{"id":53810,"date":"1995-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995"},"modified":"2019-02-05T23:21:31","modified_gmt":"2019-02-05T17:51:31","slug":"uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995","title":{"rendered":"Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court … on 8 December, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court … on 8 December, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (7) 232, \t JT 1995 (9)\t 33<\/div>\n
Author: M S.B.<\/div>\n
Bench: Majmudar S.B. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUPPARI VENKATASWAMY & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/12\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\nBENCH:\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\nMUKHERJEE M.K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (7) 232\t  JT 1995 (9)\t 33\n 1995 SCALE  (7)147\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS.B. MAJMUDAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
     This is  an appeal\t under Section 379, Code of Criminal
\nProcedure (Cr.\tP.C.) read  with Section  2 of\tthe  Supreme
\nCourt (Enlargement  of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act,
\n1970. It  is directed  against the judgment and order of the
\nHigh Court  of Judicature,  Andhra Pradesh  at Hyderabad  by
\nwhich  the   High  Court   reversed  the  acquittal  of\t the
\nappellants and\tconvicted them\tof  diverse  offences  under
\nSection\t 302  read  with  Section  149,\t Indian\t Penal\tCode
\n(I.P.C.), Section  307, I.P.C. and also under Section 3 to 5
\nof the\tExplosive  Substances  Act  and\t sentenced  them  to
\nundergo life imprisonment and other sentences as detailed in
\nthe judgment  under appeal.  The appeal against acquittal of
\noriginal accused  no.10 has been dismissed by the High Court
\nand so\tfar as his acquittal is concerned it is no longer in
\nchallenge before  us. In  this appeal, we are concerned with
\nthe conviction\tand sentence  of appellants  1 to 9 who were
\noriginal accused  nos.1 to  9 respectively  before the Trial
\nCourt. We shall refer to the appellants as accused nos. 1 to
\n9 in this judgment for the sake of convenience.
\nBackground Facts
\n     A\tfew  relevant  facts  leading  to  this\t appeal\t are
\nrequired to  be\t noted\tat  the\t outset\t to  appreciate\t the
\ngrievance voiced  on behalf  of these  nine accused by their
\nlearned counsel.  The prosecution  case against\t them ran as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
     A-1  to  A-9  and\tmost  of  the  material\t prosecution
\nwitnesses P.Ws.\t 1, 7, to 9 and father of P.W.1 K. Ramalinga
\nReddy (who  was subsequently  murdered on 15.5.1989) are all
\nresidents of  Boilkuntla village.  P.Ws 2  and 3 belonged to
\nChennur. P.Ws  5 and  6 belonged  to R. Pampalli and Revenur
\nvillages  respectively.\t  A-10\tbelonged   to  Yerragaddenna
\nvillage.\n<\/p>\n
     There are factions consisting of the sons of Bali Reddy
\none one\t side and  Gangula Pratap  Reddy who  was by  then a
\nsitting M.L.A..\t from Allagadda\t constituency, on  the other
\nside. P.Ws  1 to 9 and father of P.Ws. 1 to 7 – K. Ramalinga
\nReddy – are the followers of sons of Bali Reddy while A-1 to
\nA-9 are\t the followers\tof Gangula  Pratap Reddy. Due to the
\nill feelings  between the  two camps,  at about 5.30 p.m. on
\n18.9.1985 A.1  to A.9  and others  made an  attempt to\tkill
\nRamalinga Reddy\t having formed\tthemselves into\t an unlawful
\nassembly, by  hurling country-made  bombs  at  him  and\t his
\nfollowers at  the outskirts of Boilakunta village in Kurnool
\nDistrict of  Andhra  Pradesh.  On  the\tbasis  of  the\tsaid
\nincident, Crime\t No. 75\/85  of\tSirvel\tPolice\tStation\t was
\nregistered and A-1 to A-9 were waiting for an opportunity to
\ndo away\t with the  lives  of  K.  Ramalinga  Reddy  and\t his
\nfollowers.\n<\/p>\n
     On May  30, 1987  at about\t 4 p.m.\t all the accused met
\nnear Basapuram\troad crossing  and entered  into a  criminal
\nconspiracy to  do away\twith the  life of  Ramalinga  Reddy.
\nPursuant to  the above\tconspiracy, on\t1.6.1987 at  about 9
\na.m. A-1  to A-9 hid themselves behind the trees existing on
\neither side of Nandyal Mahanandi road which is also known as
\nGajulapalli Mahanandi Road.\n<\/p>\n
     On June  1, 1987  at about 8 a.m. P.Ws 1 to 9 Ramalinga
\nReddy, Damodara\t Reddy (in  brief Deceased  No.1)  and\tK.V.
\nRajsekhar Reddy\t (in brief  deceased No.2)  left together by
\nMahindra  Jeep\t bearing  No.ASF   790\tfrom  their  village
\nBoilkuntla to  Mahanandi to  attend the\t marriage of  one G.
\nMahanandi Reddy. The said 12 persons came to Mahanandi cross
\nroads, halted  for about an hour near the residential school
\nbelonging to Ramalinga Reddy and at about 9 a.m. left in the
\nsaid jeep to Mahanandi.\n<\/p>\n
     By the time the jeep reached Baggi road, A-1 to A-4 who
\nwere hiding  themselves by the side of the trees situated on
\nthe eastern  side of  the road\tcame out  being\t armed\twith
\nbombs. When the jeep slowed down to negotiate the turning at
\nthe Baggi  road, A-1  to  A-4  hurled  bombs  at  the  jeep.
\nImmediately A-5\t to A-9\t who were hiding on the western side
\ncame out and hurled bombs. In the front seat Ramalinga Reddy
\nand P.Ws  1 to\t3 were\tsitting while  Ramalinga  Reddy\t was
\nsitting on  extreme left, P.W.1 was driving the jeep sitting
\non the extreme right, P.W.2 was sitting to the left of P.W.1
\nwhile P.W.3  sat  in  between  P.W.2  and  Ramalinga  Reddy.
\nDeceased 1  and 2  and P.Ws * and 9 were sitting on the rear
\nside of\t the  jeep  immediately\t behind\t P.Ws  1  to  3\t and
\nRamalinga Reddy.  Deceased 1, 2 and P.Ws 8 and 9 immediately
\njumped out  of the jeep at the Baggi road turning in view of
\nthe bomb attack on the jeep, while P.Ws 1 to 7 and Ramalinga
\nReddy proceeded\t straight to  Mahanandi Police Station where
\nRamalinga Reddy\t lodged Ex. P.1 report with P.W.17 Inspector
\nof Police,  Nandyal at\tabout 11.30  a.m. on  the same\tday,
\nP.W.17 registered  Ex.P.1 as Crime No.16\/87 under Secs. 147,
\n148, 324,  307, 302  read with\t149 I.P.C. and under Secs. 3
\nand 5  of Explosive  Substances Act. Ex. P.17 is the copy of
\nthe First Information Report.\n<\/p>\n
     On June  1, 1987 at about 10 a.m. while at Taluk Police
\nStation, Nandyal  P.W.17 received  information regarding the
\noccurrence relating to this case through VHF set from S.H.O.
\nMahanandi Mandal  Police Station.  As such  P.W.17 collected
\nhis staff,  including Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal taluk
\npolice station\tand reached  the scene\tof offence  at 10.30
\na.m. P.W.17  found the\tdeceased 1 and 2 lying dead at baggi
\nroad turning  on  nandyal  Mahanandi  road  and\t two  police
\nconstables  were   guarding  the  dead\tbodies.\t P.W.17\t was
\ninformed that  they were  deputed by  Station House Officer.
\nMahanandi to keep watch over the dead bodies of the deceased
\n1 and  2.  As  such  P.W.17  proceeded\tto  Police  Station,
\nMahanandi, received  Ex. P.1  from Ramalinga Reddy and after
\nFirst Information  Report was registered, he took up further
\ninvestigation in this case.\n<\/p>\n
     P.W.17 examined  P.Ws 1  to 7  and Ramalinga  Reddy and
\nrecorded their\tstatements under  Sec. 161  Cr. P.C.  P.W.17
\nsent P.Ws.  1 to  7 and\t Ramalinga Reddy  for  treatment  to
\nGovernment  Hospital   along  with   escort.  P.W.15   Civil
\nAssistant  Surgeon,   Government  Hospital,  Nandyal  having
\nexamined P.Ws  1 to  3, 6, 7 and Ramalinga Reddy issued Exs.
