{"id":35741,"date":"1976-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976"},"modified":"2016-10-26T18:37:57","modified_gmt":"2016-10-26T13:07:57","slug":"state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976","title":{"rendered":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 2207, \t\t 1976 SCR (3) 929<\/div>\n
Author: R S Sarkaria<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. VENKATA REDDY & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/03\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nSHINGAL, P.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 2207\t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 929\n 1976 SCC  (3) 454\n\n\nACT:\n     Evidence  Act  (1\tof  1872),  s.\t9-Identification  of\naccused at test identification parade-Use of.\n     Indian Penal  Code (Act  45 of  1860), ss.\t 34 and 302-\nConviction under,  when named  co-accused are acquitted-When\npermissible.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     When the  bus in  which the  deceased and\tP.Ws. 1 to 3\nwere travelling,  along with  other passengers,\t halted at a\nbus stop, a number of persons surrounded the bus, forced all\nthe passengers\tout of\tthe bus\t except\t the  deceased,\t and\ninflicted multiple  stabs on the deceased causing his death.\nThirteen persons were charged with offences under s. 302, 34\nand 149\t I.P.C. The trial court convicted some and acquitted\nthe others. In appeals against the conviction and acquittal,\nthe High  Court acquitted all the accused. In appeal to this\nCourt against the acquittal of seven accused, including A-7,\n^\n     HELD: Confirming the acquittal of others, A-7 is guilty\nof an offence under s. 302, read with s. 34, I.P.C.\n     (1) The  evidence of the interested eye-witnesses PWs 2\nand 3  was sufficiently\t corroborated as  against A-7 by the\ntestimony of  PWs 9  and 11  the conductor and driver of the\nbus. They had identified A-7 at an identification parade. It\nis true\t that while  picking out  this accused at the parade\nthese witnesses\t did not  say anything\twith regard  to\t the\nspecific part  played by him in the commission of the crime.\nThat,  however,\t  does\tnot  render  the  evidence  of\tsuch\nidentification inadmissible.  From the\tfact that PW 9 while\ntestifying as to the fact of identification was referring to\nthis accused  as A-7  implies that  he had identified him in\ncourt. He  had in  that connection  elucidated\twhy  he\t had\npicked out  A-7 at  the identification\tparade. The evidence\ngiven by  the witness  in court\t was substantive  testimony,\nwhile the  identification made\tby him\tat the\tparades\t was\nconfirmatory of that fact. As regards PW 11 his evidence was\nmore clear.  The Magistrate who held the parade had mixed up\n12 other  persons at  this parade  with\t the  four  accused,\nincluding A-7.\tIt could  not therefore\t be  said  that\t the\nnumber\tof   other  persons   mixed  with  the\taccused\t was\ninadequate. [936H; 937F; 938B-F, G-H; 939C]\n     (2) The result is that excepting A-7, the participation\nof the other 12 named accused in the commission of the crime\nhas not\t been established. There is also no evidence to show\nas to  which of\t the assailants\t dealt the fatal blow on the\ndeceased. The  medical evidence,  however, shows  that there\nwere not less than 44 incised injuries including penetrating\nwounds upon  the body  of the  deceased. The extremely large\nnumber of  injuries  on\t the  body  of\tthe  deceased  lends\nassurance to the testimony of PWs 2 and 3 that the number of\nassailants was\tmore than  13  including  some\tunnamed\t and\nunidentified persons.  Therefore,  apart  from\tthe  accused\nnamed in  the charge,  there  were  at\tleast  one  or\tmore\nunidentified person who participated in the fatal assault on\nthe deceased  conjointly with  A-7. A-7\t can, therefore,  be\nconvicted under\t s. 302\t read with  s. 34,  I.P.C. [940B, G-\n941B]\n     Maina Singh  v. State  of Rajasthan<\/a>  [1976] 3  SCR 651,\nfollowed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n155 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 31-7-70  of the  Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal
\nAppeal No. 45\/69 and Criminal Revision Case No. 391\/69.\n<\/p>\n
930<\/span><\/p>\n
     P. Ram Reddy and P.P. Rao for the Appellants.
\n     Govind Das,  Mrs. Sunanda\tBhandare, A.K.\tMathur, A.K.
\nSharma and M.S. Narasimhan for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SARKARIA, J.-This\tappeal by  special leave is directed
\nagainst a  judgment of\tacquittal rendered by the High Court
\nof Andhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts may now be stated.\n<\/p>\n
     There are\tthree villages,\t Konda\tKala  Vatala,  Konda
\nPapaya Palli  and Govinda Palli situated at a short distance
\nfrom  each  other  There  were\twarring\t factions  in  these
\nvillages  One  was  led\t by  Vellugoti\tPedda  Eswara  Reddy
\ndeceased and  Mumagala Narayana Reddy, the Sarpanch of Konda
\nKala-Vatala.   The    rival   faction\t was\theaded\t  by
\nAkkammareddigari Venkata  Kondareddy,  Accused\tNo.  1\t(for
\nshort, A-1).  There was\t bad blood between the two factions.
\nBoth the  factions were proceeded against under ss. 107\/151,
\nCr.P.C., also
\n     The  deceased  was\t a  resident  of  Konda\t Papayapalli
\nvillage. On  May 16, 1968, the deceased accompanied by PW 1,
\nK. Venkatareddy,  went to  Jammalamadugu and  stayed for the
\nnight there  in the  hotel of  PW  12  (Dastagiri).  On\t the
\nfollowing morning  at about  8-30 a.m., they boarded bus No.
