{"id":12463,"date":"1991-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991"},"modified":"2018-07-28T09:17:54","modified_gmt":"2018-07-28T03:47:54","slug":"bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991","title":{"rendered":"Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1468, \t\t 1991 SCR (2) 723<\/div>\n
Author: M Fathima Beevi<\/div>\n
Bench: Fathima Beevi, M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBOLLAVARAM PEDDA NARSI REDDY AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT07\/05\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\nBENCH:\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR 1468\t\t  1991 SCR  (2) 723\n 1991 SCC  (3) 434\t  1991 SCALE  (1)909\n\n\nACT:\n     Supreme   Court  (Enlargement  of\t Criminal   Apellate\nJurisdiction) Act, 1970: Section 2.\n     Indian Penal Code 1860: Section 302 and 149.\n     Criminal\t Law-Murder-Identification   of\t    accused-\nCircumstances  showing that eye-witnesses did not  have\t the\nopportunity  to identify the accused-Rejection of  testimony\nof  witnesses  and acquittal by trial  court-Appeal  against\nacquittal by the State-Power of appellate court to reapraise\nand  evaluate  evidence-Reversal  of  acquittal\t order\t and\nconviction of accused by appellate court held not justified.\n     Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 9.\n     Test  Identification Parades-Mixing of persons know  to\naccused with witnesses-Effect of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  appellants (A-1 to A-3 and A-5-6), along with\t Co-\naccused (A-4), were prosecuted under sections 302\/149 of the\nIndian\t Penal\t Code.\tTest identification   parades\twere\nconducted by the Magistrates in which A-6 was identified  by\nPWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 and A -1, 2,3,and 5 were identified by PWs\n1  and\t2.  The trial court held   that\t the  identification\nparade\twas  perfunctory  and was of no\t assistance  to\t the\nprosecution. It also rejected the testimony of PWs 1 to 5 by\nholding\t that the evidence of PWs 3, 4, and 5  was  untrust-\nworthy\tand  that it was unsafe to accept the  testimony  of\nother  two  eye-witnesses,  PWs\t 1 and\t2  for\trecording  a\nconviction.   Accordingly the trial court acquitted all\t the\naccused persons.  Against the order of acquittal, the  State\npreferred an appeal before the\tHigh Court.  The High  Court\naccepted  the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, corroborated by\t the\nevidence  of test identification  parade  and the  testimony\nof  PWs 3 and 4 to find the appellants guilty.\t Accordingly\nthe  High  Court  reversed   the  order\t of  acquittal\t and\nconvicted  the appellants.  Since A-4 was not identified  by\nthe  PWs 1 to 4, he was given the benefit of doubt  and\t the\nHigh Court confirmed his acquittal.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       724\n     In appeal to this court under section 2 of the  Supreme\nCourt (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)\tAct,\n1970, it was contended on behalf of the\t appellants that PWs\n(1  and\t 2)  were strangers to the  assailants\tand  in\t the\ncircumstances of the case they did not have the\t opportunity\nto identify the assailants and consequently their  testimony\nwas  not  free\t from doubt; the trial court  was  right  in\nrejecting  the testimony  of these witnesses but   the\tHigh\nCourt  erred  in  reversing  the  order\t of  acquittal\t and\nconvicting  the\t appellants by accepting  the  testimony  of\nthese witnesses.\n     Allowing  the  appeal and setting aside  the  order  of\nconviction and sentence, this Court,\n     HELD:  1.It  is  open to Supreme  Court  to  re-examine\nthe  evidence for the purpose of satisfying  itself  whether\nthe  High  Court  was justified in reversing  the  order  of\nacquittal in the facts and circumstances of the case.  In an\nappeal\tagainst acquittal, the Appellate Court is  empowered\nto  evaluate the evidence and arrive at its own\t conclusion.\nBut  where  the\t view  taken  by  the  trial  court  on\t  an\nappreciation  of the evidence is also a plausible view,\t the\nAppellate  Court  shall\t be slow to interfere with  it\teven\nwhen  a different view is possible on a reappraisal  of\t the\nevidence. [728F-G]\n     1.1 Even when two evenly balanced views of the evidence\nare possible one must necessarily concede the existence of a\nreasonable doubt. [731F]\n     2.The evidence given by the witnesses before the  Court\nis  the substantive evidence.  In a case  where the  witness\nis  a stranger to the accused and he identifies the  accused\nperson\tbefore the court for the first time, the court\twill\nnot  ordinarily\t accept that identification  as\t conclusive.\nIt  is to lend assurance to the testimony of  the  witnesses\nthat  evidence in the form of an earlier  identification  is\ntendered.  