\nP.13, P.15,  P.11, P.14,  P.12 and  P.10 respectively having
\nopined that  the said  injuries would  have been  caused  by
\nsplinters of exploded bombs.\n<\/p>\n
     Later P.W.17  reached the scene of offence. then it was
\nabout 1.45  p.m. on  June 1,  1987. He found Ramalinga Reddy
\nstanding nearby\t the corpses  of D-1  and D-2. He also found
\nP.Ws.8 and  9 and  others. P.W.17 held inquest over the dead
\nbody of\t D-1 between  2 p.m.  and 3.30\tp.m. Ex.P.5  is\t the
\ninquest report.\t P.W.17 examined  P.Ws 8 and 9 and read over
\nthe recorded  statements of  the other witnesses examined at
\nthe inquest.  P.W.11 and  another acted\t as inquest panchas.
\nP.W.17 seized M.Os 14 to 16 and M.O.20 from the corpse of D-\n<\/p>\n
1. He  also seized  M.Os.21 to\t26 near the corpse of D-1 in
\nthe presence of P.W.11 etc., inquestdars.\n<\/p>\n
     P.W.17 held  inquest over\tthe dead body of D-2 between
\n3.30 P.M.  and 4.30  p.m. and  seized M.Os 17 to 19 from the
\ncorpse of the deceased while seizing M.Os 27 and 28 near the
\ncorpse of  the deceased\t in the\t presence  of  P.W.11  etc.,
\ninquest panchas.  Ex. P.6  is the inquest report. Later both
\nthe corpses  were sent\tthrough P.W.12\tpolice constable for
\nautopsy.\n<\/p>\n
     From the scene of offence P.W.17 reached P.S. Mahanandi
\nat about 6 p.m. and noticed the jeep bearing No. ADF 790. He
\nfound some  burnt holes\t on the rexine cover of the jeep. He
\nalso found  top rods  of the  jeep frame  mutilated and\t the
\nframe of  the seat on the back side of the driver bore signs
\nof bomb\t explosion against  it. These  facts were  noted  in
\nEx.P.19 panchanama.  He also  seized the partly burnt rexine
\nM.O.29.\t Later\tP.W.17\tproceeded  to  Government  Hospital,
\nNandyal and  reached the  same at about 9 p.m. P.W.17 seized
\nblood-stained clothes  on the  persons of  P.Ws.1 to  7\t and
\nRamalinga Reddy\t under the cover of Ex.P.20 panchnama in the
\npresence of panchayatdars.\n<\/p>\n
     P.W.13 was\t then working  as Civil\t Assistant  Surgeon,
\nGovernment Hospital,  Nandyal. He conducted autopsy over the
\ndead body  of D-1 from 5 p.m. onwards on 1.6.1987 and issued
\nEx.P.7\tpost-mortem   certificate  having  opined  that\t the
\ndeceased died  due to  haemorrhage and\tshock and  injury to
\nvital organs,  namely lungs,  spleen and  liver. P.W.14\t was
\nalso  working\tas  Civil   Assistant  Surgeon\tattached  to
\nGovernment Hospital,  Nandyal. He conducted autopsy over the
\ndead body  of D-2  from 5  p.m. onwards\t on the same day and
\nissued Ex.  P.8 post-mortem  certificate having\t opined that
\nthe second deceased died due to shock due to the injuries on
\nthe vital organ namely brain.\n<\/p>\n
     After  completion\t of  investigation  chargesheet\t was
\nsubmitted before  the Court  of Additional  Judicial I Class
\nMagistrate,  Nandyal,  against\tall  the  accused  including
\naccused no.  10 whose  acquittal is no longer in controversy
\nas noted above. The learned Magistrate committed the accused
\nto stand  their trial  before the Sessions Court at Kurnool.
\nThe learned  Sessions Judge  recorded oral  and\t documentary
\nevidence offered  by  the  prosecution.\t 17  witnesses\twere
\nexamined on  behalf of the prosecution and 20 documents were
\nexhibited. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned Sessions  Judge came to the conclusion that the
\nprosecution had failed to bring home the offences with which
\nthe accused  were charged  and acquitted them. That resulted
\nin appeal  by the  State against  acquittal before  the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court reached  the conclusion  after  hearing
\nboth the  sides that  the learned  Trial Judge\thad palpably
\nerred  in  acquitting  the  accused  and  his  decision\t had
\nresulted in  grave  failure  of\t justice.  The\tHigh  Court,
\ntherefore, interfered with the findings reached by the Trial
\nCourt  and  on\tre-appreciation\t of  evidence  came  to\t the
\nconclusion  that   the\tprosecution  had  brought  home\t the
\noffences with  which the  accused were charged. the order of
\nacquittal of  the nine\taccused was  set  aside.  All  these
\naccused were  held quality of the offences under Section 148
\nI.P.C. Each  of\t them  was  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of one year.\n<\/p>\n
     Accused nos.2  and 3  were convicted  of offences under
\nSection 302  read with\tSection 34  I.P.C. for\tcausing\t the
\ndeath of  the first  deceased and each of them was sentenced
\nto undergo imprisonment of life.\n<\/p>\n
     Accused nos.  1, 4\t and 6\tto 9  were held\t quality  of
\noffences punishable  under Section 302 read with Section 149
\nI.P.C. for  causing the death of the first deceased and each
\nof them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
     Accused no.  5 was\t held quality  of the  offence under
\nSection 302  I.P.C. for causing death of the second deceased
\nand was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
     Accused nos.  1 to\t 4 and\t6 to  9 were held quality of
\noffences under\tSection 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. for
\ncausing death  of the  2nd deceased  and each  of  them\t was
\nsentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
     Accused nos.  1 and 9 were held quality of the offences
\nunder Section  307 I.P.C.  for attempting  to cause death of
\nP.Ws. 1\t to 9  and late Ramalinga Reddy and each of them was
\nsentenced to  undergo rigorous\timprisonment for a period of
\nthree years.\n<\/p>\n
     Accused nos.  1 to\t 9 were\t held quality and liable for
\npunishment under Section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances
\nAct and\t were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
\na period  of one  year each under each of the two provisions
\nof the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
     As noted  above, the  aforesaid order of conviction and
\nsentence as  passed by\tthe High Court against these accused
\nhas resulted in the present appellate proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     As this  is a statutory appeal we have gone through the
\nrelevant evidence on record both oral and documentary and we
\nhave heard  learned  senior  counsel  for  appellants,\tShri
\nLalit, extensively  and have  also heard learned counsel for
\nthe respondent who supported the judgment of the High Court.
\nBefore we  refer to the relevant evidence on record to which
\nour attention  was invited  by learned\tcounsel for both the
\nsides it  would be  appropriate to note the main contentions
\ncanvassed by learned senior counsel Shri lalit in support of
\nthe appeal  and the  submissions of  learned counsel for the
\nrespondent opposing the same.\n<\/p>\n
Rival Contentions
\n     Shri Lalit\t submitted that\t the judgment  and order  of
\nacquittal  as  rendered\t by  the  learned  Trial  Judge\t had
\nreflected a  reasonable view  of evidence  as taken  by\t the
\nTrial Court  and the  High Court in appeal against acquittal
\nhad patently  erred in\tlaw in\tinterfering  with  the\tsaid
\nreasonable view\t of the\t learned Sessions  Judge.  The\tHigh
\nCourt ought  to have dismissed the appeal of the respondent.
