{"id":50837,"date":"2011-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-05-01T14:45:02","modified_gmt":"2018-05-01T09:15:02","slug":"gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: T Thakur<\/div>\n
Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, T.S. Thakur<\/div>\n
                                                                                   REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION\n\n\n                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1321 OF 2006\n\n\n\nGosu Jairami Reddy & Anr.                                     ...Appellants\n      Versus\nState of A.P.                                                 ...Respondents\n\n\n                      (With Crl. Appeal No.1327 of 2006)\n\n\nGosu Ramachandra Reddy & Ors.                        ...Appellants\n      Versus\nState of A.P.                                                 ...Respondents\n\n\n                                  J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
T.S. THAKUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.      Political   rivalry   at   times   degenerates   into   personal <\/p>\n
vendetta   where   principles   and   policies   take   a   back   seat   and <\/p>\n
personal ambition and longing for power drive men to –<\/p>\n
commit the foulest of deeds to avenge defeat and to settle scores. <\/p>\n
These   appeals   by   special   leave   present   a   somewhat   similar   picture <\/p>\n
and   assail   the   judgment   and   orders   of   conviction   and   sentence <\/p>\n
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur of Gooty and the <\/p>\n
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in appeal. The prosecution case may be <\/p>\n
summarised as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.      Gosu   Ramchandra   Reddy   (A1)   and   his   two   brothers   Gosu <\/p>\n
Jayarami Reddy (A2) & Gosu Jayaranga Reddy (A3) together with Gosu <\/p>\n
Rameshwar   Reddy   (A4)   and   Gosu   Rajagopal   Reddy   (A5)   sons   of   Gosu <\/p>\n
Ramchandra   Reddy   (A1)   all   residents   of   village   Aluru   of   Anantapur <\/p>\n
District in the State of A.P. were political activists owing their <\/p>\n
allegiance to the Telugu Desam Party.  The opposite group active in <\/p>\n
the   region   and   owing   allegiance   to   the   Congress   party   comprised <\/p>\n
Shri Midde Chinna Pulla Reddy (deceased) his son Shri M. Sanjeeva <\/p>\n
Reddy   (PW1)   and   his   two   nephews   M.   Rammohan   Reddy   (PW2)   and   M. <\/p>\n
Veeranjaneyuly   (PW3);   all   residents   of   village   Kaveti   Samudram   in <\/p>\n
the District of Anantpur.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.       Elections to MPTC\/ZPTC were held in July 2001 which saw Gosu <\/p>\n
Jayaranga   Reddy   (A3)   contesting   for   M.P.T.C.   from   Virapuram <\/p>\n
village, while Gosu Ramchandra Reddy (A1) sought election from the <\/p>\n
neighbouring   Yerraguntapalli   village.   Both   of   them   were   set   up   by <\/p>\n
Telugu Desam Party. Electoral contest took a bitter turn when the <\/p>\n
duo   mentioned   above   sought   the   support   of   the   deceased   M.   Chinna <\/p>\n
Pulla   Reddy   which   he   declined   for   he   claimed   to   be   a   staunch <\/p>\n
congressman   committed   to   supporting   the   candidate   set   up   by   his <\/p>\n
party.     It   so   happened   that   A1   and   A3   were   both   defeated   at   the <\/p>\n
hustings.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.       The accused did not, according to the prosecution, reconcile <\/p>\n
to   the   defeat.   Instead   they   started   nursing   a   grudge   against   M. <\/p>\n
Chinna   Pulla   Reddy   who   was   in   their   view   the   cause   of   their <\/p>\n
humiliation in the electoral battle.   The animosity arising out of <\/p>\n
the   electoral   debacle   of   the   two   accused   persons   provided   the <\/p>\n
motive   for   a   murderous   assault   and   resultant   death   of   M.   Chinna <\/p>\n
Pulla   Reddy   on   31st  July,   2001   at   village   Sajjaladinne   where   the <\/p>\n
deceased –\n<\/p>\n
\nhad established a slab polishing factory in the name and style of <\/p>\n
Reddy & Reddy Slab Polishing factory.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.       The   prosecution   case   is   that   the   deceased   Shri   M.   Chinna <\/p>\n
Pulla   Reddy   reached   his   house   at   Tadipatri   from   his   village   in   a <\/p>\n
Tata   Sumo   Jeep   alongwith   his   son   M.   Sanjeeva   Reddy   (PW1)   and   his <\/p>\n
nephews   M.   Rammohan   Reddy   (PW2)   and   M.   Veeranjaneyuly   (PW3).   One <\/p>\n
Hanumanatha   Reddy   and   Mabu   also   accompanied   them.   From   there   the <\/p>\n
deceased and his companions came to the Slab Polishing Factory at <\/p>\n
Sajjaladinne   at   about   5.00   p.m.     Hardly   had   Ganur   Shankar   the <\/p>\n
driver of the jeep parked the jeep at the factory office when A1 to <\/p>\n
A5 entered the factory from the main gate, with A2 carrying bombs <\/p>\n
and A1 & A3 to A5 carrying hunting sickles. Coming closer, accused <\/p>\n
Gosu Jayarami Reddy (A2) hurled two bombs towards the Jeep out of <\/p>\n
which   one   fell   and   exploded   on   the   bonnet   of   the   Jeep   while   the <\/p>\n
other   fell   on   its   left   side   door   and   exploded   thereby   partially <\/p>\n
damaging   the   Jeep.     The   inmates   of   the   Jeep   ran   for   safety   in <\/p>\n
different directions. The deceased also got down from the jeep and <\/p>\n
started running towards –\n<\/p>\n
\nthe office room of the factory, when A-1 Gosu Ramchandra Reddy and <\/p>\n
A3 to A5 viz. Gosu Jayaranga Reddy, Gosu Rameshwar Reddy and Gosu <\/p>\n
Rajagopal   Reddy   attacked   him   with   the   hunting   sickles   which   they <\/p>\n
were   carrying.     The   prosecution   case   is   that   A1   Gosu   Ramchanda <\/p>\n
Reddy   hacked   the   deceased   on   his   head,   while   A3   Gosu   Jayaranga <\/p>\n
Reddy   assaulted   him   on   his   neck.     A4   Gosu   Rameshwar   Reddy   and   A5 <\/p>\n
Gosu   Rajagopal   Reddy   also   similarly   hacked   the   deceased   resulting <\/p>\n
in the death of the deceased on the spot.   The entire incident is <\/p>\n
said to have been witnessed by M. Sanjeeva Reddy (PW1) from behind <\/p>\n
the workers room and by M. Ram Mohan Reddy (PW2) from the Pial of <\/p>\n
the Southern door of the office room.   The incident was witnessed <\/p>\n
even by M. Veeranjane Reddy allegedly from the side of the labour <\/p>\n
room.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.       A   written   complaint   about   the   occurrence   was   lodged   by   M. <\/p>\n
Sanjeeva   Reddy   (PW1)   on   the   basis   whereof   FIR   No.85\/01   was <\/p>\n
registered   in   the   Police   Station   at   Tadipatri   at   6   p.m.   on   31st <\/p>\n
July, 2001. The police arrived at the scene of occurrence at about <\/p>\n
7 p.m., conducted an inquest and sent –\n<\/p>\n
\nthe   dead   body   for   post-mortem   examination   to   the   Government <\/p>\n
hospital   at   Tadipatri.     After   completion   of   the   investigation,   a <\/p>\n
chargesheet   was   presented   against   A1   to   A5   and   five   others   for <\/p>\n
commission   of   offences   punishable   under   Sections   147,   148   and   302 <\/p>\n
read   with   Section   149   IPC   and   Sections   3   and   5   of   the   Explosive <\/p>\n
Substances   Act,   before   the   Judicial   Magistrate,   Ist   Class, <\/p>\n
Tadipatri   who     committed   the   accused   persons   to   the   Court   of <\/p>\n
Sessions   at   Anantpur.   The   case   was   then   made   over   to   VIth <\/p>\n
Additional   District   and   Sessions   Judge,   (Fast   Track)   Anantapur <\/p>\n
before   whom   the   accused   persons   pleaded   not   guilty   and   claimed   a <\/p>\n
trial.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.       In support of its case the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 <\/p>\n
apart from placing reliance upon the documents marked Ex.P1 to P22 <\/p>\n
and MOs marked 1 to 20. Accused Gosu Ramchandra Reddy (A1) and Gosu <\/p>\n
Jayaranga   Reddy   (A3)   examined   DW1   to   DW4   apart   from   placing <\/p>\n
reliance on documents marked D1 to D12, in support of the plea of <\/p>\n
alibi raised in defence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.       By   its   judgment   and   order   dated   15th  July,   2005,   the   Trial <\/p>\n
Court   convicted   A1   to   A5   for   commission   of   offences   punishable <\/p>\n