If the accused persons are got identified by\t the\nwitness soon after their arrest and such identification does\nnot  suffer  from  any\tinfirmity  that\t circumstance  lends\ncorroboration to the evidence give by the witness before the\nCourt.\tBut in a case where the evidence before the court is\nitself shaky, the identification before the magistrate would\nbe of no assistance to the prosecution. [729D-E]\n     2.1  The  credibility of the evidence relating  to\t the\nidentification\tdepends\t largely  on  the  opportunity\t the\nwitness\t had  to observe the  assailants when the crime\t was\ncommitted and memorize the impression.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       725\nIn   the  instant  case at the scene of the  crime  when  no\nnatural\t light was available and the street light was  at  a\ndistance it is unlikely that the eye witnesses by  momentary\nglance\tof  the assailants who surrounded the victim  had  a\nlasting\t impression  and  the  chance  of  identifying\t the\nassailants without mistake.  Therefore the testimony of\t PWs\n1 and 2 is unsafe to be acted upon.  The overall view of the\nevidence  taken\t by  the  Trial\t Court\tis  reasonable\t and\nplausible.  The High Court was not justified in\t interfering\nwith   the  order  of  acquittal  when\tthe  identity\t and\ninvolvement  of\t the appellant was  not\t established  beyond\nreasonable doubt.[731A-B, E-F-G, 730H]\n     3.\t  Value\t  of   identification  parade\tdepends\t  on\nthe  effectiveness  and the precautions\t taken\tagainst\t the\nidentifying  witness  having an opportunity  of\t seeing\t the\npersons\t to  be\t identified before  they  are  paraded\twith\nothers\tand  also  against  the\t identifying  witness  being\nprovided  by the investigating authority with  other  unfair\naid or assistance so as to facilitate the identification  of\nthe accused concerned.\tWhen persons who have already  known\nthe  accused persons to be identified are mixed up with\t the\nwitnesses the test identification is clearly vitiated and is\nfutile.\t  In the instant case the magistrates in  conducting\nthe test identification parade have committed a grave  error\nbecause\t in the case of Accused No. 6 he had mixed up  along\nwith PWs 1 and 2 a person known to the accused.\t  Similarly,\nin the identification of the other accused, PW-4 who claimed\nacquitance  with Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 was mixed  up\twith\nPWs 1 and 2. [731C-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION:\tCriminal Appeal\t No.
\n194 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgment  and Order dated  4.7.1978  of\t the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 576 of 1977.\n<\/p>\n
     K.\t  Madhava   Reddy,  and\t G.  Narasimhulu   for\t the
\nAppellants.\n<\/p>\n
     B. Parthasarthi for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court\twas delivered by
\n     FATHIMA BEEVI, J. The appellants  are Bollavaram  Pedda
\nNarsi  Reddy  (A -1), Bollavaram Chinna Narsi  Reddy  (A-2),
\nKavalakuntla Rama Subba Reddy (A-3), Duddula  Venkata  Subba
\nReddy  (A-5)  and  Mala Prakasam (A-6)\tbefore\tthis  Court.
\nThese  appellants  along with accused No. 4  Duddela  Ramana
\nReddy, were tried for the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    726<\/span>
\nmurder\tof one Chandrasekhara Reddy on the night  of  August
\n15,  1974.  The trial court acquitted all the  accused.\t  On
\nappeal\tby  the\t State,\t the  High  Court  convicted   these
\nappellants  under  sections 302 read with 149,\tI.P.C.,\t and
\nsentenced  them\t to undergo imprisonment for life  and\talso
\nimposed\t short-term imprisonment for minor  offence  to\t run
\nconcurrently.\n<\/p>\n
     Chandrasekhara  Reddy,  the deceased, and\tthe  accused
\nwere   residents  of  village  Jeereddy\t Kotharpallai.\t  In
\n1970,\tAccused\t No.  3 was elected  as a  Sarpanch  of\t the
\nvillage\t with  active  support of  the\tdeceased.   However,
\ndifferences  arose  between  them as  they  supported  rival
\ngroups in the election in the neighbouring village. 10\tdays
\nbefore\tthe incident, the deceased is stated to have  openly
\ndeclared that he would get Accused-3 removed by moving a  no
\nconfidence motion.  This according to the prosecution is the
\nmotive for the crime.\n<\/p>\n
     On the date of occurrence, Chandrasekhara Reddy met PW-
\n1  (Guddeti  Balaveera Reddy) and  PW-2\t (Donthireddi  Subba
\nReddy)\tin the hotel of Subbamma (PW-8) in the\tneighbouring
\nvillage Proddatur.  The deceased along with the two witnesses
\nattended  a cinema show at Anwar Talkies.  They came out  of
\nthe  theatre 10 minutes\t earlier around 9.30 P.M.  and\twere
\nwalking\t along\tthe road towards the bus stand.\t  When\tthey
\nreached near the old telephone exchange about 50 metres away
\nfrom Anwar Talkies, there was an  explosion   of   crackers.