\nHe next\t contended that\t the High  Court itself has noted in
\nthe impugned  judgment conviction  of some  of\tthe  accused
\nunder Section  302 and the conviction of rest of the accused
\nunder Section  302 read\t with 149  rested on the evidence of
\nprosecution witnesses nos.8 and 9. Shri Lalit submitted that
\ntheir evidence was rightly rejected by the Trial Court as it
\nsuffered from  various infirmities  which were\tsought to be
\ndemonstrated by\t Shri Lalit in support of his contention. He
\nsubmitted that\tif this evidence is ruled out as done by the
\nTrial Court the accused cannot be held quality of any office
\nunder Section  302 read\t with Section  149  I.P.C.  He\talso
\nsubmitted  that\t the  eye-witness  account  of\tthe  injured
\nprosecution witnesses  1 to 7 was also highly artificial and
\nwas too\t exact to  be believed\tand it showed that they were
\ntutored witnesses  who were  made to  depose to a given well
\nthought-out version.  In this  connection, it  was submitted
\nthat there  was\t deep-seated  enmity  between  the  factions
\nrepresented by the appellants on the one hand and the victim
\nparty on  the other  and that  the prosecution\thas  falsely
\ntried to  rope in  all the  accused and\t to make out a false
\ncase  against\tthem  only   at\t the  instance\tof  deceased
\ncomplainant Shri  Ramalinga Reddy  who\tdied  prior  to\t the
\ntrial. That accused no. 1 who is and old man of 72 years was
\nsought to  be falsely  roped in by the deceased complainant,
\nalong with  his sons  and nephews  only with  a view to take
\nrevenge on him as he represented a rival political party and
\nwas inimical  to him.  Consequently, neither  any case under
\nSection 302  read with Section 149 I.P.C. nor any case under
\nSection 307  read with\tSection\t 149  I.P.C.  was  made\t out
\nagainst the  accused and  they were rightly acquitted by the
\nlearned trial Judge. Shri Lalit, however, fairly stated that
\nhe could  not submit with any emphasis that P.Ws. 1 to 9 did
\nnot receive  bomb injuries  on the date of the incident when
\nthey were  travelling in  their jeep but the prosecution has
\nfailed to  establish beyond  reasonable doubts that the said
\ninjuries were  caused by  the accused. It was also contended
\nby Shri Lalit that the investigation in the present case was
\nnot fair  and effort  appears  to  have\t been  made  by\t the
\ninvestigation to  try to  make out  a false case against the
\naccused\t only\tat  the\t instance  of  deceased\t complainant
\nRamalinga  Reddy.   That  it  was  a  faulty  and  a  biased
\ninvestigation.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel  for the  respondent on the other hand,
\nsubmitted that\tthe High  Court was justified in interfering
\nin appeal  against acquittal  as the learned trial Judge had
\ntaken an  unreasonable and  perverse view of the evidence on
\nrecord, that  when  seven  injured  eye-witnesses  who\twere
\ntravelling in  the jeep were found to have suffered injuries
\nby bombs  as the medical evidence clinchingly establish, and
\nwhen two  deceased in  the course  of the same incident were
\nfound to  have died on account of injuries by bombs and when
\nthe Panchnama  of the  jeep car\t in  which  the\t prosecution
\nwitnesses were\ttravelling showed  substantial damage to the
\njeep car  by bombs,  the Trial\tCourt on such evidence could
\nnot have  given a  clean chit  to all  the accused, Even the
\nevidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 was discarded by the Trial Court on
\nflimsy and  unreasonable grounds  and consequently the order
\nof acquittal was clearly lopsided and contrary to the weight
\nof evidence  and was bordering on perversity, Hence the High
\nCourt was  perfectly justified\tin interfering with the said
\norder of  acquittal. He\t further submitted that the evidence
\non record has been rightly appreciated by the High Court and
\nit clearly  established the prosecution case beyond a shadow
\nof reasonable doubt against all the present accused. He also
\nsubmitted that the so-called infirmities pointed out by Shri
\nLalit, learned\tsenior\tcounsel\t for  the  accused,  in\t the
\nprosecution evidence  are in fact no substantial infirmities
\nat all.\n<\/p>\n
Points for determination
\n     In the  light of  the aforesaid  rival contentions\t the
\nfollowing points arise for our determination :
\n(1)  Whether the  High Court,  on the  facts of\t the present
\ncase,  was   justified\tin  interfering\t in  appeal  against
\nacquittal and in re-appreciating the evidence on record.
\n(2)  Whether the evidence of P.Ws 8 and 9 was required to be
\naccepted as held by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  Whether the  evidence of  injured eye-witnesses  1 to 7
\nwas rightly accepted by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  Whether the  investigation\t in  the  present  case\t was
\nlopsided, biased and unfair as alleged.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  Whether the  conviction and  sentence as imposed by the
\nHigh Court  on the  accused stand  justified in the light of
\nthe evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
We shall deal with the aforesaid points seriatim.
\nPoint No.1
\n     It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this
\nCourt that  in an  appeal against  acquittal  the  appellate
\ncourt can  interfere with  the findings\t of fact recorded by
\nthe  Trial   Court  and\t can  upset  the  acquittal  by\t re-
\nappreciating evidence  if it is found that the view taken by
\nthe acquitting court was not a possible view on the evidence
\non record.  In this connection, we may refer to the decision
\nof this\t Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh<\/a>
\n[(1995) 2  SCC 486]  R.M. Sahai,  J. speaking for this Court
\nmade the following pertinent observations in this connection
\nin para 7 of the Report :\n<\/p>\n
     “… We  agree that  this Court  is  not
\n     precluded\tor   the  court\t hearing  the
\n     appeal   against\t acquittal   is\t  not
\n     prevented\t   from\t    examining\t  and
\n     reappreciating the\t evidence on  record.
\n     But the  duty of  a  court\t hearing  the
\n     appeal against  acquittal in  the\tfirst
\n     instance is  to satisfy  itself  if  the
\n     view taken\t by acquitting\tcourt … …
\n     … … … … … was possible view or
\n     not.  And\t if  the   court   comes   to
\n     conclusion that  it was  not, it  can on
\n     reappreciation of\tevidence reverse  the
\n     order. …”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was also observed in the said decision that the appellate
\ncourt would  not be entitled to interfere unless the view of
\nthe acquitting\tcourt is  found to  be perverse or infirm or
\npalpably erroneous.  We have,  therefore, to  see whether on
\nthe facts  of the present case the Trial Court was justified
\nin acquitting the present accused of the offences with which
\nthey were  charged by brushing aside the eye-witness account
\nof injured  P.Ws. 1  and 4  to 7.  In this connection, it is
\nnecessary to  note that\t it is the prosecution case that all
\nthese injured  eye-witnesses were travelling in the jeep car
\nwhich became  the target  of the bomb attack at the hands of
\nthe present  accused 1\tto  9.\tWe  have  gone\tthrough\t the
\nrelevant evidence  in this connection consisting of the eye-
\nwitness account\t of P.W.1  Srikantha Reddy,  P.W.4 Rajeshwar
\nReddy, P.W.5  Kappuram Subba  Reddy, P.W.6 B. Narayana Reddy
\nand P.W.7  K. Lakshmi  Reddy. We may keep aside the evidence
\nof P.W.2  Pedda Kullai\tReddy and  P.W.3 K.N. Subba Reddy as
\nthey were  declared hostile  to prosecution.  But even apart
\nfrom their evidence the evidence of the aforesaid other P.Ws
\n1 and 4 to 7 clearly supported the prosecution case and what
\nemerged from  their ocular  account projected  the following
\npicture :\n<\/p>\n
     On 1st  June 1987\tat about  8 a.m. on the jeep ADF-790
\nbelonging to  deceased complainant  Ramalinga  Reddy,  these
\nwitnesses along\t with  deceased\t 1  and\t 2  and\t prosecution
\nwitnesses 8  and 9 left their village in order to attend the
\nmarriage of  one of  the relatives  of deceased\t complainant
\nRamalinga Reddy.  Marriage was\tscheduled to be performed at
\nMahanandi. On  their way  they stopped\tat  the\t residential
\nschool and  stayed for about one hour in the course of which
\nRamalinga Reddy\t had a talk with the Principal of the school
\nand the clerk N. Narayana (P.W.10). After their conversation
\nwas over,  Ramalinga Reddy  and his  partymen resumed  their
\njourney and they were proceeding towards Mahanandi along the
\nNandyal Mahanandi  road, which is also known as Gajulapalle-
\nMahanandi road,\t at that  sector in  which the incident took
\nplace. When  the jeep  reached near the Basapuram baggi road
\nburning, where\tthe road take a deep curve, around 9.15 a.m.