under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Sections 3 <\/p>\n
and   5   of   Explosive   Substances   Act   and   sentenced   them   to   suffer <\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the commission <\/p>\n
of   an   offence   under   Section   147   IPC,   two   years   under   Section   148 <\/p>\n
IPC and life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section <\/p>\n
302   IPC.   They   were   also   convicted   and   sentenced   to   ten   years <\/p>\n
imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of <\/p>\n
the   Explosive   Substances   Act.   The   sentences   were   ordered   to   run <\/p>\n
concurrently.   The   Trial   Court   also   directed   payment   of   fine   of <\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- each by the accused persons and a default sentence of <\/p>\n
three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 <\/p>\n
IPC and a fine of Rs.1,000\/- each for the offence under Sections 3 <\/p>\n
and   5   of   the   Explosive   Substances   Act   and   in   default   simple <\/p>\n
imprisonment   for   a   period   of   one   month.   A6   to   A10   were,   however, <\/p>\n
acquitted of the charges framed against them.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.       Aggrieved   by   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   Trial <\/p>\n
Court   the   appellants   filed   Criminal   Appeal   No.1112   of   2005   before <\/p>\n
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court after <\/p>\n
reappraisal   of   the   entire   evidence   on   record   affirmed   the <\/p>\n
conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants and dismissed the <\/p>\n
appeal. The present appeals by special leave assail the correctness <\/p>\n
of the said judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties who have taken <\/p>\n
pains   to   extensively   refer   to   the   evidence   adduced   by   the <\/p>\n
prosecution and the defence before the Trial Court in a bid to show <\/p>\n
that the Trial Court as well as the High Court both have failed to <\/p>\n
properly appreciate the same hence erroneously found the appellants <\/p>\n
guilty   of   the   offences   alleged   against   them.   Before   we   advert   to <\/p>\n
the   criticism   levelled   against   the   inferences   &   conclusions   drawn <\/p>\n
by   the   Courts   below   we   need   to   point   out   that   an   appeal   to   this <\/p>\n
Court   by   special   leave   under   Article   136   of   the   Constitution   of <\/p>\n
India   is   not   an   ordinary   or   regular   appeal   against   an   order   of <\/p>\n
conviction recorded by a –\n<\/p>\n
\ncompetent Court.   In an ordinary or regular appeal, the appellate <\/p>\n
Court can and indeed is duty bound to re-appraise the evidence and <\/p>\n
arrive at its own conclusions.  It has the same power as the Trial <\/p>\n
Court when it comes to marshalling of facts and appreciation of the <\/p>\n
probative   value   of   the   evidence   brought   on   record.     The   accused <\/p>\n
can,   therefore,   expect   and   even   demand   a   thorough   scrutiny   and <\/p>\n
discussion   of   his   case   in   all   its   factual   and   legal   aspects   from <\/p>\n
the appellate Court, in the same manner as would be required of a <\/p>\n
Trial   Court.     But   once   the   appellate   Court   has   done   its   task,   no <\/p>\n
second appeal lies against the judgment; under the Cr.P.C. whether <\/p>\n
to   the   High   Court   or   to   this   Court.     A   revision   against   an <\/p>\n
appellate   judgment   of   a   criminal   Court   is   maintainable   before   the <\/p>\n
High Court but the same has its own limitations.  Suffice it to say <\/p>\n
that   the   extra-ordinary   jurisdiction   of   this   Court   under   Article <\/p>\n
136   of   the   Constitution   is   not   and   cannot   be   a   substitute   for   a <\/p>\n
regular appeal where the same is not provided for by the law. The <\/p>\n
scope   of   any   such   appeal   has,   therefore,   to   be   limited   lest   the <\/p>\n
spirit   and   the   intent   of   the   law   that   does   not   sanction   a   second <\/p>\n
round of appellate hearing in criminal –\n<\/p>\n
\ncases, is defeated and a remedy that is not provided directly made <\/p>\n
available   indirectly;   through   the   medium   of   Article   136   of   the <\/p>\n
Constitution.       The   decisions   of   this   Court   on   the   subject   are   a <\/p>\n
legion.     Reference   to   some   of   them   would   however   suffice.     In <\/p>\n
Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1955 SC 320) this Court held <\/p>\n
that it cannot consistently with its practice convert itself into a <\/p>\n
third   Court   of   facts.   In  D.   Macropollo   and   (Pvt.)   Ltd.  v.  D. <\/p>\n
Macropollo and (Pvt.) Ltd. Employees’ Union and Ors. (AIR<\/a> 1958 SC <\/p>\n
1012)  this   Court   declared   that   it   will   not   disturb   concurrent <\/p>\n
findings   of   fact   save   in   most   exceptional   cases.   In  Ramaniklal <\/p>\n
Gokaldas & Ors.  v.  State of Gujarat (AIR<\/a> 1975 SC 1752)  this Court <\/p>\n
observed that it is not a regular Court of appeal which an accused <\/p>\n
may approach as of right in criminal cases. It is an extraordinary <\/p>\n
jurisdiction   which   this   court   exercises   when   it   entertains   an <\/p>\n
appeal by special leave and this jurisdiction by its very nature is <\/p>\n
exercisable only when the Court is satisfied that it is necessary <\/p>\n
to   interfere   in   order   to   prevent   grave   or   serious   miscarriage   of <\/p>\n
justice.   In  Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.  v.  M. Jagannathan<\/a> <\/p>\n
(2001 AIR SCW –\n<\/p>\n
\n4786)  this Court held that reassessment of evidence in proceedings <\/p>\n
under   Article   136   is   not   permissible   even   if   another   view   is <\/p>\n
possible. In Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal Saheb and Ors. v. State of <\/p>\n
U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 951) this Court declared that re-appreciation of <\/p>\n
evidence was permissible only if the Trial Court or the High Court <\/p>\n
is   shown   to   have   committed   an   error   of   law   or   procedure   and <\/p>\n
conclusions arrived at are perverse.   This Court further held that <\/p>\n
while   it   does   not   interfere   with   concurrent   findings   of   fact <\/p>\n
reached by the Trial Court or the High Court, it will interfere in <\/p>\n
those   rare   and   exceptional   cases   where   it   finds   that   several <\/p>\n
important   circumstances   have   not   been   taken   into   account   by   the <\/p>\n
Trial Court and the High Court resulting in serious miscarriage of <\/p>\n
justice or where the trial is vitiated because of some illegality <\/p>\n
or   irregularity   of   procedure   or   is   otherwise   held   in   a   manner <\/p>\n
violating the rules of natural justice or that the judgment under <\/p>\n
appeal   has   resulted   in   gross   miscarriage   of   justice.   (See   also <\/p>\n
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR<\/a> 1976 SC 985), Suresh Kumar <\/p>\n
Jain v. Shanti Swarup Jain and Ors. (AIR<\/a> 1997 SC –<\/p>\n
2291) and Kirpal Singh v. State of Utter Pradesh (AIR 1965 SC 712). <\/p>\n
11.      It is in the light of the above pronouncements of this Court <\/p>\n
evident   that   an   appeal   by   special   leave   against   the   judgment   and <\/p>\n
order   of   conviction   and   sentence   is   not   a   regular   appeal   against <\/p>\n
the judgment of the Trial Court. The appellant cannot seek reversal <\/p>\n
of views taken by the Courts below simply because another view was <\/p>\n
possible   on   the   evidence   adduced   in   the   case.   In   order   that   the <\/p>\n
appellant   may   succeed   before   this   Court,   it   must   be   demonstrated <\/p>\n
that the view taken by the Trial Court or the appellate Court for <\/p>\n
that matter is affected by any procedural or legal infirmity or is <\/p>\n
perverse or has caused miscarriage of justice.<\/p>\n
12.      It   is   now   our   task   to   determine   whether   the   order   of <\/p>\n
conviction   and   sentence   recorded   by   the   courts   below   suffers   from <\/p>\n
any   such   infirmity   as   is   mentioned   above   so   as   to   justify <\/p>\n
interference   with   the   same   in   exercise   of   our   extra   ordinary <\/p>\n
jurisdiction.   On   behalf   of   the   appellants   it   was   argued   that   the <\/p>\n