\nAPD 2083 for proceeding to their village. L. Venkata Ramanna
\n(PW 14)\t was checking  tickets on  that bus.  When  the\t bus
\nstopped at  Sanjamalavari House,  Accused 2,  3, 5 to 8 (for
\nshort, A-2,  A-3, A-5  to A-8)\tboarded it.  On\t seeing\t the
\naccused, who  belonged to his opposite faction, the deceased
\ngot apprehensive  of his  safety. He therefore alighted from
\nthe bus,  and, accompanied by PW 1, returned to the hotel of
\nDastagiri. After  remaining at\tthe hotel for some time they
\nreturned to  the bus stand, and boarded bus No. APD 2276, at
\nabout 9-30  a.m. for  going to\ttheir village.\tP.W. 11\t (E.
\nSolomon) was  the driver  and P.W. 9 (V. Bala Subbanna), the
\nconductor of  that bus.\t There\twere  about  30\t passengers,
\nincluding PW  2, PW  3 and  PW 4, in the bus. At about 10-30
\na.m., the  bus halted  at Nossam near the hotel of Rangappa,
\nPW 10.\tThis bus-stop  is at  a distance  of about  60 or 65
\nyards from  the Police Outpost and is located in a populated
\nquarter of  the town  which has a population of 3,000 souls.
\nThe conductor,\tthe driver  and some of those passengers got
\ndown  to   take\t refreshments  in  the\tnearby\thotel.\tSome
\npassengers including  the deceased  and P.Ws.  1, 2  and  4,
\nhowever, remained  inside the  vehicle. A-4 then came there.
\nHe peeped  into the  bus through  the  door  and  went\taway
\ntowards the  house of  one Yerikala  Reddy,  situated  at  a
\ndistance of  200 feet  from the\t bus towards the north. Soon
\nthereafter, A-1 and A-2, armed with revolvers, and A-3 to A-
\n13, all armed with daggers, came there from Yerikala Reddy’s
\nhouse, encircled the bus, and at the point of daggers forced
\nthe passengers including PWs 1 and 4, to get out of the bus.
\nThe  deceased  also  tried  to\tget  away  but\tthe  accused
\nprevented him  from doing so. A-1 and A-2 took positions  in
\nthe doors  of the  vehicle. They  fired revolvers in the air
\nwhile their  companions\t immediately  entered  the  bus\t and
\nthere, stabbed the deceased to death causing no less than 44
\ninjuries. The assailants were
\n931<\/span>
\nyelling: “Stab\t!  kill\t !”  P.Ws.  1  to  4  witnessed\t the
\noccurrence P.W.\t 1 while  raising an alarm proceeded towards
\nthe Police  Outpost, but  the accused  obstructed and chased
\nhim over  a short  distance. P.W.  1 took to his heels, went
\naway from the village and concealed himself somewhere. After
\nabout two  hours he  came out  of his hiding and returned to
\nthe spot at about 12-30 p.m.
\n     After murdering  the deceased, the miscreants went away
\ntowards\t the   north  taking   their  weapons\twith   them.
\nThereafter, P.Ws.  2, 3\t and 4 entered the bus and found the
\ndeceased lying\tdead in a pool of blood. P.W. 2 then went to
\nPapayapalli, five  miles away, and informed the wife and the
\nrelations of  the deceased about the occurrence. He returned
\nto the\tscene of the crime in the company of those relations
\nat about 4 p.m.
\n     In the  meantime, the  village  Munsiff  (P.W.  15)  on
\nlearning about\tthis  incident,\t also  came  there.  At\t the
\ndictation of  P.W.1, the Munsiff recorded the complaint, Ex.
\nP-3, and  then prepared an injury statement of the deceased.
\nAt about  3 p.m.,  he sent the complaint together with other
\ndocuments prepared by him, through the Talyari to the Police
\nStation, Vuyyalawada.  A copy  of the  complaint was sent to
\nthe Judicial Magistrate Koilkuntla.\n<\/p>\n
     Prior to  the making  of this complaint, Head Constable
\nAbdul Khadar, PW 16, of the Police Out-Post had sent an oral
\ninformation to\tthe Police  Inspector about this murder. The
\nHead Constable\thad heard  the reports\tof revolver-fire  at
\nabout 10-30  a.m. Thereupon,  he alongwith  a Constable went
\nout to\tthe bus\t stand. At  the spot,  he heard from the by-
\nstanders that  the deceased  had been killed inside the bus.
\nBut, despite  inquiries, no  one told him about the identity
\nor  particulars\t  of  the   culprits.  He   looked  for\t the
\ncomplainant,  if   any.\t No  one  came\tforward\t to  make  a
\ncomplaint. The driver and the conductor of the bus were also
\nfound absent.  He therefore  sent an oral information to the
\nInspector through the Talari, Pollana.\n<\/p>\n
     On receiving  the information,  Inspector Santhoji\t Rao
\n(P.W. 25)  reached the\tplace of  the murder  at 6  p.m.  He
\nexamined  P.Ws.\t  1,  15,  16  and  19\tand  recorded  their
\nstatements under  s. 161,  Cr.P.C. Thereafter,\the  held  an
\ninquest over  the dead-body  from 2-30 a.m. to 6 a.m. on May
\n18, 1968.  During the inquest he examined P.Ws. 2, 9 and 11.