\nThe accused persons suddenly surrounded the deceased.\tThey
\nwere  armed  with daggers.  They attacked him after  one  of
\nthem pushing aside PW-1. PW-1 fell on the barbed wire  fence
\nof the transformer and received scratches on his thigh.\t The
\ndeceased was stabbed indiscriminately and simultaneously  by
\nall the assailants who retreated in two different directions
\nand the deceased died on the spot instantaneously.   Besides
\nPWs 1 and 2, who witnessed the occurrence, PW-3\t Donthireddi
\nNarayana Reddy, and PW-4 Poreddi Subba Reddy. had also\tseen
\nthe attack.  These witnesses were passing along the road.PW-
\n5, Mekkamalla Balireddi, reached the scene attracted by\t the
\ncrowd  and had seen the accused\t persons running away.\t The
\nstreet light besides the electric light at a petrol bunk and
\nthe  light in the bunk on the side of the road were  burning
\nat  the\t time of the occurrence.  The  assailants  had\tbeen
\nidentified by the witnesses in that light.   The  assailants
\nwere  strangers\t to the PWs 1 and 2 but A-2, 3\tand  5\twere
\nknown  to PWs 3 and 4 and 5 who had also  acquaintance\twith
\nthe  deceased PW-5 informed PW-7 (Polagiri Siva Reddy),\t the
\nbrother\t of the deceased, about the occurrence, while PWs  3
\nand 4 left the place after seeing the deceased\tlying at the
\nscene.\tThis in short is the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t727<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Town Police Station is situated about two  furlongs
\naway  from  the place of occurrence.  PW-1 along  with\tPW-2
\nwent to the police station and lodged the first\t information
\nreport.\t  A  crime ws registered against   six\tunidentified
\npersons.   PW-16  (Sri\tS.  Khasim  Sab,  Sub  Inspector  of
\nPolice),  recorded  the\t statement  Ex.\t P-1.\tThe   Circle
\nInspector  visited  the\t scene.\t PW-2 was  referred  to\t the
\nMedical\t Officer at 4 A.M. The inquest on the dead body\t was
\nheld  on  the next morning.   The  post-mortem\t examination
\nrevealed that deceased\thad sustained 54 injuries all except
\none  being incised wounds.  At the time of the inquest,\t the
\nstatements of PWs-2 and 7 were recorded.  PW-7 suspected the
\ninvolvement of Accused 2, 3 and 5.  On 17.8.1974, the police
\ndogs  were  pressed  into service.  It is  stated  that\t the
\nsniffer\t went to the village of the deceased and  thereafter
\nto  the houses of Accused 2 and 3.  Statements of PWs  3,  4
\nand  5\twere  recorded\ton 18.8.1974.\tAccused\t No.  6\t was
\narrested  on  25.9.1974.  A test identification\t parade\t was
\nconducted   by\tPW-9 (Sri G.V. Raghavaiah,  Judicial  Second
\nClass Magistrate)  on 31.10.1974. A-6 was identified by\t PWs
\n1,  2,\t3   and\t 4 at the parade  as  recorded\tin  Ex.\t P-2
\nproceeding.   The  other accused persons  were\tarrested  on
\n1.11.1974.  PW-10 (Sri D. Sreeramulu, Judicial Second  Class
\nMagistrate),  conducted the  test identification  parade  in
\nwhich\tas  per Ex. P-3 proceeding, PWs 1,and  2  identified
\naccused 1, 2, 3 and 5.\tThe investigation was completed\t and
\nthe charge was laid against the six persons.\n<\/p>\n
     The  learned  sessions judge analysed  the\t prosecution
\nevidence  meticulously and discarded the testimony of PWs  1
\nto  5.\t He considered PWs 3, 4 and 5 as  chance  witnesses,
\nfound their conduct in not disclosing the involvement of the
\naccused\t persons known to them until their  statements\twere
\nrecorded  on 18.8.1974 as suspicious and strange  when\tthey
\nhad  acquaintance  with\t the deceased.\tPWs  3\tand  4\twhen
\nexamined   by  PWs  9  and  10\tfor  the  purpose  of\ttest
\nidentification\tparade had given statement which  vary\twith
\ntheir earlier statement and their evidence before court\t was
\ncontradictory  to their prior statements.  It was,  doubtful
\nwhether\t they could have seen the occurrence  or  identified
\nany  of\t the  assailants.  Their  evidence  was,  therefore,
\nrejected  as  untrustworthy.  The testimony of the  two\t eye
\nwitnesses  PWs\t1 and 2 who claimed that they  were  in\t the
\ncompany\t of the deceased at the time of the  occurrence\t was
\nalso  not accepted by the trial court for  various  reasons.