\nsome of\t the inmates  of the  jeep including P.W.1 Srikantha
\nReddy who  was driving\tthe jeep noticed A-1 to A-4 emerging
\nfrom behind the bushes existing by the side of the Basapuram
\nBaggi road,  which lies to the east of the Nandyal mahanandi
\nroad, carrying\tbombs in  their hands.\tAs they travelled by
\nthe jeep  driven by P.W.1. on the front seat of the jeep, by
\nthe side  of P.W.1  P.W.2 Pedda Kullai Reddy and by his side
\nP.W.3 K.N.  Subba Reddy and at the extreme left of that seat
\nthe late  Ramalinga Reddy  were sitting. In the rear side of
\nthe jeep  and on the four seater which lies in perpendicular
\nto the\tdriver’s seat,\tP.W.8, P.W.9  (Chakali Ranganna\t and
\nChakali Venkteswarlu)  and deceased 1 and 2 were sitting and
\non the\tfour seater which lies in perpendicular to the front
\nseat and  immediately behind  the seat occupied by Ramalinga
\nReddy P.W.5 Subba Reddy, P.W.6 Narayana Reddy, P.W.7 Lakshmi
\nReddy and P.W.4 Rajeshwar Reddy were witting in that order.\n<\/p>\n
     After emerging from behind the bushes in the above said
\nmanner and  coming towards  the road  turning. A-1  and\t A-4
\nhurled a  bomb each  in the  direction of the jeep and those
\nbombs fell  on the  right side\tof the\tjeep  and  exploded.
\nThereafter A-2 hurled another bomb. which hit the right side
\nframe of  the backrest of the driver’s seat and exploded and
\ndue to the explosion of that bomb a portion of P.W.1’s shirt
\nand the\t right side of his back got burnt. He also sustained
\ninjuries on  his  back\thaving\tbeen  hit  by  some  of\t the
\nsplinters of  that bomb.  Thereafter A-3 hurled another bomb
\nwhich fell  on the  tarpaulin top  of the  Jeep on its right
\nside burning  a portion\t of the tarpaulin. Though P.W.17 and
\nsome other  prosecution witnesses  have stated that the jeep
\nhad rexine  cover for its top as well as for its sides, some
\nof the\twitnesses including  P.W.1 referred to the top cover
\nof the\tJeep tarpaulin\tinstead of  as rexine.\tEven in\t the
\nchargesheet the word `Tarpaulin’ was used instead of rexine.\n<\/p>\n
     Despite the  explosion of\tfour bombs by A-1 to A-4 and
\neven after their explosion P.W.1 continued to drive the jeep
\ntowards Mahanandi  and after  it covered a distance of 20 to
\n30 yards  from the  road bend,\the observed that some of the
\ninmates of  the jeep  jumped down  from\t it  near  the\troad
\nturning.  P.W.1\t  subsequently\tlearnt\t through  the  other
\ntravellers of  the jeep\t that the four people who had jumped
\ndown from  the jeep were his brother-in-law Rajsekhara Reddy
\n(D-2), his  junior paternal  uncle Damodar  Reddy (D-1)\t and
\nP.Ws 8\tand 9 Chakali Ranganna and Chakali Venkateswarlu. In
\nspite of  these four  persons jumping  down from the jeep it
\ncontinued to  be  driven  towards  Mahanandi  and  after  it
\ncovered a  distance of about one k.m. from the road bend and
\nat the\tinstance of  Ramalinga Reddy, P.W.1 stopped the jeep
\nas they\t wanted to  await for the return of the four persons
\nfor some  time. When  these four persons did not turn up and
\napprehending that  there might\tbe  another  attack  of\t the
\naccused against\t the other  inmates of\tthe  jeep  had\tthey
\nremained at  that place\t for long they resumed their journey
\nand reached Mahanandi at 9.45 a.m.
\n     After the\tjeep went  into Mahanandi  and after  it was
\nstopped by  the side  of  Koneru,  some\t of  the  people  of
\nMahanandi surrounded  the jeep and enquired from its inmates
\nas to what had happened. In about 10 minutes thereafter they
\nlearnt that  D-1 and  D-2 had  been killed due to bomb-blast
\ninjuries and  that their  dead bodies were lying on the road
\nnear the  Baggi\t road  turning.\t The  late  Ramalinga  Reddy
\nthereupon went to the police station of Mahanandi Mandal for
\ngiving a  report while\tthe other  inmates of  the jeep, who
\ncould reach  Mahanandi safely,\twaited\toutside\t the  police
\nstation.\n<\/p>\n
     The   aforesaid   eye-witness   account   put   forward
\nconsistently by\t all the injured prosecution witnesses P.W.1
\nand  4\tto  7  could  not  be  shown  to  be  involving\t any
\ninconsistency inter  se as  fairly  stated  by\tShri  Lalit,
\nlearned senior counsel for the accused. He, on the contrary,
\nstated that the version was so parallel and accurate that it
\nappeared to be too good to be true and, therefore, according
\nto him\tit could  be dubbed as unnatural. However, he had to
\nconcede that  version of all these prosecution witnesses did
\nestablish that\tthey were  subjected to\t attacks by bombs on
\nthe date  of the  incident. Not\t only that  but we find from
\nmedical evidence  that all  these prosecution  witnesses who
\nwere travelling\t in the\t jeep and  had\tsuffered  from\tbomb
\ninjuries were  medically examined shortly after the incident
\nand it\twas clearly  established from  the medical  evidence
\nthat each  of them had suffered number of injuries from bomb
\nblast. Evidence\t of Dr.\t A. Anjswyulu  is  eloquent  on\t the
\npoint. He examined the complainant K. Ramalinga Reddy, since
\ndeceased, and found the following injuries on his person :
\n(1) A  lacerated injury\t of the\t size 2\t cm x  2 cm  x 1  cm
\npresent on the pinns of the left ear, edges are black.
\n(2) A  lacerated injury\t of the\t size 1\/2 inch x 1\/12 inch x
\n1\/4 inch present on the left shoulder, edges are black.
\n(3) An\tabrasion of  the size 1\/2 inch x 1\/4 inch present on
\nthe left side of the back, edges are black.\n<\/p>\n
(4) Multiple  abrasions present on the left side of the back
\nedges are  black.  Abrasions  are  surrounded  by  blackened
\nareas.\n<\/p>\n
(5) An\tabrasion of  the size 1\/2 inch x 1\/2 inch present on
\nthe left  side of  the chest. Edges are black. All the above
\ninjuries were  simple in nature and aged more than six hours
\nprior to  the examination. Ex. P\/10 is the wound certificate
\nissued by the witness to Shri K. Ramalinga Reddy.
\nWe may leave aside the injuries suffered by P.Ws 2 and 3 who
\nhad turned  hostile to\tthe prosecution\t though\t the  doctor
\nfound that  even they had suffered multiple injuries by bomb
\nblast in  the same  incident.  Doctor  found  the  following
\ninjuries on P.W.7 K. Lakshmi Reddy :\n<\/p>\n
1. A  lacerated injury of the size 1\/4 inch x 1\/4 inch x 1\/4
\ninch present on the occipital region-edges are black.\n<\/p>\n
2. A  lacerated injury of the size 1\/4 inch x 1\/4 inch x 1\/4
\ninch present  on the  right  side  of  the  back  above\t the
\nshoulder blade. Edges are black.\n<\/p>\n
3. Multiple  abrasions present\ton the left side of the back
\nand right side of the back. Edges are black.\n<\/p>\n
4. Multiple  abrasions present\ton the\touter aspect  of the
\nleft upper arm. Edges are black.\n<\/p>\n
5. Lacerated  injury of\t the size  1\/4 inch x 1\/4 inch x 1\/4
\ninch present on the left fore-arm – Edges are black.
\nDoctor\talso  found  the  following  injuries  on  P.W.1  K.
\nSrikantha Reddy :\n<\/p>\n
1. Multiple  abrasions present on the right side of the back\n<\/p>\n
– edges\t are black,  surrounded by  blackened  areas.  Stone
\npiece  was  recovered  from  the  wound\t and  preserved\t for
\nExpert’s opinion.\n<\/p>\n
2. A  lacerated injury of the size 1\/4 inch x 1\/4 inch x 1\/4
\ninch present on the right side of the back, edges are black.\n<\/p>\n
3. Multiple  abrasions present on the left side of the back.
\nEdges are black and surrounded by blackened areas.\n<\/p>\n
4. Abrasion  of the  size 1\/2 inch x 1\/2 inch present on the
\nleft partietal region – edges are black.\n<\/p>\n
Injuries found on P.W.6 Narayana Reddy were as under:\n<\/p>\n
1. A  lacerated injury of the size 1\/4 inch x 1\/4 inch x 1\/4
\ninch present on the left cheek, edges are black.\n<\/p>\n
2. An  abrasion of  the size  1-1\/2 inch x 1 inch present on
\nthe back  of the  right elbow  joint surrounded by blackened
\nareas.\n<\/p>\n
So far\tas P.W.4  Rajeshwar Reddy is concerned, he stated in
\nhis deposition that he received injuries on both of his legs
\nwhen some  of the  pellets (splinters) of exploded bombs hit
\nhim. All  the people  who had  travelled  by  jeep  received
\ninjuries having\t received splinters  of the  exploded bombs.
