Boddella Babul Reddy vs Public Prosecutor,High Court Of A.P

"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

2 147, 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

3

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

4

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)

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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,

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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,

15

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

16

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

17

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).

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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.

26

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)