\nThey were strangers to the accused persons.  Their  evidence
\nregarding  the\tidentification\tof  the\t assailants  as\t the
\naccused\t did not impress the trial court which\tpointed\t out
\nthat  the prosecution had no consistent case  regarding\t the
\nsource\tof light at the scene that these witnesses even\t if
\npresent at the scene when the assailants mounted the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t     728<\/span>
\nattack\ton  the deceased could not have\t remained  there  to
\nobserve\t and  memorize the features of\tthe  assailants\t and
\nidentify  them after a long lapse of time.  PW-1  rushed  to
\nthe  police  station  in utter confusion  even\twithout\t his
\ndhoti.\tThe witnesses were frightened and ran away.  In this
\nsituation in the meagre light available, they could not have
\nidentified the assailants as the accused.  The learned judge
\non a consideration of the medical evidence was also  of\t the
\nview that the occurrence could not have happened at the time
\nmentioned  by  these witnesses and, said there were  several
\nsuspicious  features  which render their  version  doubtful.
\nThe  learned judge also pointed out that the  identification
\nparade\twas  perfunctory  and was of no\t assistance  to\t the
\nprosecution.  The learned sessions judge analysed the entire
\nevidence and considered it unsafe to accept the testimony of
\nthe  two witnesses to record a conviction.  In that view  of
\nthe matter, he acquitted all the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
     The  High\tCourt considered the reasoning\tas  perverse
\nand on a reappraisal of the evidence, took a contrary  view.
\nIn  the opinion of the High Court, PWs 1  to 4 are  truthful
\nwitnesses  and\ttheir evidence could be\t accepted.   In\t its
\nview,  there  was no serious infirmity\tin  the\t prosecution
\nevidence.    Accordingly,  the\tHigh  Court   accepted\t the
\ntestimony  of PWs 1 and 2, corroborated by the\tevidence  of
\ntest identification parade and the testimony of PWs 3 and  4
\nto  find the appellants guilty.\t Since accused No.4 was\t not
\nidentified by PWs 1 to 4, he was given the benefit of  doubt
\nand his acquittal was  confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
     The  learned  counsel for the appellants has  taken  us
\nthrough the entire evidence in the case.  The appeal is\t one
\nunder  Section\t2  of  the  Supreme  Court  (Enlargement  of
\nCriminal  Appellate  Jurisdiction)  Act, 1970.\t It  is,  no
\ndoubt, open to this Court to re-examine the evidence for the
\npurpose\t of  satisfying itself whether the  High  Court\t was
\njustified  in reversing the order of acquittal in the  facts
\nand   circumstances   of  the  case.  It   is\twell-settled
\nproposition of law that in an appeal against acquittal,\t the
\nAppellate  Court is empowered to evaluate the  evidence\t and
\narrive\tat  its own conclusion.\t It is equally\tsettled\t law
\nthat  where  the  view\ttaken  by  the\ttrial  court  or  an
\nappreciation  of the evidence is also a plausible view,\t the
\nAppellate Court shall be slow to interfere with it even when
\na  different  view  is\tpossible on  a\treappraisal  of\t the
\nevidence.   The learned counsel for the\t appellants  pointed
\nout that the High Court in reversing the order of  acquittal
\nin this case had departed from these established  principles
\nand had thus erred grievously  in convicting the appellants.