alleged   motive   behind   the   killing   of   the   deceased   Midde   Chinna <\/p>\n
Pulla Reddy has not been –\n<\/p>\n
\nestablished.   The   Trial   Court   has   according   to   the   learned   counsel <\/p>\n
rejected   the   plea   of   political   rivalry   being   the   driving   force <\/p>\n
behind   the   incident   in   question.   The   High   Court   was,   argued   the <\/p>\n
learned   counsel   for   the   appellants,   in   error   in   reversing   that <\/p>\n
finding   and   holding   that   the   prosecution   had   established   the <\/p>\n
existence of political rivalry as the motive for the murder of the <\/p>\n
deceased.     Absence   of   a   strong   motive   was   a   circumstance,   that <\/p>\n
according   to   the   learned   counsel   rendered   the   entire   prosecution <\/p>\n
story suspect, the benefit whereof ought to go to the appellants.<\/p>\n
13.      It is settled by a series of decisions of this Court that in <\/p>\n
cases based on eye witness account of the incident proof or absence <\/p>\n
of a motive is not of any significant consequence. If a motive is <\/p>\n
proved   it   may   supports   the   prosecution   version.   But   existence   or <\/p>\n
otherwise   of   a   motive   plays   a   significant   role   in   cases   based   on <\/p>\n
circumstantial   evidence.   The   prosecution   has   in   the   instant   case <\/p>\n
examined as many as five eye witnesses in support of its case that <\/p>\n
the deceased was done to death by the appellants.   The depositions <\/p>\n
of Shri M. Sanjeeva Reddy (PW1), Shri M. –\n<\/p>\n
\nRammohan   Reddy   (PW2),   Shri   Veeranjaneyu   (PW3),   Shri   D. <\/p>\n
Dastnagiramma (PW4) and Shri Eswaraiah (PW5) have been relied upon <\/p>\n
by   the   prosecution   to   substantiate   the   charge   framed   against   the <\/p>\n
appellants.   If   the   depositions   giving   the   eye   witness   account   of <\/p>\n
the incident that led to the death of late Shri Midde Chinna Reddy <\/p>\n
are indeed reliable as the same have been found to be, by the Trial <\/p>\n
Court and the first appellate Court, absence of a motive would make <\/p>\n
little difference.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.      Having   said   that   we   need   to   examine   the   reasoning   of   the <\/p>\n
Trial   Court   while   it   dealt   with   the   question   of   motive   –   which <\/p>\n
finding of the trial Court has been reversed by the High Court. The <\/p>\n
trial court has on the question of motive observed: <\/p>\n
          “In   the   present   case   3   eye   witnesses   are   there   and
\n          their evidence is supported by PW.4.   Even though both
\n          parties   accused   group   and   the   deceased   group   belonged
\n          to   different   political   parties,   but   actually   there   is
\n          no   evidence   that   there   are   pending   civil   litigations
\n          between   them.     In   the   MPTC   Elections   the   accused   No.1
\n          and 3 contested for the post of MPTC on behalf of the
\n          Telugu   Desam   Party   and   the   deceased   supported   the
\n          congress   back   ground   candidates   and   who   succeeded   and
\n          the   accused   persons   were   defeated   in   the   elections.
\n          Except that there is no material to state that –
\n          the   deceased   and   his   sons   got   enmity   towards   the
\n          accused persons”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.       The   above   finding   was   manifestly   erroneous.   Not   only   was <\/p>\n
there   evidence   on   record   in   the   form   of   depositions   of   Shri   M. <\/p>\n
Sanjeeva   Reddy   PW1   and   Shri   M.   Rammohan   Reddy   PW2,   the   alleged <\/p>\n
political rivalry between the two sides was mentioned even in the <\/p>\n
first   information   report   lodged   by   PW1   in   writing.   The   complaint <\/p>\n
and   so   also   the   FIR   registered   on   the   basis   of   the   same   clearly <\/p>\n
referred   to   the   reason   why   the   deceased   had   been   killed.     It <\/p>\n
attributed the reason for the ghastly murder of the deceased to his <\/p>\n
refusal   to   support   the   candidature   of   A1   and   A3   in   the   ZPTC\/MPTC <\/p>\n
elections.     It   was   not,   therefore,   a   case   where   motive   was <\/p>\n
introduced as an improvement in the prosecution story.   It was on <\/p>\n
the   contrary   a   case   where   right   from   the   stage   of   lodging   of   the <\/p>\n
FIR   till   recording   of   depositions   in   the   court   political   rivalry <\/p>\n
was said to be the motive for the killing of the deceased.  Shri M. <\/p>\n
Sanjeeva Reddy PW1, who was also the first informant had stood by <\/p>\n
his version regarding the political rivalry being the cause for the <\/p>\n
murder of his father Chinna Pulla Reddy.  So had M. Rammohan Reddy <\/p>\n
PW 2 –\n<\/p>\n
\nwho   had   also   in   no   uncertain   terms   said   that   the   rivalry   between <\/p>\n
the two groups was the reason why the deceased was done to death. <\/p>\n
The High Court appreciated the above evidence and rightly observed:<\/p>\n
         “From   the   above   evidence,   it   is   clear   that   there   was
\n         political   rivalry   between   the   accused   party   and   the
\n         deceased party and the accused bore grudge against the
\n         deceased   on   account   of   the   refusal   of   the   deceased   to
\n         support   them   in   the   elections   and   on   account   of   the
\n         defeat of A-1 and A-3 in the ZPTC elections.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.      There is, in our opinion, no reason much less a compelling <\/p>\n
one for us to take a view different from the one taken by the High <\/p>\n
Court.   The   prosecution   case   that   these   accused   appellants   had   a <\/p>\n
motive for the commission of the offence alleged against them thus <\/p>\n
stood satisfactorily proved.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.      It was next contended that the incident in question having <\/p>\n
occurred   at   5   p.m.   the   first   information   report   lodged   at   6   p.m. <\/p>\n
was   delayed   for   which   delay,   the   prosecution   had   offered   no <\/p>\n
explanation.   It   was   further   contended   that   the   jurisdictional <\/p>\n
Magistrate had received a copy of the FIR only at 1.05 a.m. Keeping <\/p>\n
in view the –\n<\/p>\n
\ndistance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station as <\/p>\n
also the distance between the Police Station and the jurisdictional <\/p>\n
Magistrate’s   court   the   delay   in   lodging   of   the   report   and   in <\/p>\n
sending   a   copy   thereof   to   the   Magistrate   were   significant   which <\/p>\n
would   in   the   absence   of   any   valid   explanation   render   the   entire <\/p>\n
prosecution case, suspect.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.      There is in our view no merit even in this submission of the <\/p>\n
learned counsel. A report regarding the commission of a cognizable <\/p>\n
offence, lodged within an hour of the incident cannot be said to be <\/p>\n
so   inordinately   delayed   as   to   give   rise   to   a   suspicion   that   the <\/p>\n
delay – if at all the time lag can be described to be constituting <\/p>\n
delay,   was   caused   because   the   complainant,   resorted   to <\/p>\n
deliberations   and   consultations   with   a   view   to   presenting   a <\/p>\n
distorted,   inaccurate   or   exaggerated   version   of   the   actual <\/p>\n
incident. No suggestion was made to PW1 the first informant that he <\/p>\n
delayed the lodging of the report because he held any consultation <\/p>\n
in order to present a false or distorted picture of the incident. A <\/p>\n
promptly lodged report may also at times be inaccurate or distorted <\/p>\n
just as a delayed report may –\n<\/p>\n
\ndespite   the   delay   remain   a   faithful   version   of   what   had   actually <\/p>\n
happened.     It   is   the   totality   of   the   circumstances   that   would <\/p>\n
determine whether the delay long or short has in any way affected <\/p>\n
the   truthfulness   of   the   report   lodged   in   a   given   case.   The <\/p>\n
credibility of a report cannot be judged only by reference to the <\/p>\n
days,   hours   or   minutes   it   has   taken   to   reach   the   police   station <\/p>\n
concerned.     Viewed   thus   the   credibility   of   the   report   was   not <\/p>\n
affected on account of the so called delay of one hour in lodging <\/p>\n