\nThe Inspector  searched for  the accused  but could not find
\nthem. A-4  to A-8 surrendered on May 22, 1968 and were taken
\ninto custody.  A-2, A-3,  A-9,\tA-10,  A-11  and  A-13\twere
\narrested by the police on June 24, 1968. Thereafter, on some
\ndate  before  August  10,  1968,  A-1,\tA-6  and  A-12\twere
\narrested.\n<\/p>\n
     All the  accused persons  were not\t previously known to
\nthe eyewitnesses.  They were  put up for test identification
\nat three  parades held\tby Mr. Johnson, Magistrate 1st Class
\n(P.W. 20)  on June  7, 1968,  July 18,\t1968 and  August 10,
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
     After completing  the investigation  the police sent 13
\naccused persons\t under a  charge-sheet before the Magistrate
\nfor preliminary enquiry. The Magistrate committed all the 13
\naccused for  trial to  the court  of Session.  The  Sessions
\nJudge acquitted\t A-5, A-6,  A-8, A-9 and A-11, but convicted
\nthe remaining  seven under  s. 302, Penal Code and sentenced
\neach of them to imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
932<\/span><\/p>\n
     Against that  judgment, two  appeals were\tpreferred to
\nthe High Court, one by the State against the acquittal of A-
\n5, A-6\tand A-8,  and the  other by  the  convicted  accused
\nagainst their  conviction.  The\t High  Court  dismissed\t the
\nappeal preferred  by the  State but accepted the other filed
\nby the accused and acquitted all of them.\n<\/p>\n
     Aggrieved, the  State made\t a petition  in\t this  Court
\nunder Article  136 of  the  Constitution  seeking  leave  to
\nappeal against\tthe acquittal  of A-1  to A-9 and A-12. This
\nCourt however  granted special\tleave to  appeal against the
\nacquittal of  A-1 to A-4, A-7, A-9 and A-12 only and refused
\nit against A-5, A-6 and A-8.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  Ram\tReddy  appearing   for\tthe  appellant-State
\ncontends that  the judgment of the High Court acquitting all
\nthe accused  persons is\t perverse in  law and has occasioned
\ngross failure  of justice. It is maintained that the reasons
\ngiven by  the High  Court for  wholesale  rejection  of\t the
\nevidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 9 and 11 are manifestly erroneous
\nand  contrary\tto  the\t fundamental  canons  of  appraising
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
     As against\t this, Mr.  Govind Das\tmaintains  that\t the
\nreasons given  by the  High Court for rejecting the evidence
\nof these  witnesses are\t quite\tsound  and  cannot,  by\t any
\nstretch of  imagination, be branded as ‘perverse’. According
\nto the\tCounsel since  the view\t taken by  the High Court is
\nalso  reasonably   possible,  this   Court  should  not,  in
\ndeference  to\tthe  well-established\truler  of  practice,
\ninterfere with the order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
     To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to
\nexamine\t the  reasons  given  by  the  High  Court  for\t not
\naccepting the evidence of these five witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
     P.W. 1  is the  prime-mover of  the gear.\tThe case was
\nregistered on  his  complaint  (Ex.  P-3)  lodged  with\t the
\nvillage Munsiff\t (P.W. 15)  at 12-30  p.m. At  the trial, he
\nnarrated more  or less the same story which has been set out
\nat the\tcommencement of\t this judgment. The High Court found
\nhis evidence unworthy of credit for these reasons:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (i)  P.W.  1\t is  a\tconfirmed  partisan  of\t the
\n\t       deceased.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) He  was\tunable\tto  give  a  consistent\t and
\n\t       satisfactory account  of the  purpose of\t his
\n\t       going to Jammalamagdu on May 16, 1968.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iii)In the  First Information Ex. P-3, he did not
\n\t       state many  material facts.  For instance, he
\n\t       did not\tmention there  that,  in  the  first
\n\t       instance, he and the deceased had boarded the
\n\t       Nandyal-Koilkuntla  bus\t at  8-30  a.m.\t and
\n\t       thereafter alighted  from it  on\t seeing\t the
\n\t       accused getting into the bus.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iv) If P.W.1\t was really in the ill-fated bus, at
\n\t       the time of the occurrence, he could not have
\n\t       been left unharmed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (v)  The conduct  of P.W.  1 was so unnatural that
\n\t       it improbablises his presence at the time and
\n\t       place of the incident:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a)  If he  had really  seen A-4 peeping into
\n\t\t    the bus  and going\tback to the house of
\n\t\t    Erikala Reddy, 60 or 70
\n933<\/span>
\n\t\t    yards away, to inform the other accused,
\n\t\t    it was  unlikely that  P.W.\t 1  and\t the
\n\t\t    deceased would  have remained sitting in
\n\t\t    the bus.  P.W. 1  knew that\t A-4  was  a
\n\t\t    partisan of the other accused:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b)  The\t conduct   of  P.W.   1\t after\t the
\n\t\t    occurrence,\t  was\t also\t artificial,
\n\t\t    unnatural and  strange. He did not go to
\n\t\t    the\t Police\t  Outpost  which  was  at  a
\n\t\t    stone’s throw.  His explanation  that he
\n\t\t    was prevented  by the accused from going
\n\t\t    there and  had to  remain in  hiding  at
\n\t\t    some unspecified  place towards the West
\n\t\t    for two  hours till\t he returned  to the
\n\t\t    bus-stand at 12-30 p.m., was incredible.