\nIt  was submitted that the conviction recorded by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  essentially  rests on the testimony of PWs 1  and  2.
\nWhen the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t     729<\/span>
\nserious\t infirmities in the evidence  of the other  two\t eye
\nwitnesses PWs 3 and 4 had been brought to the notice of\t the
\nHigh  Court,  it has eschewed that evidence and\t has  placed
\nreliance only on the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 in arriving at
\nthe  conclusion\t that  the  appellants\tare  guilty  of\t the
\noffence.    The\t appellants’  learned  counsel,\t  therefore,
\ncontended  that\t if  the view taken by the  trial  court  on
\nthe  testimony\tof PWs 1 and 2 cannot  be  characterised  as
\nperverse or wholly unreasonable, there\tis no  justification
\nfor the High Court to accept that evidence as the basis of a
\nconviction even if in its opinion the evidence of these\t two
\nwitnesses  could  have been relied on.\tThe main  plank\t  of
\nthe  argument of the learned counsel is that  the  witnesses
\nbeing\tstrangers   to\tthe  assailants\t  when\t there\t are
\ncircumstances to show that they did not have the opportunity
\nto identify the assailants, their  evidence involving  these
\nappellants  is not free from doubt and, therefore the  trial
\ncourt  had taken the reasonable view that it is\t unsafe\t for
\nthe  court  to accept that evidence to convict\tthe  accused
\npersons.  We see considerable force in the contention of the
\nlearned counsel for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence given by the witnesses before the court is
\nthe substantive evidence.  In a case where the witness is  a
\nstranger to the accused and he identifies the accused person
\nbefore\tthe  court for the first time, the  court  will\t not
\nordinarily accept that identification as conclusive.  It  is
\nto  lend  assurance to the testimony of the  witnesses\tthat
\nevidence  in  the  form\t of an\tearlier\t identification\t is
\ntendered.  If the accused persons are got identified by\t the
\nwitness soon after their arrest and such identification does
\nnot  suffer  from  any\tinfirmity  that\t circumstance  lends
\ncorroboration  to the evidence given by the  witness  before
\nthe  court.   But in a case where the  evidence\t before\t the
\ncourt  is  itself  shaky,  the\tidentification\tbefore\t the
\nmagistrate would be of no assistance to the prosecution
\n     In\t the  present case, the\t appellants  are  admittedly
\npersons\t with  whom  the  two  witnesses  had  no   previous
\nacquaintance.\tThe   occurrence happened on a\tdark  night.
\nWhen  the crime was committed during the hours\tof  darkness
\nand the assailants are utter strangers to the witnesses, the
\nidentification\t of  the  accused   persons  assumes   great
\nimportance.   The  prevailing light is a matter\t of  crucial
\nsignificance.  The necessity to have the suspects identified
\nby  the\t witnesses  soonafter  their  arrest  also   arises.
\nAccording to the prosecution, the attack on the deceased was
\nsudden\tand simultaneous and the assailants slipped away  in
\nno  time.   Both  PWs 1 and 2 had  deposed  that  they\twere
\nattracted  by the explosion and when they turned  back,\t the
\nassailants  surrounded the deceased and inflicted  the\tstab
\ninjuries. PW-1\twas pushed aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t      730<\/span><\/p>\n
He fell on the fence of the barbed wire of the\ttransformer,
\nreceived  scratches.  His dhoti stuck to the wire.  He\tleft
\nit  there and ran to the police station in utter  confusion.
\nHis P-1 does not disclose that PW-2 accompanied him,  though
\nPWs  1\tand 2 stated before court that they  went  together.