of   the   complaint.   So   also,   the   receipt   of   the   report   by   the <\/p>\n
magistrate   at   1.05   a.m.   was   not   so   inordinately   delayed   as   to <\/p>\n
render   suspect   the   entire   prosecution   case   especially   when   no <\/p>\n
question regarding the cause of delay was put to the Investigating <\/p>\n
Officer.   If delay in the despatch of the First Information Report <\/p>\n
to   the   Magistrate   was   material   the   attention   of   the   Investigating <\/p>\n
Officer   ought   to   have   been   drawn   to   that   aspect   to   give   him   an <\/p>\n
opportunity to offer an explanation for the same. How far was the <\/p>\n
explanation   acceptable   would   then   be   a   matter   for   the   court   to <\/p>\n
consider.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.      It   was   then   contended   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
appellants   that   there   were   certain   erasures   and   interpolations   in <\/p>\n
the   first   information   report   which   according   to   them   suggested   a <\/p>\n
manipulation and raised a doubt about the registering of the first <\/p>\n
information   report.     A   similar   contention,   it   appears   was   raised <\/p>\n
even before the Trial Court, who repelled the same holding that the <\/p>\n
only   discrepancy   in   the   first   information   report   was   a   correction <\/p>\n
of   FIR   No.84   to   First   Information   Report   No.85.     The   Trial   Court <\/p>\n
further held that the said correction was wholly immaterial and did <\/p>\n
not affect the prosecution version. Before us, an attempt was made <\/p>\n
by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   to   argue   that   the <\/p>\n
correction   made   in   the   first   information   report   altered   the   FIR <\/p>\n
number   from   86   to   85   meaning   thereby   that   the   first   information <\/p>\n
report had been ante timed.   There is no merit in that contention <\/p>\n
either.     The trial court has in our opinion correctly found that <\/p>\n
the   over-writing   in   the   First   Information   Report   was   limited   to <\/p>\n
converting   the   digit   4   to   digit   5   in   the   number   assigned   to   the <\/p>\n
FIR.   This correction is visible to the naked eye. The contention <\/p>\n
that the correction had the effect of converting –<\/p>\n
FIR   No.86   into   FIR   No.85   is   not   supported   by   the   record.   As   a <\/p>\n
matter of fact the correction simply altered the FIR number from 84 <\/p>\n
to 85. In the circumstances, unless the correction is shown to be <\/p>\n
of   any   significance,   nothing   much   turns   on   the   same.   Learned <\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   appellants   were   unable   to   demonstrate   that   the <\/p>\n
correction   of   the   First   Information   Report   No.84   to   85   suggested <\/p>\n
any   distortion   in   the   prosecution   case   or   prove   that   the   first <\/p>\n
information   report   was   false   or   ante   timed.       It   is   also <\/p>\n
significant   that   neither   in   the   memo   of   appeal   before   the   High <\/p>\n
Court nor in the special leave petition filed before this Court had <\/p>\n
the   appellants   pursued   the   challenge   or   urged   the   alleged <\/p>\n
interpolation   in   the   First   Information   Report   as   a   ground <\/p>\n
warranting rejection of the prosecution case. <\/p>\n
20.      That   brings   us   to   the   substance   of   the   prosecution   case <\/p>\n
which   essentially   comprises   the   depositions   of   M.   Sanjeeva   Reddy <\/p>\n
PW1,   M.   Rammohan   Reddy,   PW2   and   M.   Veeranjaneya   Reddy   PW   3. <\/p>\n
According to M. Sanjeeva Reddy PW 1, late Shri Chinna Pulla Reddy, <\/p>\n
Ramamohan Reddy, Hanumantha Reddy, Veeranjaneya Reddy, Mabu –<\/p>\n
and driver Shankar started from Kavetimasumdram in a Tata Sumo Jeep <\/p>\n
driven by Shankar on 31st  of July, 2001 and reached Tadipatri at 4 <\/p>\n
p.m.     From   the   house   of   the   deceased   at   Tadipatri   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
persons   including   the   deceased   travelled   to   Sanjjaladinne   village <\/p>\n
and reached the slab polishing factory by 5 p.m.  The driver of the <\/p>\n
vehicle   drove   through   the   gate   of   the   factory   premises   and   then <\/p>\n
reversed the same for parking the jeep facing the gate.  It was at <\/p>\n
this   stage   that   A1   to   A5   came   running   through   the   gate   into   the <\/p>\n
factory.     A2   was   armed   with   bombs   while   the   other   accused   were <\/p>\n
armed with hunting sickles.  A2 hurled two bombs, one of which fell <\/p>\n
on   the   bonnet   of   the   Jeep   and   exploded   while   the   other   bomb <\/p>\n
exploded   on  the   left  side   door  of   the  vehicle.     All   of  them   were <\/p>\n
terrified   by   the   sudden   attack   and   started   running   away   for <\/p>\n
shelter.  The witness ran towards labour room of the factory on the <\/p>\n
west side and stood behind the workers room from where he witnessed <\/p>\n
the occurrence.   He saw that when the deceased was running to the <\/p>\n
office   room   of   the   factory   Gosu   Ramachandra   Reddy   A1   hacked   him <\/p>\n
with a hunting sickle on his head. Similarly Gosu Rajagopal Reddy <\/p>\n
A3 also –\n<\/p>\n
\nhacked the deceased on the neck.  Because of the blows sustained by <\/p>\n
the   deceased  he   fell  down   at  a   distance  of   3  ft.   from  the   office <\/p>\n
room.   A3 instigated the others to kill the deceased whereupon A4 <\/p>\n
and   A5   also   hacked   the   deceased.     The   witness   was   stunned   out   of <\/p>\n
fear   and   remained   frozen   at   the   place   from   where   he   watched   the <\/p>\n
occurrence,   while   the   accused   left   the   place   from   the   same   gate <\/p>\n
carrying their hunting sickles stained with blood.<\/p>\n
21.      The witness goes on to state that PW 3 M. Veeranjaneya Reddy <\/p>\n
also came to the spot after the occurrence and saw the dead body of <\/p>\n
the deceased.  Mabu and Ramamohan Reddy were sent by the witness to <\/p>\n
the Village to inform his mother and brother.   The witness himself <\/p>\n
went to the Police Station and lodged a report at Tadipatri Police <\/p>\n
Station,   Ex.P1.     The   police   arrived   at   the   spot   and   conducted   an <\/p>\n
inquest between 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. with the help of electric lights <\/p>\n
and   two   petromax   lamps.     At   the   inquest   the   watchman   told   the <\/p>\n
witness   that  he   had  seen   A6  to   A10  outside   the  factory   gate.    It <\/p>\n
was on the basis of the said statement that the names of A6 to A10 <\/p>\n
were also –\n<\/p>\n
\nincluded as persons responsible for the commission of the offence. <\/p>\n
Despite   extensive   cross   examination   nothing   material   has   been <\/p>\n
extracted   from   the   witnesses   which   could   possibly   discredit   his <\/p>\n
testimony   nor   was   any   specific   contention   based   on   the   said <\/p>\n
statement made in the courts below or urged before us.  <\/p>\n
22.      To the same effect are the depositions of PW 2 and PW3 who <\/p>\n
too   have   fully   supported   the   prosecution   case   and   the   narrative <\/p>\n
given by PW1.  The version of these witnesses who according to the <\/p>\n
prosecution were eye witnesses to the occurrence has been accepted <\/p>\n
as   truthful   by   the   trial   court   as   also   the   High   Court   in   appeal. <\/p>\n
In the absence of any material contradiction in the version given <\/p>\n
by   these   witnesses   and   in   the   absence   of   any   other   cogent   reason <\/p>\n
rendering the   depositions unacceptable, we see no reason why the <\/p>\n
said version should not be accepted as truthful.  <\/p>\n
23.      Deposition   of   D.   Dastagiramma   PW4   has   also   substantially <\/p>\n
supported the prosecution version although she was declared hostile <\/p>\n
by the public prosecutor on account of her refusal to identify the <\/p>\n
accused.  According to –\n<\/p>\n
\nthis   witness   she   was   staying   in   the   slab   factory   of   the   deceased <\/p>\n
Pulla Reddy in a labour room.  Pulla Reddy had come to the factory <\/p>\n
along   with   PW1,   PW2   and   PW3.   Hanumantha   Reddy   and   Mabu,   Driver <\/p>\n
Shankar   was   also   with   him   in   the   white   jeep.   They   reached   the <\/p>\n