\n\t\t    Although he\t had ample  opportunity\t and
\n\t\t    time to go to his village and inform the
\n\t\t    co-villagers about\tthe incident, he did
\n\t\t    nothing of the kind.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (vi) No bus-ticket was found with P.W. 1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (vii)The evidence  of the  witnesses\tproduced  to
\n\t       corroborate the\tversion of  P.W. 1  was also
\n\t       unsatisfactory.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     P.W. 14,  Ticket-Checker of  bus No. APD 2083 which the
\ndeceased and  P.W. 1  are said\tto have\t boarded earlier  at
\nJamalamadugu, admittedly  did not  know P.W. 1 prior to that
\ndate. P.W.  14 was  not asked to identify P.W. 1 at any test
\nidentification or  even in  court.  Moreover,  P.W.  14\t was
\nexamined by  the investigating\tPolice Officer\tabout a week
\nafter the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence  of Dastgiri,\t P.W. 12, owner of the hotel
\nat Jamalamadugu was no better. He had no record to show that
\nP.W. 1 and the deceased had spent the night between the 16th
\nand 17th  May at  his hotel.  His testimony  was at variance
\nwith his  statement recorded  under s.\t164, Cr.P.C. In that
\nstatement, he  did not\tsay that the sons (i.e. A-2, A-3 and
\nA-6) of\t Kalavatala Reddy were also reported by the deceased
\nto  be\tin  the\t bus.  He  had\tsimply\tstated\tthere,\tthat
\nKalavatala (Reddy)  and his  men were  in the  bus.  At\t the
\ntrial, he  stated that\tthe deceased  had informed him about
\nthe presence  of A-2, A-3 and A-6, also, in the bus. P.W. 12
\nwas not\t a disinterested  witness. Admittedly,\tthe deceased
\nhad helped  him in  getting assignment of land for raising a
\nbuilding, before  the revenue authorities. His statement was
\nalso  recorded\t by  the   police  several  days  after\t the
\noccurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t  (viii)There was  unexplained delay in registration
\n\t       of the  case. The  Police Station Vuyyalawada
\n\t       is 12  miles from  Nossam. The complaint, Ex.
\n\t       P-3, was received there at 8 p.m. Copy of the
\n\t       complaint reached the Magistrate Koilakuntla,
\n\t       16 miles\t away, at  6 p.m.  There was  a\t bus
\n\t       leaving Nossam  at 4-30 p.m. for Koilakuntla.
\n\t       It was  more likely  that  the  copy  of\t the
\n\t       complaint was  sent to the Magistrate by that
\n\t       bus at  4-39 p.m.,  and not  at 3 p.m. as the
\n\t       Munsiff P-W.  15, wanted to have it believed.
\n\t       This  inordinate\t delay\tin  registering\t the
\n\t       F.I.R. shows  that the  First Information was
\n\t       lodged after confabulation with other persons
\n934<\/span>
\n\t       who  had\t  come\tfrom   the  village  of\t the
\n\t       deceased. In  these circumstances, the F.I.R.
\n\t       had little  value as a corroborative piece of
\n\t       evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     These reasons  given by  the High Court for not relying
\non the\tevidence of  P.W. 1, cannot, by any standard be said
\nto be  unsound or  puerile. There is a good deal of force in
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
     We will  now take\tup P.W. 2. Mr. P. Ram Reddy contends
\nthat the  High Court was in error in dubbing this witness as
\nan  interested\t witness.  It\tis   maintained\t  that\t his
\nrelationship or\t affinity with the deceased or his party had
\nnot been  established. It  is argued  that his\tevidence was
\nalmost impeccable.\n<\/p>\n
     The High Court has found that P.W. 2 is closely related
\nto the deceased. This is an inference drawn from the conduct
\nof  the\t  witness  in  not  denying  a\tsuggestion  of\tsuch
\nrelationship put  to him in crossexamination by the defence.
\nThe pointed  suggestion was,  whether the  son of his junior
\npaternal uncle\twas married to the daughter of the deceased.
\nThe witness  replied that  he did not know. The relationship
\nsuggested was  so near that the witness could not be unaware
\nof it.\tIf the\tsuggestion  was\t wrong,\t he  ought  to\thave
\nregistered  a\tcategorical  denial.   The  High  Court\t was
\ntherefore justified  in presuming  that the  witness was the
\nfirst cousin of the son-in-law of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  infirmity in  his evidence  noted by the High
\nCourt, is that his conduct in not trying to go to the Police
\nOutpost or  in not  reporting  the  matter  to\tthe  village
\nMunsiff, was  not the  natural conduct\tof an eye-witness of
\nthe murder.  The third weakness in his evidence noted by the
\nHigh Court, is, that he was not examined by the investigator
\non the\t17th May,  although he\tclaimed to be present at the
\nspot at\t that time.  Another reason  given by the High Court
\nfor doubting  his veracity  was, that there was no necessity
\nfor him to go to Proddutur to ascertain the price of castor-
\noil cake because the same inquiry could be conveniently made
\ntelephonically. The  Court further  found that\the could not
\ngive a\tsatisfactory  account  as  to  why  he\tadopted\t the
\ncircuitous route  via Nossam when buses starting at 6-30 and
\n7-30  a.m.   from  Jammalamadugu   and\tplying\tdirectly  to
\nAllagaddi were available. We need only add that this witness
\nalso was unable to produce any bus ticket.\n<\/p>\n
     We agree  with the\t High Court  that  in  view  of\t the
\ninfirmities enumerated\tabove, the  evidence of P.W. 2 could
\nnot  be\t  safely  acted\t  upon\twithout\t corroboration\tfrom
\nindependent sources.\n<\/p>\n
     This takes us to the evidence of P.W. 3.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court found  that P.W.  3, also,\t was not  an
\nindependent witness.  He stood\tsurety for five partisans of
\nthe deceased  in security  proceedings under s. 107, Cr.P.C.