\nThe  possibility  of the companions of the  deceased  having
\nbeen scattered\tand gone in different directions cannot\t  be
\nruled out.  Even in Ex.P-1  statement what PW-1 said is that
\nsix persons attacked the deceased; they were villagers; they
\nwere wearing dhoti and kurta.  One was about 45 years of age
\nand of dark complexion, another was 30 years of age lean and
\nyet another was also a lean person.  These may be the  vague
\nimpression   the  witness  had\ton  seeing  the\t  assailants
\nsuddenly.    It\t is  not  however  in  evidence\t  that\t the
\ndescription  given  by\tPW-1 in Ex. p-1\t fits  in  with\t the
\ndescription  of\t any  one  of  the  appellants.\t  When\t the
\nmagistrates  recorded the statements of the witnesses,\tthey
\ncould not give any  characteristic feature of any one of the
\nassailants.  The entire case depends on\t the  identification
\nof the appellants  and the identification is founded  solely
\non the test identification parades.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, in the absence of cogent evidence that PWs 1
\nand 2 by reason of the visibility of the light at the  place
\nof  occurrence and proximity to the assailants had  a  clear
\nvision\tof the action of each one of the accused persons  in
\norder that their features could get impressed in their\tmind
\nto  enable  them  to recollect the  same  and  identify\t the
\nassailants  even  after a long lapse of time,  it  would  be
\nhazardous  to  draw the inference that\tthe  appellants\t are
\nthe real  assailants.  There is no  whisper in Ex.  P-1\t that
\nthere  was some source of light at the scene.  The  omission
\ncannot be ignored as insignificant.  When the  Investigating
\nOfficer\t has  visited the scene, he made  reference  to\t the
\nstreet\tlights, petrol bunk light etc.\tWhether\t the  street
\nlights\tand the petrol bunk\/ light had been burning  at\t the
\ntime  of  the  occurence and the spot  where  the  incidence
\nhappened  was so located as to receive the  light  emanating
\nfrom  these  sources  are required to be  made\tout  by\t the
\nprosecution.  When this significant fact is left out in\t the
\nearliest  record,  the\timprovement in\tthe  course  of\t the
\ninvestigation and trial could be of no avail. The fact\tthat
\nthere  had  been  no proof regarding  the  identity  of\t the
\nassailants until 18.8.1974 would  suggest that even  persons
\nwho collected at the scene in the course of the incidence or
\nsoon  thereafter were not in a position to identify any\t one
\nof the assailants.  Since the Investigating Officer  arrived
\nat  the scene the same night and the inquest ws held in\t the
\nnext   morning,\t it  would  have  been\tpossible   for\t the
\ninvestigating  agency to collect information  regarding\t the
\nidentity  of the assailants earlier to 18.8.1974,  if\tthey
\nhad  been  really  identified by any one  of  the  witnesses
\nexamined in the case.  When no natural
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    731<\/span>
\nlight was available and the street light was  at a  distance
\nit is unlikely that the eye witnesses by momentary glance of
\nthe  assailants\t who  surrounded the victim  had  a  lasting
\nimpression  and\t the chance of\tidentifying  the  assailants
\nwithout\t mistake.  The credibility of the evidence  relating
\nto the identification depends largely on the opportunity the
\nwitness\t had  to observe the assailants when the  crime\t was
\ncommitted  and memorize the impression.\t This aspect of\t the
\nmatter\t had   been  stressed\tby  the\t trial\t court\t  in
\nappreciating  the evidence of PWs 1 and 2.  The\t High  Court
\nhas  ignored  the  inherent infirmity  and  failed  to\tdeal
\neffectively   with  every  important  circumstance  in\t the
\nevidence  which weighed with the trial court  to  disbelieve
\nthe prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
     We have noticed that the magistrates in conducting\t the
\ntest identification parade have committed a grave error.  In
\nthe case of Accused No.6 PW-9 had mixed up along with PWs  1
\nand 2 a person, Gulati who knew the accused.  Similarly,  in
\nthe  identification of the other accused, PW-4\twho  claimed
\nacquaintance  with Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 was mixed up\twith
\nPWs  1\tand  2.\t When persons who  have\t already  known\t the
\naccused\t persons  to  be identified are mixed  up  with\t the
\nwitnesses,  the test identification is clearly vitiated\t and
\nis  futile.  Value of identification parade  depends on\t the
\neffectiveness\tand  the  precautions  taken   against\t the
\nidentifying  witness  having and opportunity of\t seeing\t the
\npersons to be identified before they are paraded with others
\nand  also  against the identifying  witness  being  provided
\nby  the\t investigating authority with other  unfair  aid  or
\nassistance  so\tas  to\tfacilitate  the\t identification\t  of
\nthe  accused  concerned.   Therefore, the  evidence  of\t the
\nearlier\t identification in this\t case is unacceptable.\t The
\ntestimony  of PWs 1 and 2 before court is also unsafe to  be
\nacted upon.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus  we  do not consider that the view  taken  by\t the
\nlearned\t sessions  judge on the whole  was  erroneous.\t The
\noverall view of the evidence taken by the learned   sessions
\njudge  is reasonable  and plausible, while it is  true\tthat
\nsome  of  the  reasons given if taken  individually  do\t not
\nappear\tto  be substantial.  Even when two  evenly  balanced
\nviews  of  the evidence are possible  one  must\t necessarily