factory at 5 p.m.   The Jeep was reversed by the driver and parked <\/p>\n
facing   towards   the   gate,   when   five   persons   came   running   from   the <\/p>\n
gate.   One   person   was   having   bombs   while   the   remaining   were   armed <\/p>\n
with   hunting   sickles.   Both   the   bombs   thrown   at   the   jeep   exploded <\/p>\n
whereafter PW 1 to PW 3 ran away.  PW 1 had run towards the Labour <\/p>\n
room while the five assailants surrounded the deceased China Pulla <\/p>\n
Reddy.  At this stage the witness ran away due to fear to the back <\/p>\n
side of the factory and left for Ramapuram her parents’ village.<\/p>\n
24.      Eswaraiah   PW5   was   also   a   labourer   who   was   working   in   the <\/p>\n
factory of the deceased Pulla Reddy. This witness was taking care <\/p>\n
of the poultry in the factory owned by the deceased. Since some of <\/p>\n
the   birds   had   escaped   from   the   factory,   he   was   chasing   them   back <\/p>\n
into the factory. At –\n<\/p>\n
\nabout 5 p.m. he heard a loud noise from the factory. He returned to <\/p>\n
the factory within 10 minutes and found that Pulla Reddy had been <\/p>\n
hacked   and  was   lying  dead   in  a   pool  of   blood  at   a  short   distance <\/p>\n
from the jeep.  This witness saw PWs 1 to 3, Mabu, Hanumantha Reddy <\/p>\n
near the dead body but did not see the assailants as they had run <\/p>\n
away from there.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
25.      It   is   evident   from   the   depositions   of   the   three   witnesses <\/p>\n
referred   to   above   that   the   deceased   Pulla   Reddy   had   come   to   his <\/p>\n
factory   accompanied   by   PW   1   M.   Sanjeeva   Reddy,   PW   2   M.   Rammohan <\/p>\n
Reddy,   PW   3   M.   Veeranjaneya   Reddy   and   Shankar   the   driver   of   the <\/p>\n
sumo   jeep   and   that   the   deceased   was   killed   inside   the   factory   by <\/p>\n
five   persons.     The   depositions   of   PWs   4   and   5   substantially <\/p>\n
supports   the   prosecution   case   and   proves   the   presence   of   the <\/p>\n
deceased   Pulla   Reddy,   and   PWs   1,   2   and   3   apart   from   Shanker,   the <\/p>\n
driver   of   the   Sumo   jeep   inside   the   compound   of   the   factory   at   5 <\/p>\n
p.m.   on   31st  July,   2001   when   the   incident   took   place.     Once   the <\/p>\n
presence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 was established by their own depositions <\/p>\n
which have remained unshattered –\n<\/p>\n
\nand   the   supporting   evidence   of   PWs   4   and   5,   the   version   given   by <\/p>\n
the said three witnesses cannot be brushed aside lightly.   <\/p>\n
26.      Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for A1, A4 <\/p>\n
and   A5   contended   that   since   the   accused   persons   belonged   to   a <\/p>\n
different village in the absence of any evidence to show, that they <\/p>\n
knew   that   the   deceased   was   visiting   his   factory   it   would   be <\/p>\n
difficult   to   believe   that   they   were   lying   in   wait   to   assault   and <\/p>\n
kill   him.   There   is   indeed   no   evidence   to   show   that   the   accused <\/p>\n
persons   knew   about   the   visit   of   the   deceased   to   his   factory   but <\/p>\n
that   does   not   in   our   view,   make   any   material   difference.   What   is <\/p>\n
important   is   that   the   stone   polishing   factory   was   owned   by   the <\/p>\n
deceased and was not far from his house at Tadipatri.   A visit by <\/p>\n
the   owner   of   the   factory   was   not   so   improbable   that   the   accused <\/p>\n
could   not   expect   the   same   especially   when   those   with   a   sinister <\/p>\n
design like a cold blooded murder, could lie in wait if necessary <\/p>\n
to   strike   at   an   opportune   time.   The   fact   that   a   factory   owned   by <\/p>\n
Accused No.1 was in close proximity to the factory of the deceased, <\/p>\n
made it all the –\n<\/p>\n
\nmore easy for the assailants to carry out their nefarious design. <\/p>\n
That   the   deceased   had   been   killed   in   the   factory,   is   not   even <\/p>\n
questioned by the defence as indeed the same cannot be questioned <\/p>\n
in   the   light   of   the   deposition   of   the   witnesses   examined   by   the <\/p>\n
prosecution.   The depositions of the eye witnesses PWs 1 to 3 are <\/p>\n
clear   and   free   from   any   embellishments   hence   completely   reliable. <\/p>\n
It is also difficult to believe that the witnesses who are closely <\/p>\n
related to the deceased would screen the real offenders and falsely <\/p>\n
implicate   the   appellants   only   because   of   the   political   rivalry <\/p>\n
between the two groups.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
27.      Mr. Kumar next argued that the weapons allegedly used by the <\/p>\n
appellants   were   said   to   be   hunting   sickles,   whereas   the   injuries <\/p>\n
found   on   the   person   of   the   deceased   were   said   to   have   contused <\/p>\n
margins which could not be caused by a hunting sickle.  It was also <\/p>\n
argued   that   while   the   eye   witnesses   had   attributed   to   A3       an <\/p>\n
injury on the neck of the deceased no such injury was reported by <\/p>\n
the doctor in the post mortem examination. This was, according –<\/p>\n
to   the   defence,   a   major   contradiction,   that   would   render   the <\/p>\n
prosecution story doubtful.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
28.      It   is   true   that   PW   1   has   in   his   depositions   attributed   an <\/p>\n
injury to A 3 which according to the witness was inflicted on the <\/p>\n
neck   of   the   deceased.     It   is   also   true   that   the   post   mortem <\/p>\n
examination   did   not   reveal   any   injury   on   the   neck.     But   this <\/p>\n
discrepancy cannot in the light of the evidence on record and the <\/p>\n
fact   that   it   is   not   always   easy   for   an   eye   witness   to   a   ghastly <\/p>\n
murder   to   register   the   precise   number   of   injuries   that   were <\/p>\n
inflicted by the assailants and the part of the body on which the <\/p>\n
same were inflicted.   A murderous assault is often a heart-rending <\/p>\n
spectacle   in   which   even   a   witness   wholly   unconnected   to   the <\/p>\n
assailant or the victim may also get a feeling of revulsion at the <\/p>\n
gory   sight   involving   merciless   killing   of   a   human   being   in   cold <\/p>\n
blood.     To   expect   from   a   witness   who   has   gone   through   such   a <\/p>\n
nightmarish   experience,   meticulous   narration   of   who   hit   whom   at <\/p>\n
what   precise   part   of   the   body   causing   what   kind   of   injury   and <\/p>\n
leading to what kind of fractures or flow of how much blood, is to <\/p>\n
expect too much.  Courts need to be –\n<\/p>\n
\nrealistic in their expectation from witnesses and go by what would <\/p>\n
be   reasonable   based   on   ordinary   human   conduct   with   ordinary   human <\/p>\n
frailties of memory and power to register events and their details. <\/p>\n
A witness who is terrorised by the brutality of the attack cannot <\/p>\n
be   disbelieved   only   because   in   his   description   of   who   hit   the <\/p>\n
deceased   on   what   part   of   the   body   there   is   some   mix   up   or <\/p>\n
confusion.     It   is   the   totality   of   the   evidence   on   record   and   its <\/p>\n
credibility that would eventually determine whether the prosecution <\/p>\n
has proved the charge against the accused.     Having said that let <\/p>\n
us   see   the   nature   of   the   injuries   that   were   noticed   by   Dr. <\/p>\n
Satyanarayana   Reddy   PW   6,   who   conducted   the   post   mortem   on   the <\/p>\n
deceased   and   examine   whether   the   discrepancy   pointed   out   by   the <\/p>\n
defence   makes   any   real   dent   in   the   prosecution   case.   The   witness <\/p>\n
has described the injuries as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         “EXTERNAL INJURIES\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         1.                   Incised   injury   over   left   side   of   head
\n         Fronto parietal area 15 cms x 2 cms x bone deep. Bones
\n         fractured.     Brain   matter   seen   out   side   through   the
\n         injuries.  Margins contused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         2.                   Incised injury over the occipital area of