\nThis  fact   was  borne\t out  by  the  documentary  evidence
\nfurnished by the copies of the surety bonds, Exh. D-10 to D-
\n14, although the witness had the temerity to deny it
\n935<\/span>
\n     Mr. Ram  Reddy laid  great stress\ton the fact that the
\nevidence of  this witness with regard to his being among the
\npassengers in  the illfated  bus at  the time of occurrence,
\nstands corroborated  from the  testimony of  an\t independent
\nwitness, the bus conductor (P.W.9). It is further maintained
\nthat this  witness (P.W.  3) was examined during the inquest
\nheld on\t the night  between the 17th and 18th May. Reference
\non this\t point has  been made to the inquest report Ex. P.6.
\nThese\ttwin\tcircumstances-proceeds\t the   argument-were
\nsufficient to  lend assurance to the interested testimony of
\nthis witness  so as to make it acceptable against A-1 and A-
\n2, if  not against  the\t other\taccused\t respondents.  These
\ncircumstances  were  noticed  by  the  High  Court.  In\t its
\nopinion, they  did not\tfurnish adequate confirmation of the
\ntestimony of  P.W. 3.  In this\tconnection, the\t High  Court
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We do  not think much assurance can be taken from
\n     the evidence  of P.W. 9 about the presence of P.W. 3 on
\n     that day  in that bus. It is true that the name of P.W.
\n     3 was  mentioned  as  an  eye-witness  in\tthe  inquest
\n     report. Even  though the  inquest according  to P.W. 25
\n     was held in the early hours of the morning of 18-5-1968
\n     and the  inquest report  was said\tto be  ready on that
\n     morning, the  inquest report was received in Court at 6
\n     P.M.  on  19-5-1968.  As  provided\t under\tsec.  174(2)
\n     Cr.P.C.  the   inquest  report   shall  be\t forth\twith
\n     forwarded to  the Court. P.W. 3 was examined on 19-5-68
\n     only. With\t regard\t to  the  inquest  report  no  other
\n     independent panchayatdar  was examined  apart from P.W.
\n     15,  the\tvillage\t Munsiff.  Having  regard  to  these
\n     circumstances we  do not  think much  can be taken from
\n     the fact  that the\t name of P.W. 3 finds a place in the
\n     inquest report.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Another infirmity\tin the\ttestimony of PW 3, according
\nto the\tHigh Court,  was that  documentary evidence  of\t the
\nsales  allegedly   made\t by   the  witness   at\t the  Shandy
\n(periodical market)  and the  receipts of the fees\/cess paid
\non such sales to the Panchayat, was not forthcoming and that
\nthe explanation\t given by  the witness for non-production of
\nsuch documentary evidence was unsatisfactory.\n<\/p>\n
     It will  be seen  from the synopsis of the reasoning of
\nthe High  Court, given\tabove, that  whereas the evidence of
\nP.W.1  was   considered\t to   be  wholly   unreliable,\t the
\npossibility  of\t P.Ws.\t2  and\t3  being  witnesses  of\t the
\noccurrence was\tnot positively\truled  out.  The  conclusion
\nreached in  respect of\tthese two  witnesses was  that their
\nevidence suffered  from several\t infirmities and, as such in
\nthe absence  of corroboration  from independent\t sources, it
\ncould not  be accepted\tas a  safe basis  for convicting the
\naccused. We  are also  of the  opinion that  as a  matter of
\nprudence, it  was not  safe to\tconvict any  of the  accused
\nrespondents merely  on the basis of the testimony of P.Ws. 2
\nand 3 We, however, do not agree with the High Court that the
\nevidence  of   P.Ws.9  and   11\t did  not  furnish  reliable
\ncorroboration of  the testimony\t of the interested witnesses
\n(P.Ws. 2  and 3\t ) against  any of  the\t accused-respondents
\nwhatever.\n<\/p>\n
     The sum  and substance  of the  testimony\trendered  by
\nP.W.9, the  Conductor of  the bus,  was that  when  the\t bus
\nhalted at Nossam at
\n936<\/span>
\nabout 10-30  a.m., the\twitness accompanied  by\t the  Driver
\n(P.W. 11),  got down  and both\tof them\t went to  the nearby
\nhospital for  getting an injury on his leg (P.W 9’s) dressed
\nup.  They   however,  did   not\t find\tthe  Doctor   there.
\nConsequently, both of them returned to the hotel of Rangappa
\nwhich is  hardly 18  ft. from the scene of occurrence. While
\nthe witness  was standing  in the verandah of the hotel, the
\ndriver took  his meals\tinside and then came out and went to
\nthe adjacent  hotel of\tPullayya to take coffee. The witness
\nasked Rangappa’s wife to give him some water. He was waiting
\nin the\tdoorway when  he saw  some persons  coming from\t the
\nnorthern side  and going  to the bus and encircling it. Some
\nof them were armed with daggers. The witness heard the sound
\n“dama dama”  of the  firing of a revolver. The witness heard
\ncries from  the bus-“kill  ! stab  !”. After the disturbance
\nhad subsided,  the witness  went out  and saw  the  deceased
\nlying dead  inside the\tbus in a pool of blood. Due to fear,
\nthe witness  and the  driver (P.W.11)  went into  the nearby
\nVaisya’s house\tand remained  there till 7-30 or 8 p.m. when
\nthey came out on learning that the Police Inspector had come
\nto the spot.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  test identification  parades, the\twitness\t had
\nidentified Accused 2 and 7. He stated that P.W. 3 was one of
\nthe passengers who travelled in the ill-fated bus.\n<\/p>\n
     The driver\t (P.W.11) substantially\t corroborated P.W.9.
