  of  PWs.4,5  and  6  were  mentioned in Ex.P1 at the earliest point of time as eye  witnesses to the occurrence lend credence to the fact  that  they  were  present  at  the  scene  of  occurrence  where  the  offence  took  place,  but  then  it  does  not  necessarily mean or lead to the conclusion that they  are speaking the truth. All the above mentioned three  witnesses consistently spoke in their evidence to the  

Crl.Appeal   No.1616/2005

4

effect  that  the  immediate  provocation  for  the  attack  on the  deceased  was  the  questioning the deceased as to why the appellant was  looking  at  PW.3  and  Manemma  at  the  scene  of  occurrence recorded earlier, the evidence of PWs.4 to 6  regarding the occasion for the assault will have to be  discarded. The inevitable conclusion would be that the  prosecution has not come out with the true version.  The benefit necessarily go to the accused/appellant. In  view of the conclusion reach by us, we do not propose  to go into the merits of the other submissions made by  the learned counsel for the appellant.”

5. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh  

impugning the judgment of the High Court.

6.   We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and gone  

through the record very carefully.  It is true that PW-3’s name does not  

figure in the FIR and there appears to be some uncertainty with regard to  

the motive for the murder.  But we have no doubt that the evidence of  

PW’s 4 to 6 who are truly independent witnesses ought to be believed in  

the  facts  of  the  case.   It  will  be  seen  that  the  High  Court  has  not  

discussed  the  evidence  of  these  witnesses  and  has  disposed  off  the  

matter  in  a  some what  sketchy manner.   We have  gone through the  

evidence of these witnesses with the help of the learned counsel.  We see  

no  reason  to  disbelieve  their  testimony.   They  have  given  categoric  

statements as to the manner in which the incident had happened.  We  

must highlight that these witnesses were completely  independent and  

had no axe to crime either in favour of the prosecution or the defence.  

They  unanimously  deposed  to  the  manner  in  which  the  accused,  

Crl.Appeal   No.1616/2005

5

provoked  by  the  

statement  made  by  the  deceased  that  he  was  looking  at  PW3  and  

Manemma in an ugly manner, had caused one injury and while running  

away from the spot had threatened those who were close by with dire  

consequences in case they intervened.

7. The spontaneity of the FIR also supports the eye witness account.  

The incident happened at about 4 p.m. in village Yeshwantraopet about  

12  km.  away  from Police  Station,  Eldurti.   An attempt  was  made  to  

remove the injured to the hospital but he died on the way, on which the  

dead body was taken to the police station and the FIR was lodged at 8  

p.m.  The promptness of the FIR and the fact that the presence of PWs. 4  

to  6  finds  mention  in  it,  clearly  speaks  to  the  truthfulness  of  the  

prosecution story.

8. The learned counsel for the accused has, however, submitted that  

even assuming for a moment that the prosecution story was correct and  

the accused liable for conviction,  it  was not still  a case of murder as  

there was no evidence to show that the accused had intended to cause  

the very injury which had been caused and had led to the death of the  

deceased and he was, therefore, liable only for a charge of manslaughter  

and  not  murder.   The  facts  of  the  case  undoubtedly  support  the  

argument  of  the  learned  counsel.   As  per  the  prosecution  story,  the  

deceased and the accused and the witnesses had gathered outside the  

house  of  PW6  to  organize  a  Panchayat  to  settle  a  dispute  between  

Crl.Appeal   No.1616/2005

6

Kistaiah  and  Ramulu,  

who were not, in any manner, connected with either party and it was at  

that stage that the accused was apparently provoked by the remarks of  

the deceased that he should not cast an evil eye  on PW-3 and Manemma  

on which he had suddenly taken out a knife which he was carrying and  

caused one injury in the chest.   We are of the opinion that there was no  

intention on the part of the accused to cause the very injury which he  

caused which ultimately led to the death of the deceased.  The accused  

would thus be liable for conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC  

and not under Section 302 thereof.  We, accordingly, allow this appeal,  

set  aside  the  acquittal  recorded  by  the  High  Court  and  convict  the  

accused for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC  

and sentence him to 7 years R.I.   The appeal is allowed to the above  

extent.

……………………………..J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

……………………………..J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 25, 2010.   

Crl.Appeal   No.1616/2005

7