\n         head   on   right   side   8   cms   x   2   cms.   bone   deep,   margins
\n         contused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3.                   Incised   injury   over   left   side   of   face   6
\n         cms. x 2 cms. muscle deep. Margins contused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         4.                   Incised   injury   over   the   lower   Jaw
\n         extending on both side of face 16 cms. x 3 cms. x bone
\n         deep, margins contused, mandible fractured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         5.                   Incised   injury   over   lower   lip   on   left
\n         side   7 cm x 2 cm. muscle deep, margins contused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         6.                   Incised injury over right clavicle 6 cm x
\n         2   cm   bone   deep,   margins   contused,   right   clavicle
\n         fractrured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         7.                   Incised injury over left shoulder 6 cm x
\n         2 cm muscle deep, margins contused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         8.                   Incised   injury   over   left   side   of   chest
\n         below   clavicle   15   cm   x   2   cm   cavity   deep,   margins
\n         contused.   Lung   tissue   protruding   over   through   the
\n         injury.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         9.                   Incised injury over the palm of left hand
\n         near wrist 2 cm x 1 cm tissue deep, margins contused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         10.         Incised   injury   over   the   palm   of   left   hand   near
\n         little   finger   2   cm   x   1   cm   tissue   deep,   margins
\n         contused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         11.         Incised   injury   over   the   dorsal   aspect   of   left
\n         forearm   upper   1\/3   5cm   x   2   cm   muscle   deep,   margins
\n         contused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         12.         Incised   injury   over   the   back   of   left   scapular
\n         area 4 cm x 2 cm muscle deep, margins contused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             Deep   dissection   and   internal   examination:
\n         Skull: fracture of left frontal and left parietal bone
\n         present.     Fracture   of   occipital   bone   right   side
\n         fractured.     Brain   underlying   the   fractured   bones
\n         extensively injured.   Intracranial haemorrhage present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Hyoid normal fracture of mandible present.  Fracture of
\n          right   clavicle   present.     Thorax   on   left   side   fracture
\n          of   ribs   from   1   to   3   present.     Lung   tissue   protruding
\n          out through the injury.  Left lung extensively injured.
\n          Extravasations   of   blood   about   800   cc   present   in   left
\n          thoracic   cavity.     Heart   chambers   empty.     Right   lungs
\n          normal and pale.   Stomach contain digested food, Liver
\n          normal   and   pale.               Kidneys   normal   and   pale.
\n          Extravasations   of   blood   surrounding   all   external
\n          injuries.     The   injuries   are   ante   mortem   in   nature.
\n          Rectum empty. Bladder empty.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Opinion : The deceased would appear to have died
\n          of shock and haemorrhage due to  multiple injuries, –
\n          especially injuries to vital organs.   Brain: caused by
\n          injuries   No.1  and   2  and   injury  to   left  lung   caused  by
\n          the injury No.8 and died 15 to 18 hours prior to post
\n          mortem examination.  Injuries would have been caused by
\n          sharp   weapons   like   sickles.     The   P.M.   certificate   is
\n          Ex.P.3.     Injuries   1   to   12   are   ante   mortem   in   nature.
\n          The   above   injuries   sufficient   to   cause   to   death   in
\n          ordinary course of nature.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
29.      Two aspects are clear from the above.  First is that injury <\/p>\n
no.6   (supra)   was   found   over   the   right   clavicle.     The   injury   was <\/p>\n
bone deep and the clavicle fractured. A witness who has a momentary <\/p>\n
view   of   the   incident   which   is   over   within   a   few   minutes   may   not <\/p>\n
have his testimony rejected only because instead of describing the <\/p>\n
injury to the clavicle he described the same to be an injury to the <\/p>\n
neck.   It is not a case where the witness attributes an injury to <\/p>\n
the   assailants   on   a   vital   part   like   the   head   but   no   such   actual <\/p>\n
injury   is   found   in   that   region   of   the   body.   Instead   an   injury   is <\/p>\n
found   say   on   the   leg   or   any   other   portion   of   the   body.     It   is   a <\/p>\n
case where the witness describes the infliction of the injury in a <\/p>\n
region   which   may   not   be   accurate   from   the   point   of   view   of   human <\/p>\n
anatomy but which is capable of being –\n<\/p>\n
\nunderstood in a layman’s language to be an injury in an area that <\/p>\n
is proximate.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
30.      The   other   aspect   is   that   the   deposition   of   the   doctor <\/p>\n
establishes the fact that the injuries noticed on the dead body of <\/p>\n
the   deceased   had   been   inflicted   by   sharp   cutting   instrument   like <\/p>\n
sickles.     It   is   further   stated   by   the   doctor   that   in   all <\/p>\n
probabiliting the deceased might have died on receipt of the first <\/p>\n
injury   itself.     There   is   nothing   in   the   examination   of   the   eye-<\/p>\n
witnesses from which the court may infer that the injuries found in <\/p>\n
the   post   mortem   examination   of   the   deceased   could   not   have   been <\/p>\n
caused by sharp edged sickles that the accused were carrying with <\/p>\n
them and are said to have used in the course of the incident. The <\/p>\n
argument that there is a material contradiction between the ocular <\/p>\n
evidence on the one hand and the medical evidence on the other must <\/p>\n
therefore fail and is hereby rejected.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
31.      It was then contended on behalf of the appellants that the <\/p>\n
prosecution   had   dropped   Shankar   the   driver   of   the   Sumo   Jeep   and <\/p>\n
Hanumantha Reddy who according to the –\n<\/p>\n
\ndefence witnesses could have given true account of incident if at <\/p>\n
all   they   were   accompanying   the   deceased   on   the   date   of   the <\/p>\n
occurrence.   It   was   argued   by   Mr.   Sushil   Kumar,   learned   senior <\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants that the non-examination of Shankar, the <\/p>\n
driver   of   the   Jeep   assumes   importance   because   according   to   the <\/p>\n
prosecution   version   the   driver   had   after   entering   the   factory <\/p>\n
premises   reversed   the   Jeep   and   parked   it   facing   the   gate.     This <\/p>\n
part   of   the   case   could   be   supported   only   by   the   driver   and   since <\/p>\n
the driver had been given up at the trial the prosecution case that <\/p>\n
the   vehicle   was   parked   facing   the   gate,   must   be   deemed   to   have <\/p>\n
remained   unproved.   The   parking   of   the   vehicle   in   the   manner <\/p>\n
suggested   by   the   prosecution   was   according   the   learned   counsel <\/p>\n
material in as much as unless the prosecution introduced the theory <\/p>\n
of the vehicle being parked by the driver facing the gate the so-<\/p>\n
called eye-witness to the occurrence would have had no opportunity <\/p>\n
to   see   the   accused   persons   entering   the   factory   with   bombs   and <\/p>\n
sickles. We regret to say that there is no merit in that contention <\/p>\n
either. It is well-settled that every witness that the prosecution <\/p>\n
may have listed in the charge–\n<\/p>\n
\nsheet need not be examined. It is entirely in the discretion of the <\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor to decide as to how he proposes to establish his <\/p>\n
case and which of the listed witnesses are essential for unfolding <\/p>\n
the prosecution story. Simply because more than one witnesses have <\/p>\n