\nHe stated  that he  had seen  five or  six persons  carrying
\nwhite think  like daggers  in their  hands going  behind the
\nbus. The  witness was  then taking  coffee at  the hotel  of
\nPullayya. He then heard the “dum dum” sound from the bus. At
\nthe test  identification parades held before the Magistrate,
\nthe witness had identified A-7 and A-11.\n<\/p>\n
     The High Court while conceding that P.Ws. 9 and 11 were
\nthe “proper  persons to\t have spoken  about the occurrence”,
\nbrushed\t aside\ttheir  evidence\t even  against\tthe  accused
\nidentified by  them at\tthe test  identifications, mainly on
\nthe ground that they were “unwilling witnesses” and were not
\nprepared to  speak the\twhole truth.  The High Court noticed
\nthat there  was a  discrepancy with regard to the receipt of
\ninjury by P.W. 9 between his statement before the police and
\nthe subsequent\tstatement recorded  under  s.  164,  Cr.P.C.
\nBefore the  police, P.W.9 had stated that he had received an
\ninjury. But  in his statement recorded under s. 164, Cr.P.C.
\nhe said that he had a boil on his leg. It appears to us that
\nthis discrepancy  was of  no consequence. P.Ws.9 and 11 were
\nthe conductor  and the\tdriver of  the bus. It is undisputed
\nthat the  bus was  parked close\t to the\t hotels of  Rangappa
\n(P.W.10) and  Pullayya. Their  presence near  the bus at the
\nhotels was  a highly  probable fact.  Even if the reason for
\ntheir going to the nearby hospital was disbelieved, it could
\nnot affect  their being\t eyewitnesses of the incident. Might
\nbe that they did not disclose all that they had seen and had
\nnot identified\tall the\t culprits whom\tthey could identify;
\nbut that  is no ground to hold that their evidence could not
\nfurnish valuable  corroboration\t of  the  testimony  of\t the
\ninterested witnesses  (P.Ws.  2\t and  3)  even\tagainst\t the
\naccused whom they identified at the test identifications and
\nlater in court.\n<\/p>\n
     The statements  of P.Ws.  2, 9  and 11 were recorded by
\nthe Investigating  Officer during the night between the 17th
\nand 18th May 1968
\n937<\/span>
\nfrom 2-30  a.m. to  6 a.m. There was thus no good reason for
\nwholesale rejection  of the  evidence of  P.Ws. 9 and 11. It
\ntherefore remains  to be seen to what extent the independent
\ntestimony of  P.Ws.  9\tand  11\t lends\tcorrobation  to\t the
\nstatements of the interested witnesses (P.Ws. 2 and 3).\n<\/p>\n
     At the test identification parade held on June 7, 1968,
\nA-4, A-5,  A-7 and  A-8 were  paraded along  with  12  other
\nprisoners. P.Ws. 2, 3, 9 and 11 were called upon to identify
\nthe accused  at this parade. P.W. 2 while identifying A-7 at
\nthe parade,  said: “I  saw him while killing the deceased in
\nthe bus” P.W. 3 also identified A-7 as Konda Kalavatalavadu.
\nHe also\t identified A-4\t and A-8  by touching  their  hands.
\nP.W.9 identified  A-7 saying: “I suspect this man”. He could
\nnot identify  others. P.W.11  also at this parade picked out
\nA-7 who\t was then  standing at No. 15 in the parade and said
\nthat he had seen him.\n<\/p>\n
     The second\t batch of  the accused persons consisting of
\nA-2, A-3,  A-9, A-10, A-11 and A-13 was arrested on June 24,
\n1968. These  six accused  persons were\tparaded at  the test
\nidentification on  July 18,  1968. P.Ws.  1, 2, 3 and 9 were
\ncalled upon  to identify  them at  the parade. P.W. 3 picked
\nout A-2,  A-3, A-9  and A-10 at the parade. P.W. 9 similarly
\nidentified A-2\tby touching  his hand.\tA-2 objected that in
\n1962 or\t 1963 P.W. 9 had served him as driver of his bus for
\n10 days.\n<\/p>\n
     The third test identification parade was held on August
\n10, 1968.  At this  parade, nine accused persons A-1 to A-3,
\nA-6, A-9  to A-13  were paraded.  P.Ws. 1,  2, 3 and 11 were
\ncalled upon to identify. P.W. 2 identified A-8, while P.W.11
\nidentified A-11 only. He could not identify A-2 or the other
\naccused who were in this parade.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus   the\t  net\tresult\t is   that   at\t  the\ttest
\nidentifications, P.Ws.\t9 and 11 had correctly identified A-
\n7, P.W\t9 had  identified A-2,\talso. But  P.W. 11 could not
\nidentify him.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  is, whether the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 11
\ncan be\tsafely relied  upon as\tagainst A-7  and A-2. In our
\nopinion, so  far as  A-7 is concerned, chances of mistake in
\nidentification by these witnesses were extremely remote.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Gobind\t Das, Counsel  for the respondents, contends
\nthat the  evidence of test identification is not substantive
\nevidence. It  can be  the Magistrate  holding the parade did
\nnot mix\t up  with  the\taccused\t adequate  number  of  other
\nprisoners and  did not\thold separate parades for individual
\naccused; (b)  at the  time of picking out A-7 and A-2 at the
\nparade, the  identifying witnesses did not say as to in what
\nconnection they\t were identifying  them. It is stressed that
\nthe evidence  of  test\tidentification\tis  not\t substantive
\nevidence. It  can  be  used  only  to  corroborate  or\tlend
\nassurance to  the identification made by the same witness in
\ncourt. If at the time of picking out a particular accused at
\nthe parade,  a witness\tdoes not say anything about the role
\nof the\tperson, thus  identified, in  the commission  of the
\ncrime, such  test identification  little evidentiary  value.