\nThe Circle  Inspector examined\thim and sent him and 8 other
\ninjured persons to the Government Hospital of Nandyal. While
\nhe was in the hospital the Circle Inspector of Police seized
\nhis blood  stained full\t pancha and  blood stained shirt. He
\nidentified the blood-stained tarricotton shirt and the blood
\nstained banian\tM.Os. 6 and 7. This version of his could not
\nat all\tbe shaken  in the  cross examination.  Same was\t the
\nposition with P.W.5 Kappuram Subba Reddy who had stated that
\nhe received  bleeding injuries\twhen some  of the discharged
\nsplinters hit  him on  fore hand.  He and other injured were
\nsent to Government Hospital, Nandyal by the Circle Inspector
\nof Police.  While he  was in the hospital the C.I. of Police
\nseized his blood stained full shirt M.Os., his blood stained
\nbanian\tM.O.9  and  his\t blood-stained\tglasoo\tfull  pancha
\nM.O.10.\n<\/p>\n
     This version  also could  not be effectively challenged
\nat all\tin cross  examination. The  Circle Inspector  P.W.17
\nalso fully  supported this  version  about  the\t receipt  of
\ninjuries by  bomb blast\t by  these  eye-witnesses  who\twere
\ntravelling in the jeep at the relevant time. It is pertinent
\nto note\t that injuries\tas found  by the doctor on Ramalinga
\nReddy were  on left side of his body while injuries on P.W.1
\nwere on\t his right  side. This\tfully corroborated  the eye-
\nwitness account\t of P.W.1  and other  witnesses\t that  P.W.1
\ndriver was  sitting on\textreme right  on front\t seat of the
\njeep while  Ramalinga Reddy  was sitting  on extreme left on
\nthe front  seat of the jeep. Despite this clinching evidence
\non record  the learned\tTrial Judge by curious reasoning did
\nnot believe  these injured witnesses by taking the view that
\nas it  was not\tpositively established\ton the\trecord\tthat
\nthere was  marriage of Gopanaram Mahendra Reddy scheduled on
\nthat day  at Mahanandi the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 had to be
\nviewed with caution and could not readily be accepted on the
\nbasis of  mere\tcircumstance  that  the\t majority  of  these
\nwitnesses received  injuries attributed\t to the splinters of
\nexploded bombs.\t The second  reason  given  by\tthe  learned
\nSessions Judge\twas that  in the  First\t Information  Report
\nlodged by deceased complainant Ramalinga Reddy it was stated
\nthat after  the bomb  attack on\t the jeep eight occupants of
\nthe jeep  who were  sitting on\tthe back side had jumped out
\nwhile the  eye-witness account\tof the\twitnesses was to the
\neffect that only four had jumped out, namely, deceased 1 and
\n2 and  P.Ws.8 and  9. Thus  the learned Trial Judge tried to
\ncontradict the eye-witness account of injured witnesses with
\nthe statement  in the  First Information report given by the
\ndeceased complainant  who could\t not be\t examined during the
\ntrial as  he had already died. It is difficult to appreciate
\nhow  eye-witness   account  of\t these\twitnesses  could  be
\ncontradicted by\t the version  found in the First Information
\nReport lodged  by the  complainant who was not available for
\nsupporting the\tsaid version  at the  stage  of\t trial.\t The
\nanother reason\twhich weighed  with the\t learned Trial Judge
\nfor disbelieving  eyewitness account  of these\tinjured\t eye
\nwitnesses was  on the  basis that  it  conflicted  with\t the
\ndescription of\tthe scene  of offence  and the\tphysical and
\nsalient features  regarding the\t same which  were found from
\nEx.16 original rough sketch drawn by P.W.17. That the sketch
\nshowed that  there were\t only four  bomb marks, of which two
\nwere found at the spot before the jeep reached the Basapuram
\nBaggi road  turn. Another  reason given by the learned Trial
\nJudge was  to the effect that there was absence of splinters
\nof exploded  bombs such\t as iron  filings or glass pieces or
\nthread pieces containing yellowish stains inside the body of
\nthe jeep  when P.W.17  examined the  jeep at about 6 p.m. on
\n1.6.87 as detailed in Ex.P.19. This also made it doubtful as
\nto whether  any of  the injured\t persons amongst P.Ws 1 to 7
\nand  Ramalinga\tReddy  received\t injuries  while  they\twere
\nactually travelling  by the  jeep as  claimed by them. It is
\ndifficult to  appreciate how the aforesaid evidence could at
\nall be\tpressed in  service for disbelieving the eye-witness
\naccount of  injured  eye-witnesses  who\t had  received\tbomb
\ninjuries and  whose version  was fully\tsupported by medical
\nevidence and other relevant evidence. It must, therefore, be
\nheld that  the learned Trial Judge had disbelieved this eye-
\nwitness\t account   of  injured\t eye-witnesses\tin   a\tmost
\nperfunctory and\t callous manner\t and the  finding reached by
\nthe Trial  Court, therefore,  could certainly  be dubbed  as
\ntotally perverse  and unreasonable  and an  impossible\tone.
\nWhether the  damage to the jeep car was sufficient or not or
\nwhether the  bomb marks\t on the\t scene of  offence were 4 or
\nmore would be totally irrelevant for judging the veracity of
\nthe version  of injured\t eye-witnesses\twho  had  admittedly
\nsuffered injuries  from bomb  blast while  travelling in the
\njeep which itself was shown by the Panchnama Ex.P.19 to have
\nbeen the  target of  bomb attack.  And there were sufficient
\nindications in\tEx. P.19  itself to  show that the bombs had
\nlanded in  the jeep  car and which would naturally result in
\nsplinter injuries  to its  occupants. It  was  too  much  to
\nconjecture  and\t  presume  that\t  the  witnesses   who\twere
\npassengers in the jeep car who had suffered from bomb attack
\ninjuries would not be travelling in the said jeep car at the
\nrelevant time.\n<\/p>\n
Under these  circumstances, therefore,\tthe High  Court\t was
\nperfectly  justified  in  re-appreciating  the\tevidence  on
\nrecord with  a\tview  to  finding  out\tas  to\twhether\t the
\nprosecution on\tthe basis  of evidence\ton record had proved
\nits case  to the  hilt against\tappellant accused and beyond
\nthe  shadow   of  reasonable  doubt.  The  first  point\t for
\ndetermination is, therefore, answered in the affirmative.
\nPoint No.2
\n     So far as this point is concerned we may first refer in
\nbrief to  what these two witnesses had to say about the role
\nplayed by  accused 1  to 9  in the  incident. P.W.8  Chakali
\nRangamma stated\t that he  was a\t resident of Boyalkuntla. He
\nearned his  livelihood by washing clothes and by doing cooly
\nwork. He  had known  accused 1\tto 9 as they all belonged to
\nhis own\t village. that\ton the\tmorning of  the date  of the
\nincident 12  persons including\thimself, deceased  1  and  2
\ncomplainant Ramalinga  Reddy and  P.Ws 1, 2, 7, 5 and others
\nstarted from  Boyalakuntla on the jeep of Ramalinga Reddy to
\ngo to  Mahanandi for  attending the  marriage of  one of the
\nrelatives of  Ramalinga Reddy.\tP.W. 1\tSrikantha Reddy\t was
\ndriving the  jeep. By  the side\t of Srikantha  Reddy, P.W. 2
\nKullai Reddy, P.W.3 Subba Reddy belonging to Chennur and the
\ncomplainant Ramalinga  Reddy sat  on  the  front  seat.\t The
\nwitness P.W.9,\tChakali Venkateswarlu,\tDeceased-1  Damodara
\nReddy and  Deceased-2 Rajsekhara  Reddy were  sitting on the
\nright  hand  side  four\t seater.  After\t they  started\tfrom
\nBoyalakuntla they  first went  to the  school  of  Ramalinga
\nReddy, where  they stayed for stayed for one hour. After the
\njeep resumed its journey from the school Ramalinga Reddy had
\na talk with somebody for 2-3 minutes and thereafter the jeep
\nwas  proceeding\t towards  Mahanandi.  When  their  jeep\t was
\napproaching the\t Baggi Road  P.W.1 Srikantha Reddy raised an
\nAlarm. As  soon as e raised alarm he (P.W.8) turned his head
\ntowards P.W.1’s\t side and  found accused  1 to 4 coming from
\nbehind the  trees by  the side\tof Baggi Road, that is, from
\nthe eastern  side meaning thereby from the right side of the
\njeep. At first accused 1 and 4 hurled bombs and they fell on
\nthe road  on the  right front side of the jeep and exploded.