been   cited   to   establish   the   very   same   fact   is   no   reason   why   the <\/p>\n
prosecution   must   examine   all   of   them.   The   prosecution   in   the <\/p>\n
present case examined three eye-witnesses to prove the incident in <\/p>\n
question. There was no particular fact that could be proved only by <\/p>\n
the   deposition   of   the   driver   and   not   by   other   witnesses.     That <\/p>\n
Shanker   was   the   driver   of   the   vehicle   at   the   relevant   time,   and <\/p>\n
that   he   reversed   the   vehicle   and   parked   it   facing   the   gate,   were <\/p>\n
facts regarding which each one of the occupants of the vehicle was <\/p>\n
a   competent   witness.     PWs.   1,   2   and   3   have   in   their   depositions <\/p>\n
testified   that   the   vehicle   was   parked   facing   the   gate   by   Shankar <\/p>\n
driver of the vehicle after reversing the same.   So also the non-<\/p>\n
examination of Hanumantha Reddy does not, in our opinion, make any <\/p>\n
dent in the prosecution case or render the version given by three <\/p>\n
eye-witnesses   who   have   supported   the   prosecution   version   unworthy <\/p>\n
of –\n<\/p>\n
\ncredit.     As   a   matter   of   fact   once   the   deposition   of   the   eye-<\/p>\n
witnesses examined at the trial is accepted as trustworthy the non-<\/p>\n
examination of other witnesses would become inconsequential.   This <\/p>\n
Court in  Nirpal Singh  v.  State of Haryana  (1977) 2 SCC 131 stated <\/p>\n
the principles in the following words:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “The   real   question   for   determination   is   not   as   to
\n         what   is   the   effect   of   non-examination   of   certain
\n         witnesses   as   the   question   whether   the   witnesses
\n         examined in Court on sworn testimony should be believed
\n         or not.  Once the witnesses examined by the prosecution
\n         are   believed   by   the   Court   and   the   Court   comes   to   the
\n         conclusion   that   their   evidence   is   trust-worthy,   the
\n         non-examination of other witnesses will not affect the
\n         credibility   of   these   witnesses.     It   is   not   necessary
\n         for   the   prosecution   to   multiply   witnesses   after
\n         witnesses on the same point.  In the instant case, once
\n         the evidence of the eye witnesses is believed, there is
\n         an end of the matter.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
32.      To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in State <\/p>\n
of   U.P.  v.  Hakim   Singh   and   Ors.<\/a>  (1980)   3   SCC   55,  Nandu   Rastogi <\/p>\n
alias Nandji Rastogi and Anr. v. State of Bihar<\/a> (2002) 8 SCC 9, Hem <\/p>\n
Raj & Ors. v. State of Haryana (AIR<\/a> 2005 SC 2010), State of M.P. v. <\/p>\n
Dharkole @ Govind Singh and Ors.  (AIR 2005 SC 44) and  Raj Narain <\/p>\n
Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 362.\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
33.      It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the failure <\/p>\n
of the Investigating Officer to seize the Jeep must give rise to an <\/p>\n
adverse inference and discredit the entire prosecution story.  That <\/p>\n
submission   needs   notice   only   to   be   rejected.   The   vehicle   in <\/p>\n
question   was   not   used   for   the   commission   of   the   offence.   It   was, <\/p>\n
therefore,   not   necessary   to   seize   the   vehicle.     All   that   the <\/p>\n
prosecution was required to establish was that the Jeep was indeed <\/p>\n
damaged on account of throwing of bombs one of which had exploded <\/p>\n
on the bonnet of the vehicle and the other on the left side of its <\/p>\n
door.  The Investigating Officer had taken care to have the damaged <\/p>\n
portions   of   the   vehicle,   cut,   seized   and   sent   to   the   Forensic <\/p>\n
Science   Laboratory   for   opinion.     The   report   from   the   FSL   marked <\/p>\n
Ex.P20   supports   the   prosecution   case   and   proves   that   explosive <\/p>\n
mixture used in manmade bombs was found in the same.  The relevant <\/p>\n
part of the report is as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “The above items are analysed and Potassium, Chlorate,
\n          Chloride, Arsenic, Sulphide, Sulphate are found in both
\n          of them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   The above radicals are the resultant components
\n          and   residues   of   explosive   Potassium   Chlorate,   Arsenic
\n          Sulphide   and   Sulphur   after   explosion.     This   explosive
\n          mixture is used in countrymade bombs of throw type.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
34.      In the light of the above the non-seizure of the Jeep made <\/p>\n
no difference to the veracity of the prosecution case.<\/p>\n
35.      Time   now   to   examine   the   plea   of   alibi   set   up   by   accused <\/p>\n
Nos.1   and   3.   In   support   of   their   plea   the   accused   have   examined <\/p>\n
four witnesses viz. Thirupalu DW1, Radha Kumari, DW2 and Prem Nagi <\/p>\n
Reddy DW 3 and Shri Jageeshwara Reddy D.W.4 as witnesses.  Based on <\/p>\n
the depositions of the said witnesses the defence has attempted to <\/p>\n
prove that A1 and A3 were at Anantpur from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the <\/p>\n
date   of   the   incident,   and   were   not   therefore   responsible   for   the <\/p>\n
murder   of   deceased   Pulla   Chinna   Reddy   committed   at   5   p.m.   on   31st <\/p>\n
July, 2001.     The Trial Court has carefully examined the evidence <\/p>\n
adduced   by   defence   but   rejected   the   plea   that   accused   A1   and   A3 <\/p>\n
were at Anantpur at the time of the incident.   The High Court has <\/p>\n
affirmed that finding upon a reappraisal of the evidence on record. <\/p>\n
What we have to examine is whether  the –\n<\/p>\n
\nconcurrent finding on a question which is a pure question of fact <\/p>\n
namely   whether   accused   A1   and   A3   were   at   Anantpur   at   the   time   of <\/p>\n
incident leading to the murder of deceased Pulla Chinna Reddy took <\/p>\n
place   in   his   stone   polishing   factory   at   Village   Sajjaladinne <\/p>\n
warrants   any   interference.     We   may   at   the   threshold   say   that   a <\/p>\n
finding of fact concurrently recorded on the question of alibi is <\/p>\n
not   disturbed   by   this   Court   in   an   appeal   by   special   leave.     The <\/p>\n
legal   position   in   this   regard   is   settled   by   the   decision   of   this <\/p>\n
Court in  Thakur Prasad  v.  The State of Madhya Pradesh  AIR<\/a> 1954 SC <\/p>\n
30 Vol. 41 <\/p>\n
                   “The   plea   of   alibi   involves   a   question   of   fact
\n          and both the courts below have concurrently found that
\n          fact   against   the   appellant.     This   Court,   therefore,
\n          cannot,   on   an   appeal   by   special   leave,   go   behind   that
\n          concurrent finding of fact.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
36.      That apart the plea of alibi has in our opinion been rightly <\/p>\n
rejected by the courts below even on an appraisal of the evidence <\/p>\n
on   record.     We   may   in   this   regard   briefly   refer   to   the   defence <\/p>\n
evidence   adduced   in   support   of   the   plea.   Thirapalu,   DW1   an <\/p>\n
Agriculturist from Tadipatri Mandal, –\n<\/p>\n
\ndeposed   that   3=   acres   of   land   owned   by   him   was   compulsorily <\/p>\n
acquired   by   the   Government   for   a   public   purpose.   No   compensation <\/p>\n
for   the   acquisition   was   however   paid   to   him.   It   was   in   that <\/p>\n
connection that the witness had approached A1 for help before the <\/p>\n
RDO   at   Anantpur.     According   to   the   witness   A1   and   A3   apart   from <\/p>\n
Krishna Reddy, Gopal Reddy and one Ranga Reddy reached Anantpur and <\/p>\n
went   to   the   house   of   Paritala   Ravindra   to   attend   a   meeting <\/p>\n
organized   at   his   residence.     After   the   meeting,   they   went   to   a <\/p>\n
hotel and then to the R&B Bungalow at Anantpur to meet the Hon’ble <\/p>\n
Minister   Sri   Nimmala   Kristappa.     After   A1   had   spoken   to   the <\/p>\n
Minister   for   a   few   minutes   they   went   to   the   office   of   RDO   where <\/p>\n
they met some persons including Radhakumari, DW2 who had come there <\/p>\n
in connection with the grant of a fair price shop licence. Accused <\/p>\n