\nconcede\t the  existence of a reasonable doubt.\t Thus  on  a
\ncareful\t and anxious  consideration of the evidence  in\t the
\nlight of the reasoning adopted by the trial court as well as
\nthe  High Court, we are of the opinion that the\t High  Court
\nwas not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal
\nwhen the identity  and involvement of the appellants had not
\nbeen  established beyond reasonable doubt.   We\t accordingly
\nallow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence\t and
\nmaintain  the  order of acquittal.  The bail  bonds  of\t the
\nappellants shall stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
TNA\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal allowed
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       731<\/span>
\nlight was available and the street light was distance it  is
\nunlikely  that the eye witnesses by monetary glance  of\t the
\nassailants   who  surrounded  the  victim  had\t a   lasting
\nimpression  and\t the chance of\tidentifying  the  assailants
\nwithout\t mistake.  The credibility of the evidence  relating
\nto the identification depends largely on the opportunity the
\nwitness\t had  to observe the assailants when the  crime\t was
\ncommitted  and memorize the impression.\t This aspect of\t the
\nmatter had been stressed by the trial court in\tappreciating
\nthe evidence of PWs 1 and 2.  The High Court has ignored the
\ninherent  infirmity and failed to deal effectively with\t the
\nimportant  circumstance in the evidence which weighted\twith
\nthe trial court to disbelieve the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
     We have noticed that the magistrates in conducting\t the
\ntest identification parade have committed a grave error.  In
\nthe case of Accused No. 6 PW-9 had mixed up along with PWs 1
\nand 2 a person, Gulati who knew the accused.  Similarly,  in
\nthe  identification of the other accused, PW-4\twho  claimed
\nacquaintance with Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 was mixed up\twith
\nPWs  1\tand  2.\t When persons who  have\t already  known\t the
\naccused\t persons  to  be identified are mixed  up  with\t the
\nwitnesses,  the test identification is clearly vitiated\t and
\nis  futile.  Value of identification parade depends  on\t the
\nthe  effectiveness  and the precautions\t taken\tagainst\t the
\nidentifying  witness  having an opportunity  of\t seeing\t the
\npersons to be identified before they are paraded with others
\nand  also against the identifying witness being provided  by
\nthe  investigating  authority  with  other  unfair  aid\t  or
\nassistance  so\tas to facilitate the identification  of\t the
\naccused\t concerned.  Therefore, the evidence of the  earlier
\nidentification in this case is unacceptable.  The  testimony
\nof PWs 1 and 2 before court is also unsafe to be acted upon.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus  we  do not consider that the view  taken  by\t the
\nlearned\t sessions  judge on the whole  was  erroneous.\t The
\noverall\t view of the evidence taken by the learned  sessions
\njudge  is  reasonable and plausible, while it is  true\tthat
\nsome  of  the  reasons given if taken  individually  do\t not
\nappear\tto  be substantial.  Even when two  evenly  balanced
\nviews  of  the evidence are possible  one  must\t necessarily
\nconcede\t the  existence of a reasonable doubt.\t Thus  on  a
\ncareful\t and  anxious consideration of the evidence  in\t the
\nlight of the reasoning adopted by the trial court as well as
\nthe  High Court, we are of the opinion that the\t High  Court
\nwas not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal
\nwhen the identity and involvement of the appellants had\t not
\nbeen  established beyond reasonable doubt.   We\t accordingly
\nallow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence\t and
\nmaintain  the  order  or acquittal. The bail  bonds  of\t the
\nappellants shall stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
TNA\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       732<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1468, 1991 SCR (2) 723 Author: M Fathima Beevi Bench: Fathima Beevi, M. (J) PETITIONER: BOLLAVARAM PEDDA NARSI REDDY AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT07\/05\/1991 BENCH: FATHIMA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12463","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-28T03:47:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-28T03:47:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991\"},\"wordCount\":3350,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991\",\"name\":\"Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-28T03:47:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-28T03:47:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991","datePublished":"1991-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-28T03:47:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991"},"wordCount":3350,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991","name":"Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-28T03:47:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bollavaram-pedda-narsi-reddy-and-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-7-may-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy And … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 1991"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12463","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12463"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12463\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12463"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}