\nThereafter accused  no. 2  Ramana hurled  another bomb which
\nhit on the right side frame of the back rest of the driver’s
\nseat and exploded cussing injuries to P.W.1 Srikantha Reddy.
\nThereafter accused  no.3 hurled\t another bomb  which fell on
\nthe top\t of the\t jeep and  exploded. As\t the jeep  proceeded
\nfurther accused\t nos.5 to  9 hurled  5 bombs coming from the
\nwestern side.  These bombs fell on the top of the jeep and e
\nexploded. The  top cover  of the  jeep caught  fire  due  to
\nexplosion of  the bombs.  As soon  as the  jeep’s top  cover
\ncaught\tfire   the  witness   P.W.8   Ranganna\t and   P.W.9
\nVenkateswarlu got  down from the jeep and ran into the trees
\nexisting on  the western side of the road and hid themselves
\nbehind the  trees. While  they were  seeing from  behind the
\ntrees, Deceased-1  Damodara Reddy  and Deceased-2 Rajsekhara
\nReddy jumped down from the jeep. The jeep did not stop after
\nthey jumped  down from it and it proceeded towards Mahanandi
\nafter taking  the baggi Road turn. At that time accused no.3
\nPedda Subbarayudu hurled a bomb at deceased-1 Damodara Reddy
\nwhich hit  on the front of the right thigh and exploded. Due
\nto that\t explosion deceased-1  Damodara Reddy  fell  on\t the
\nground facing  downwards. The accused-2 Ramana hurled a bomb
\non the\tback of\t Deceased-1 Damodara  Reddy. Due to the bomb
\nblast Deceased-1  died on  the spot  standing  in  front  of
\nDeceased-2 Rajsekhara  Reddy. As Nadipi Subbarayudu hurled a
\nbomb on\t the forehead  of Deceased-2,  that  bomb  exploded,
\nfalling Deceased-2  dead. Thereafter  all the accused A-1 to
\nA-9 ran away from the place along the Baggi Road. Even after
\nthe departure  of Accused-1  to 9  P.W.8 remained behind the
\ntrees for  about an hour. He came out on that spot after the
\narrival\t of  two  police  constables  from  Mahanandi.\tThis
\nversion of  his ran  parallel to  the version  of P.W.9\t and
\ncould not  be effectively  shaken in cross-examination. Eye-
\nwitness account\t regarding the\tbomb injuries caused to both
\nthe deceased  gets well supported by medical evidence of Dr.
\nK. Mohandas  (P.W.13) who  conducted post-mortem examination
\non the\tdead body of Deceased-1 K. Damodara Reddy and Dr. P.
\nBaban (P.W.14)\twho performed the post-mortem examination on
\nthe dead body of Deceased-2 K. Rajsekhara Reddy. The medical
\nevidence has  clearly shown  the nature of multiple injuries
\nsuffered by the deceased through the bombs hurled on them.\n<\/p>\n
     However, learned  senior counsel  Shri  Lalit  for\t the
\naccused\t vehemently  contended\tthat  these  so-called\teye-
\nwitnesses are  planted by  the investigating agency and they
\nwere really  not eye-witnesses\tat all\tand consequently  if
\nthey are  disbelieved there will be no evidence left against
\nthe accused  for bringing home the offence under Section 302
\nread with  Section 149\tI.P.C. to them. He submitted that if
\nthis evidence  is excluded,  then as  observed by  the\tHigh
\nCourt, the  other eye-witness  account against\tthem  cannot
\nmake them quality of offence of murder.\n<\/p>\n
     In order  to discredit  their version Shri Lalit placed
\nthe following aspects for our consideration :\n<\/p>\n
1. These  two persons  were under  the thumb  of complainant
\nRamalinga Reddy\t and they  were menial\tservants  who  would
\nstate on the lines dictated by him.\n<\/p>\n
2. The\tjeep was  already over-crowded having 10 passengers.
\nThere  was   no\t occasion   to\ttake  these  additional\t two
\npassengers in the jeep.\n<\/p>\n
3. If  the prosecution version is that the jeep was carrying
\npassengers of  marriage party these two persons who were not
\nrelatives and  were total  strangers to the family would not
\nhave been carried in the jeep.\n<\/p>\n
4. If  they had\t really been on the jeep and if according to
\nthem they  had jumped  out of  the jeep\t when the bombs were
\nbeing hurled  on the  occupants of the jeep then as the jeep
\nwas not\t stationary they  would have  received injuries. But
\nthere was no such injury suffered by them.\n<\/p>\n
5. Their  version that having witnessed the murderous attack
\nby the\tconcerned accused  on both  the deceased on the road
\nthey remained  hidden behind  the trees and did not come out
\nfor one hour is highly artificial and unnatural.\n<\/p>\n
6.That even  after the\tpolice constables  came on  the spot
\naccording to  them they did not inform the police constables
\nabout what  they had  seen. Not\t only that  when the  police
\ninspector P.W.\t17 came\t on the\t spot and halted on the spot
\nwhile going  from Nandyal to Mahanandi and when he was there
\nfor at\tleast half an hour if not for one hour as deposed to
\nby him\tthese two  witnesses did  not say  anything  to\t the
\npolice inspector. This is also highly unnatural.\n<\/p>\n
7. Even\t in the inquest Panchnama they are not shown to have
\nsigned as  Panchas. That  also makes  their presence  highly
\ndoubtful.\n<\/p>\n
8. If  as observed by the High Court they were being carried
\nin the jeep being musclemen and as the complainant Ramalinga
\nReddy was  apprehending attack\ton his party at the hands of
\naccused who  belonged to  the rival  faction they would have
\nbeen armed.\n<\/p>\n
9. These  witnesses also  did not  even try to run away from
\nthe spot  after seeing\tthe murderous  attack on the part of
\nthe accused  even  after  the  accused\tleft  the  scene  of
\noffence. Nor did they go to inform anyone on the spot as the
\nevidence shows\tthat some  buses were  also passing  by\t the
\nroad.\n<\/p>\n
     All this  conduct on  the part  of the witnesses P.Ws.8
\nand 9  according to learned senior counsel Shri Lalit showed
\nthat the  witnesses must  really not  be present on the spot
\nand they  are got-up  wholly with  a  view  to\tsupport\t the
\nprosecution case.  Having given our anxious consideration to
\nthese contentions, in our view, none of these aspects really
\nwhittle down  or dilute the effect of the version deposed to
\nby both\t these witnesses  in a\tconsistent manner.  We shall
\nexamine the  aforesaid aspects highlighted by Shri Lalit one
\nby one.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  first aspect  is concerned, even though
\nthey  may   be\tworking\t on  the  household  of\t complainant
\nRamalinga Reddy it cannot be said that the said circumstance
\nby itself  would make their presence in the jeep car on that
\nfateful morning doubtful from any angle. On the contrary, as
\nthe High  Court has observed because they were musclemen and
\nmen of\ttrust and  confidence of  the complainant  Ramalinga
\nReddy it  would be  too natural\t for  complainant  Ramalinga
\nReddy to  take them  with him  in marriage  party especially
\nbecause of  the past  enmity with the accused and looking to
\nthe past  conduct of  the accused nos. 1 to 4 who had hurled
\nbombs even earlier on complainant’s party as is evident from
\nthe evidence of the P.W.1 and P.W.4. It has come in evidence
\nthat the  road from  Nandyal to\t Mahanandi passed  through a
\nforest and  earlier almost  near the  same spot\t complainant
\nRamalinga Reddy\t and his party were attacked by the party of
\naccused no.1  as revealed  by  evidence\t of  P.W.1,  son  of
\nRamalinga Reddy who was driving the jeep on that fateful day
\nand by\tthe evidence  of P.W.4\tK. Rajeshwar  Reddy. Learned
\ncounsel for  the respondent  was right\twhen he\t pointed out
\nrelying on  evidence of P.W.4 that Ramalinga Reddy had asked
\nP.Ws 8\tand 9  to come\tto the\tvenue of  the marriage being
\nunder the  impression that  their services  were  needed  by
\npeople who  were performing  the marriage. Witness Srikantha
\nReddy, P.W.1,  has stated din his evidence that the incident
\noccurred when their jeep reached near Baggi road which leads
\nto Nallamala  forest, and  while he was negotiating the road
\nturning there,\tAccused-1, 3  and 4 were seen coming towards
\nthe road  turning from\tthe eastern  side carrying  bombs in
\ntheir hands.  Thus the\tapprehension of\t Ramalinga Reddy had
\ncome true. Consequently, it would not be said that there was
\nanything unnatural  in complainant  Ramalinga  Reddy  asking
\nthese  two  witnesses  to  accompany  him  on  that  fateful
\nmorning.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the second aspect is concerned, the evidence
\nreveals that  four persons  were sitting  on the  front seat
\nwhich included P.W.1, driver on the right side, P.Ws.2 and 3
\nin between and complainant Ramalinga Reddy on the left side.