\nFurther, it  is pointed\t out that P.W. 9 was not called upon
\nto identify A-2 and A-7
\n938<\/span>
\nin court  at the  time of  his\texamination  as\t a  witness.
\nReference has  made to a number of decisions including Kamal
\nGope  v.   State  of   Bihar,(1)  Kanta\t  Prasad  v.   Delhi
\nAdministration(2) and  Sampat Tatyada  Shinde  v.  State  of
\nMaharashtra<\/a>(3).\n<\/p>\n
     In our  opinion, so far as the identification of A-7 by
\nP.Ws. 9\t and 11 is concerned it can safely be relied upon as
\nconfirmatory of\t their evidence in court. A-7 was identified
\nby P.Ws.  9 and 11 at the test identification parade held on
\nJune 7, 1968. It is true that while picking out this accused
\nat the\tparade these  witnesses did  not say  anything\twith
\nregard to  the specific part played by him in the commission
\nof the\tcrime. That  however does not render the evidence of
\nsuch identification  inadmissible. The\tMagistrate (P.W. 20)
\nwho held  the parade  had mixed\t up 12 other persons at this
\nparade with  the four  accused, including  A-7. It could not
\ntherefore be  said that\t the number  of other  persons mixed
\nwith the  accused was  indequate. The  very fact  that\tboth
\nP.Ws.  9   and\t11  commonly  identified  A-7,\tdispels\t any
\nsuspicion   of\t  such\t identification\t  being\t  a   chance
\nidentification. In  the witness-box,  at the trial, however,
\nP.W. 9 specifically stated: “I could identify only accused 2
\nand 7  among those  persons who\t came to  the bus  from\t the
\nnorthern side  armed with  daggers”. Referring\tto the\ttest
\nidentification parade, the witness added:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “I identified\t A-7 as\t one of the persons who came
\n     with dagger to the bus”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  In cross-examination, the witness reaffirmed:
\n\t  “It is  not true.. that A-2 and A-7 were not among
\n     the persons who came to the bus.. It is not true that I
\n     have identified  A-2 and A-7 at the parades not because
\n     they were\tseen near  the bus but because Police showed
\n     them to me earlier to facilitate identification”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     From the very fact that the witness while testifying as
\nto the\tfact of identification was referring to this accused
\nas A-7\timplies that  he had  identified him in court, also,
\nand had,  in that  connection, elucidated  why he had picked
\nout A-7\t at the identification parade. The evidence given by
\nthe witness  in court  was substantive\ttestimony, while the
\nidentification made by him at the parade was confirmatory of
\nthat fact.  This proposition  is well  established and it is
\nnot necessary  to discuss  the rulings\tcited at  the bar on
\nthis point.\n<\/p>\n
     No capital\t can be\t made out of the fact that the trial
\njudge recorded\tthe evidence  of the  witness with regard to
\nidentification of  A-7, in  court, in an inartistic, laconic
\nmanner.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  case of  P.W.  11,\t however,  the\ttrial  Judge
\nrecorded this fact more clearly. The witness stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “I can identify 2 persons among the 5 or 6 persons
\n     who were  seen going  behind the  bus with white things
\n     like daggers.  They  are  accused\t7  and\t11  (witness
\n     identified accused 7 and 11).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
939<\/span><\/p>\n
     With reference  to the test identification, the witness
\nstated:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “I identified\t A-7 in\t the 1st  parade and A-11 in
\n     the second parade”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In cross-examination,  he refuted\ta suggestion made by
\nthe defence  that he  had identified accused 7 at the parade
\nbecause the police had shown him to the witness, earlier.\n<\/p>\n
     For these\treasons we  think that\tthe High  Court\t was
\nclearly\t in  error  in\tdiscarding  the\t evidence  of  these
\nindependent witnesses  (P.Ws.  9  and  11)  so\tfar  as\t the
\nparticipation of  A-7 in  the commission  of the  crime\t was
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence  of the  interested witnesses (P.Ws. 2 and\n<\/p>\n
3) was\tsufficiently corroborated  as  against\tA-7  by\t the
\ncredible testimony  of P.Ws. 9 and 11. It could therefore be
\nsafely\tacted\tupon  for  convicting  A-7  as\tone  of\t the
\nparticipants in\t the commission\t of the\t murder of P. Eswara
\nReddy, deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     As regards A-2, it is to be noted that neither PW 9 nor
\nP.W. 11\t stated that this accused was armed with a revolver.