No.1 entered the RDO office and talked to one Allabakash, the clerk <\/p>\n
in the said office, who dealt with payment of compensation and from <\/p>\n
there   they   went   to   Panchayatraj   office   and   then   to   the   office   of <\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police when Jagadeeswara Reddy, DW4 informed them <\/p>\n
about the murder of Pulla China Reddy.  According to the –<\/p>\n
witness,   the   police   detained   A3   in   the   SP   office   itself. <\/p>\n
Thereafter   the   witness   returned   to   his   village.     There   are   in <\/p>\n
deposition   of   this   witness   certain   striking   features   that   need   to <\/p>\n
be   noticed.     The   witness   had   neither   any   notice   nor   any   other <\/p>\n
record suggesting acquisition of land owned by him which was said <\/p>\n
to be the reason for his alleged visit to Anantpur.   Secondly, A1 <\/p>\n
and A3 had according to the witness gone to the office of the RDO <\/p>\n
and   talked   to   one   Allabaksh   posted   as   a   clerk   there.     No <\/p>\n
application to the RDO or any other authority for that matter was <\/p>\n
made   either   by   the   witness   or   by   the   accused   on   his   behalf. <\/p>\n
Surprisingly the witness does not even talk to Allabaksh the clerk <\/p>\n
although it was his case in connection with which the accused had <\/p>\n
accompanied him to that office.   So also there was no evidence to <\/p>\n
corroborate   the   version   given   by   the   witness   that   there   was   any <\/p>\n
meeting   at   the   house   of   Partitala   Ravindra,   nor   any   evidence   to <\/p>\n
show that any Minister had visited Anantpur on that day.<\/p>\n
37.      Radhakumari   DW2   in   her   deposition   stated   that   she   had <\/p>\n
studied up to 10th standard and had made an –\n<\/p>\n
\napplication   for   the   grant   of   a   fair   price   shop   licence.     On   the <\/p>\n
date   of   the   incident   she   is   said   to   have   come   to   Anantpur   in <\/p>\n
connection with an interview for the grant of the licence and met <\/p>\n
A1 in the RDO office along with DW1 Thirapalu. The witness further <\/p>\n
claimed that she was selected for the grant of licence in pursuance <\/p>\n
of the interview held on 31st July, 2001.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
38.      In her cross examination the witness admitted that she did <\/p>\n
not   receive   any   appointment   letter   for   the   fair   price   shop <\/p>\n
dealership   at   Sajjaladinne.     She   denied   the   suggestion   that   no <\/p>\n
interview   was   fixed   for   31st  July,   2001   before   the   RDO   Anantpur. <\/p>\n
The   witness   admitted   that   the   dealership   was   cancelled   but   denied <\/p>\n
that   the   cancellation   was   because   of   malpractices   alleged   against <\/p>\n
her.     What   is   significant   is   that   the   witness   did   not   have   any <\/p>\n
supporting material like a copy of the application for the grant of <\/p>\n
fair   price shop licence or a copy of the interview call inviting <\/p>\n
her   for   interview   on   31st  July,   2001   or   a   copy   of   the   letter <\/p>\n
informing her that she was selected and appointed pursuant to the <\/p>\n
said interview. In the absence of any –\n<\/p>\n
\nevidence   to   corroborate   the   version   of   the   witness   that   she   was <\/p>\n
indeed   at   Anantpur   on   31st  July,   2001,   the   courts   below   were <\/p>\n
justified in rejecting the same.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
39.      Prem   Nagi   Reddy,   DW3   also   claims   to   be   at   Anantpur   on   31st <\/p>\n
July,   2001.   He   was   there   in   connection   with   a   Review   meeting <\/p>\n
allegedly fixed by the High Command of TDP.   The meeting was held <\/p>\n
in   the   House   of   Paritala   Ravindra   at   Anantpur.   A1   and   A3   and   few <\/p>\n
others accompanied them to SP office at about 5 pm. <\/p>\n
40.      In   cross-examination   the   witness   admitted   that   he   was   a <\/p>\n
prominent TDP leader and had contested, though unsuccessfully, the <\/p>\n
assembly elections against Shri J.C. Diwakar Reddy thrice. That the <\/p>\n
deceased Chinna Pulla Reddy was a close associate of Diwakar Reddy <\/p>\n
and   that   Pulla   Reddy   was   a   senior   congress   party   leader   in <\/p>\n
Tadipatri Mandal was also admitted by this witness. That A1 and A3 <\/p>\n
had contested MPTC elections as TDP candidates and got defeated at <\/p>\n
the hands of the congress party candidate was also admitted just as <\/p>\n
he   admitted   that   there   was   no   record   to   prove   that   a   TDP   review <\/p>\n
meeting on 31st July, 2001 was –\n<\/p>\n
\nheld   at   Anantpur.   The   witness   also   admitted   having   been   convicted <\/p>\n
in crime No. 17 of 1999 under Section 324 r\/w Section 140 IPC and <\/p>\n
having been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year <\/p>\n
and   a   fine   but   acquitted   by   the   Appellate   Court.   He   expressed <\/p>\n
ignorance about his being an accused in crime no.58 of 1988 under <\/p>\n
Section 307 r\/w 149 IPC, Sections 3 and 5 of E.S. Act and Section <\/p>\n
25(1)(b)(a) of Arms Act of Yadiki P.S. He admitted that he was an <\/p>\n
accused   person   in   crime   No.59   of   1992   under   Sections   3   and   5   of <\/p>\n
E.S. Act registered in police Station Tadipatri, Crime No.1 of 1993 <\/p>\n
under Section 7(1) (a) of Crl. Law Amendment of Act, Crime No.127 <\/p>\n
of 1994 under Section 136 of R.P. Act and Crime No.4 of 1996 under <\/p>\n
Section 307 r\/w Sections 149 IPC and 3 & 5 of E.S. Act registered <\/p>\n
in town Police Station Tadipatri.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
41.      The courts below have rejected the testimony of this witness <\/p>\n
also and in our opinion rightly so.  The close affiliation of this <\/p>\n
witness   to   the   party   to   which   they   belong   and   his   antecedents, <\/p>\n
suggesting involvement in several criminal cases registered against <\/p>\n
him, was reason enough –\n<\/p>\n
\nfor   the   courts   to   disbelieve   his   version   also   and   consequently <\/p>\n
reject the plea of alibi raised by the accused in their defence.<\/p>\n
42.      In the circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the <\/p>\n
view taken by the courts below.  These appeals accordingly fail and <\/p>\n
are hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ……………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    (V.S. SIRPURKAR)<\/p>\n
                                                         …………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (T.S. THAKUR)
\nNew Delhi
\nJuly 26, 2011<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011 Author: T Thakur Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, T.S. Thakur REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1321 OF 2006 Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr. …Appellants Versus State of A.P. …Respondents (With Crl. Appeal […]<\/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-50837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011 - 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\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-01T09:15:02+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=\"42 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-01T09:15:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":8403,\"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\\\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-01T09:15:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011 - 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\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-01T09:15:02+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":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-01T09:15:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011"},"wordCount":8403,"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\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011","name":"Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-01T09:15:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gosu-jairami-reddy-anr-vs-state-of-a-p-on-26-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gosu Jairami Reddy & Anr vs State Of A.P on 26 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/50837","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=50837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50837\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}