\nSo far\tas the\tback seats  were concerned  there  were\t two
\nparallel back  seats in\t the jeep and each could accommodate
\nfour persons.  P.W.1 Srikantha\tReddy in  his  evidence\t has
\nstated that  in the  rear side\tof the\tjeep there  were two
\nseats opposite\tto  each  other\t and  perpendicular  to\t the
\ndriver’s seat.\tAll the\t 8 persons were sitting on the seats
\nonly and  not on  the floor  of the jeep. Immediately behind
\nhim Deceased-1\tDamodara Reddy\tand next  to him  Deceased-2
\nRajsekhara Reddy  was sitting  and next\t to him P.Ws 8 and 9
\nwere sitting  in that  order while behind his father that is
\non the left side back seat P.W.5 Subba Reddy, P.W.6 Narayana
\nReddy, and  other two  were sitting.  On both  sides of\t the
\n`Baggi rasta’  there were  bushes and  trees. Even on either
\nside of\t the road leading to Mahanandi from the road turning
\nthere were  bushes and\ttrees. Nothing\tsubstantial could be
\ntaken out  from his  cross-examination so far as this aspect
\nis concerned.  It, therefore, cannot be said that 12 persons
\ncould not  travel in  the jeep\tas tried  to be submitted by
\nlearned senior counsel for the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  third aspect  is concerned,  as we have
\nalready seen earlier the evidence shows that Ramalinga Reddy
\nwanted these  two witnesses  to accompany the marriage party
\nboth on\t the ground that they were musclemen as found by the
\nHigh Court  and would be useful especially when the road was
\nto pass\t through forest\t and when  they had already suffered
\nbomb attacks  at the  hands of\tthe accused  earlier,  there
\nbeing deep-seated  enmity between  the two factions and also
\non the\tground that they were menial servants their presence
\nwould also  be useful  while attending the marriage function
\nat Mahanandi.  Consequently even this contention on the part
\nof the\tlearned senior\tcounsel for accused is devoid of any
\nsubstance.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  fourth aspect is concerned, evidence of
\nP.W.1 Srikantha\t Reddy shows that the road on the spot where
\nthe incident  occurred was  having a  turn and\tit was rough
\nroad and  was full  of potholes.  He was, therefore, driving
\nthe jeep  very slowly  and the\tincident occurred when their
\njeep reached  near baggi  Road while  he was negotiating the
\nroad turning.  It is, therefore, easy to visualise that when
\nthe accused  are said  to have\tattacked the  jeep from\t the
\nfront coming  from the right side, the jeep was being driven
\nvery slowly.  It is also quite likely that when the jeep was
\ntaking a turn it would not have the same speed with which it
\nwould travel  otherwise on  a  straight\t road.\tUnder  these
\ncircumstances, if  the witnesses  being scared on account of
\nhurling of  bombs by  the accused  jumped down\tfrom a\tslow
\nmoving jeep,  it was  not  absolutely  necessary  that\tthey
\nshould have received injuries. It is also to be kept in view
\nthat they  were menial\tservants and  as the  High Court has
\nfound they  were strong\t persons being musclemen. Therefore,
\nafter dropping down from the jeep if they had run and hidden
\nbehind the  trees it  could not\t be said that they could not
\nhave run  or that they could not have suffered any injuries.
\nThis aspect, therefor, also pales into insignificance.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  fifth aspect  is concerned,  we have to
\nvisualise the  position in  which these\t two menial servants
\nfound themselves when their masters were being attacked with
\nbombs. They  would naturally get scared and would not intend
\nto come\t out to rescue them as they would otherwise also get
\ninjured,  if   not  fatally,  as  their\t master’s  relatives
\nDeceased-1 and\t2 got injured. It is true that they remained
\nhidden for  one hour  but that would be natural because they
\ncould not  run away  from the  scene of\t offence as the near
\nrelatives  of  their  master  complainant  Ramalinga  Reddy,
\nnamely, his son-in-law and brother who were accompanying him
\nbeing members  of the marriage party were lying dead on spot
\nand when  his master along with others injured had proceeded
\nfurther towards\t Mahanandi. Till  they come  back they would
\nnaturally not  leave the place. Therefore, there was nothing
\nunusual in their remaining on spot hidden for one hour being
\nmightily afraid\t of any\t fresh attack  from the\t side of the
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  sixth aspect  is  concerned,  as  their
\nmaster Ramalinga  Reddy had  already gone  towards Mahanandi
\nwith the  other injured\t members of the marriage party these
\nwitnesses were not expected to say anything in the matter to
\nthe police  constables or  even to the police inspector till
\ntheir master  arrived on  spot. We  have to judge the mental
\ncondition of  these menial  servants who would naturally get
\naghast by the terrific attack suffered by his master and his
\nrelatives in bombs hurled on them. Under these circumstances
\nif they\t kept mum  till their  master arrived on the site it
\ncannot be  said that  they were\t behaving  in  an  unnatural
\nmanner.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  seventh aspect is concerned, we fail to
\nappreciate how\tthat will  make any  difference\t as  in\t the
\ninquest Panchnama itself their presence is noted. They might
\nnot have signed as other `panchas’ were available.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  eighth submission is concerned, whether
\nthey were armed or not would not make their presence suspect
\nas they were also being carried in the jeep for doing menial
\nwork at the place of the marriage as stated by witness P.W.4
\nK. Rajeshwar  Reddy  to\t which\twe  have  made\ta  reference
\nearlier.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  ninth  aspect  is\tconcerned,  we\thave
\nalready\t shown\twhile  discussing  aspect  no.6\t that  these
\nwitnesses might\t not have  revealed as to what they saw till
\ntheir master  Ramalinga Reddy  came on\tspot.  On  the\tsame
\nreasoning, therefore,  this aspect also loses its importance
\nand does  not make  their presence on spot doubtful from any
\nangle.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t our   view,  therefore,   the\t aforesaid   alleged
\ninfirmities as\tpointed out  by learned\t senior counsel\t for
\naccused for  disbelieving the  version of these witnesses do
\nnot in\tany way\t affect the  core of  their  evidence  which
\nremains well  sustained on  record. But even otherwise there
\nare certain  salient features which have been established in
\nthe case which clearly point out that their presence on spot
\nwas not\t in any way doubtful. It has to be kept in view that
\nin the\tcomplaint Ex.P.1  which was  filed immediately after
\nthe bomb  attack when  the jeep car went to Mahanandi Police
\nStation names  of these\t two witnesses are clearly mentioned
\nas having  been present\t on spot.  even that  apart all\t the
\nwitnesses who  were travelling\tin the\tjeep, namely. P.Ws.1
\nand 4 to 7 also deposed about their presence in the jeep and
\nhow they  jumped from  thee jeep after the first bomb attack
\non the jeep. Not only that but even hostile witnesses P.Ws.2
\nand 3  who also\t got injured in the incident clearly deposed
\nthat these two witnesses P.Ws.8 and 9 were also accompanying
\nthem in\t the jeep  on the date of the incident and so far as
\nthat aspect  is concerned there was no cross-examination nor
\nwas this  part of  their evidence  even\t challenged  by\t the
\ndefence. We,  therefore, entirely concur with the finding of
\nthe High  Court that these two witnesses were quite reliable
\nand they  had actually\twitnessed the  murderous  attack  on
\nDeceased-1 and\t2 by  the accused party. Before parting with
\nthis discussion,  we may also mention one submission of Shri
\nLalit for  discrediting the  version of these eye-witnesses.