\nNeither of  these witnesses  has stated that any of the five
\nor six\tpersons who  were seen\tby them going to the bus and
\nencircling it, was armed with a revolver. They only say that
\nthose persons  were carrying  daggers. The  prosecution case
\nhowever is that A-2 was armed with a revolver only, which he
\nfired in  the air. Further when P.W. 9 picked out A-2 at the
\nidentification parade,\tthe latter  had objected that P.W. 9
\nwas already  known to  him because  he had  served him\tas a
\ndriver for  about 10  days. It\tis true that this suggession
\nwas not\t repeated in  the crossexamination of P.W. 9; but we
\nhave also  to keep  in mind  in this connection that P.W. 11
\nhad failed to identify A-2 at the test identification parade
\nalthough both  these witnesses had seen the culprits more or
\nless from  the same  situation and  distance. As a matter of
\nabundant caution,  while hearing  this\tappeal,\t we  do\t not
\nconsider   the\t identification\t  of   A-2   at\t  the\ttest
\nidentification\tparade\t by  P.W.  9,  can  lend  sufficient
\nassurance to the testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 3 so as to justify
\nthe conversion of his acquittal into conviction.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus, the position that emerges is that the evidence of
\nP.Ws. 2\t and 3 has been adequately confirmed by the reliable
\nand independent\t testimony of P.Ws. 9 and 11 as against A-7,
\nwhile no  such corroboration  is forthcoming  against any of
\nthe other  accused-respondents. The High Court was therefore
\nnot justified in acquitting A-7.\n<\/p>\n
     The only  question that  remains to  be considered is :
\nWhat offence  has been\tmade out  against A-7  ? The charge-
\nsheet by  the police  in this  case was submitted against 13
\nnamed persons  including A-7.  The charge  under s. 302 read
\nwith s. 34, Penal Code was also framed by the Sessions Judge
\nagainst all  the 13 named accused. In the charge, it was not
\nmentioned that\tbesides these named accused, there were some
\nunidentified or\t un-named persons  who acted conjointly with
\nthe charged  accused, A-1  to A-13.  But there\twas positive
\nevidence on  the record\t that besides  the 13 named accused,
\nthere  were   four  or\t more\tunidentified   persons\t who
\nparticipated in the commission of the crime.\n<\/p>\n
940<\/span><\/p>\n
     Now the  position which  emerges is that excepting A-7,
\nthe participation  of the  other 12  named  accused  in\t the
\ncommission of the crime has not been established. The effect
\nof their  acquittal is\tthat they  would be  deemed to\thave
\nnever participated in the criminal enterprise which resulted
\nin the death of the deceased. There is nothing on the record
\nto show as to who out of these persons dealt the fatal blows
\nto the deceased. The question that falls to be determined is
\n: Can A-7, in such circumstances, be held vicariously liable
\nby invoking  s. 149  or s.  34, Penal Code for the murder in
\nquestion ?  In Maina  Singh v.\tState of  Rajasthan<\/a>(1) after
\nreviewing earlier  decisions viz.,  Dalip Singh\t v. State of
\nPunjab<\/a>(2); Bharwad Mepa Dana and Anr. v. State of Bombay<\/a>(3),
\nKartar Singh  v. State of Punjab(4); Krishna Govind Patil v.
\nState of  Maharashtra<\/a>(5); Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab(6);
\nYeshwant v.  State of  Maharashtra<\/a>(7); on  this\t point\tthis
\nCourt speaking\tthrough Shinghal J. reiterated the law, thus
\n:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It would  thus appear  that even  if, in  a given
\n     case, the\tcharge discloses  only the  named persons as
\n     co-accused and  the prosecution witnesses confine their
\n     testimony to them, even then it would be permissible to
\n     come to  the conclusion  that others  named or unnamed,
\n     besides those  mentioned in  the charge or the evidence
\n     of the prosecution witnesses, acted conjointly with one
\n     of the  charged accused  if there was other evidence to
\n     lead to the conclusion, but not otherwise.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(emphasis supplied)
\n     Let us  now have  another look  at the case in hand, in
\nthe light of the above enunciation.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  F.I.R., it\t was alleged by the informant that 8
\nnamed persons  and 10  unnamed persons who were not known to
\nthe informant,\thad conjointly\tcommitted the  crime. At the
\ntrial, P.W.  2 testified  that the  total number of culprits
\nwho had participated in the commission of the murder was 20.
\nAt the\ttrial, he named A-2 to A-5 and identified A-7, A-10,
\nand A-12 as 8 out of those 20 culprits who had committed the
\ncrime. The  evidence of\t P.W. 3\t on this  point was that the
\nnumber of  the culprits\t who  committed\t the  murder,  while
\nacting in  concert, was\t 17. This  means  according  to\t the
\nevidence, there\t were acting  conjointly with A-7 at least 4
\nor 7  more persons in addition to the 13 who were charged by
\nthe Committing\tMagistrate. The\t medical evidence shows that
\nthere were  no less  than  44  incised\tinjuries,  including
\npenetrating wounds,  apart from\t one  lacerated\t wound,\t two
\ncontusions and\tone abrasion  on the  body of  the deceased.
\nPractically, he\t was made  minced meat.\t The extremely large
\nnumber of  injuries  on\t the  body  of\tthe  deceased  lends
\nassurance to  the testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that the number
\nof assailants  was more\t than 13  including some unnamed and
\nunidentified persons.  This evidence  on the  record is thus
\nsufficient to base a firm finding that apart from the
\n941<\/span>
\naccused named in the charge, there were at least one or more
\nunidentified persons who participated in the criminal action
\nagainst the deceased con-jointly with A-7. While the precise
\nnumber of  those unidentified  persons, other  than  the  13
\nnamed in  the charge,  cannot be ascertained with certitude,
\nit can\tsafely be  said that  apart from  13  named  in\t the
\ncharge, there  were some more confederates of A-7 and all of
\nthem participated  in the  fatal assault  on the deceased in
\nthe manner  alleged by the prosecution. A-7 can therefore be
\nsafely convicted  under s.  302 read with s. 34, Penal Code.
\nAccording, we  allow this  appeal against  A-7, reverse\t his
\nacquittal, convict  him under  s. 302 read with s. 34, Penal
\nCode and sentence him to imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n942<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 2207, 1976 SCR (3) 929 Author: R S Sarkaria Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: K. VENKATA REDDY & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/03\/1976 BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: […]<\/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-35741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976 - 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\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-26T13:07:57+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=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-26T13:07:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976\"},\"wordCount\":5897,\"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\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976\",\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-26T13:07:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976 - 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\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-26T13:07:57+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":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976","datePublished":"1976-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-26T13:07:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976"},"wordCount":5897,"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\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976","name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-26T13:07:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-venkata-reddy-others-on-26-march-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Venkata Reddy & Others on 26 March, 1976"}]},{"@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\/35741","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=35741"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35741\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}