\nHe submitted  that these  two witnesses\t have stated that on
\nspot where  the dead bodies were lying they did not find any
\nunexploded bomb\t while the Panchnama of the scene of offence
\nand even  the version  of P.W.17 Police Inspector shows that
\nthere was  an unexploded bomb lying on the scene of offence.
\nIn our\tview this  circumstance is  too trivial to shake the
\nveracity of  the version  deposed to by these two witnesses.
\nbeing  illiterate   manual  servants  they  might  not\thave
\nunderstood the\tnature of unexploded bomb and might not have
\nnoticed it.  That would not have made their presence suspect
\nwhen there  is aforesaid  clinching  evidence  unequivocally
\npointing to  their presence  on spot. For all these reasons,
\ntherefore, it must be held that the High Court was perfectly
\njustified in  placing  implicit\t faith\ton  the\t eye-witness
\naccount of  these two witnesses and accordingly holding that
\nall the accused were quality of an offence under Section 302
\nread with  Section 149 I.P.C. as they all formed an unlawful
\nassembly and had gathered together on spot to have murderous
\nattack on  the occupants  of the  jeep\twherein\t complainant
\nRamalinga Reddy,  their arch  enemy, was  leading a party of
\npersons\t comprising   of  this\t own  relatives\t to  Village
\nMahanandi and  they succeeded  in causing  bomb injuries  to
\nnumber of  passengers in  the jeep including the complainant
\nand were  also successful  in  taking  lives  of  two  close
\nrelatives of  complainant Ramalinga Reddy being his own son-
\nin-law and  his brother\t who were  also members\t of the said
\nmarriage party and who had travelled in the jeep before they
\njumped down  presumably being  scared of  further attack  of
\nbombs at  the hands  of these  accused. the second point is,
\ntherefore, held in the affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
Point No.3
\n     So far  as this  point is\tconcerned, we  have  already
\ndiscussed in  details while  considering point\tno.1 how the
\neve-witness account of injured eye-witnesses P.Ws.1 and 4 to
\n7 remains  well sustained  on record in the light of medical
\nevidence. For  the reasons  recorded by\t us on\tthat  point,
\ntherefore, it  must be\theld that the eye-witness account of
\nthese witnesses\t who were  members of the marriage party and
\nwho got injured on account of the bomb attack mounted on the
\njeep car  on that  fateful morning  by accused\tno.1 and his
\nparty, has  to be  accepted. Their  version as we have noted
\nearlier is  quite consistent  and parallel.  In fact as Shri
\nLalit, learned\tsenior counsel for the accused, submitted it
\nis too\taccurate to  be true. In our view merely because the
\nversion of  all these  injured eye-witnesses is accurate and
\ncomprises of  parallel versions\t deposed to by each of them,
\nit cannot  be said  that it  is a  parrot like version which
\nshould not  be accepted especially when the medical evidence
\nhas fully  supported their  version that  they received bomb
\ninjuries in  the attack.  In fact Shri Lalit, learned senior
\ncounsel for  accused, fairly stated that on this evidence it
\nis not possible for him to submit an extreme contention that
\nthese witnesses\t had not  suffered  bomb  injuries  in\tthat
\nattack but  according to  him their  evidence could  not  be
\nrelied upon  to show  that these  accused had  caused  these
\ninjuries. So  far as this aspect is concerned, it is obvious
\nthat there  was deep-seated enmity between the complainant’s
\nparty and  the party  on accused no.1 and his supporters. It
\nis also\t to be noted that accused nos. 2 to 9 were all close
\nrelatives of  accused no.1  who was  the leader\t of the team
\nbeing an  aged man  of 70  years or more. Other accused were
\nhis  own   sons\t and   nephews\tapart  from  accused  no.10.
\nTherefore, they\t had a\tdeep-seated common grievance against
\ncomplainant Ramalinga  Reddy  and  his\trelatives  who\twere
\naccompanying him and were members of his party. There was an
\nearlier attack by bomb by accused party on the complainant’s
\nparty. It was also alleged that in past bombs were hurled by
\ncomplainant’s partymen\tat the\thouse of Sirigiri Rama Subba
\nReddy who  belonged to\tthe faction  of accused\t no. 1.\t The
\nevidence has  also revealed  that the  road from  Nandyal to
\nMahanandi passed  through forest  and at  the spot where the
\nincident occurred  there was  history of  earlier attack  by
\nbomb by\t accused party\ton Ramalinga  Reddy and\t his  party.
\nUnder these  circumstances when the jeep was being driven on
\nspot if\t the accused mounted the attack from the front it is
\neasy to\t visualise that\t the occupants\tof  the\t jeep  would
\nclearly locate\tthem especially\t when they were all known to
\nthem since long and were in fact apprehending such an attack
\nfrom them.  The `panchnama’ of the jeep car Ex. P.19 clearly
\nsupports the  eye-witness account  of these  witnesses apart
\nfrom the  medical evidence to which we have made a reference
\nwhile discussing  point no.1.  It is  true that the jeep car
\nwas not\t seized or  photographed but  still the\t `panchnama’
\nabout the  condition of\t the jeep  car after the incident is
\neloquent enough\t to  fully  support  the  version  of  these
\ninjured eye-witnesses.\tEx.P.19 recites that behind the seat
\nof the\tdriver where  the bomb\thad fallen,  the portion had
\nturned yellow  and was\tsmelling of sulphur. The side bar at
\nthe tarpaulin  by the  side of the driver was slightly bent.
\nThe tarpaulin  on the side of the driver due to bomb hit was
\ntorn here  and there.  There were yellow marks of sulphur on
\nthe tarpaulin.\tThe tarpaulin on the left side was of rexin.
\nThe tarpaulin  on the  top was\ttorn. Due to bomb hit, marks
\nlike that  of small-pox\t were formed  on the  side angle and
\nthey were  yellow in  colour. The  danger light which was on
\nthe back right side of the jeep was broken. This `panchnama’
\nclearly shows  that the jeep on the date of the incident had
\nsuffered multiple bomb attacks. Shri Lalit submitted that if
\nnine bombs were used in the attack as per these alleged eye-
\nwitnesses, damage  to the  jeep would  have been  much\tmore
\nextensive. It  is difficult  to appreciate  this contention.
\nThe `panchnama’\t of the\t scene of offence has shown that one
\nbomb was  lying unexploded on the spot. There was thick bush
\ngrowth on  both sides of the road near the scene of offence,
\ntherefore, some\t bombs might  not have hit the target. It is
\nalso to\t be kept in view that Deceased-1 and 2 also suffered
\nfrom at\t least three  bomb injuries and there were extensive
\nand multiple  injuries suffered\t by seven  occupants of\t the
\njeep who  deposed before  the Trial  Court being P.Ws.1 to 7
\nand the\t complainant since  deceased also  had suffered from
\nbomb injuries  in the  incident.  Not  only  that  even\t the
\nhostile PWs-2  and 3 had also suffered from bomb injuries as
\nfound from  medical evidence  and their\t own evidence. These
\ndiverse injuries on number of persons travelling in the jeep
\nclearly indicated  that the eye-witness account that all the
\naccused were  armed with  bombs and  had hurled the bombs at
\nthe occupants  of the  jeep being  the members\tof  marriage
\nparty headed  by complainant  Ramalinga Reddy cannot be said
\nto be  in any  way an  exaggerated or a false verson. On the
\ncontrary, the said version appears to be quite justified and
\nwell supported\tby evidence  on record.\t Shri Lalit, in this
\nconnection, submitted  that the evidence shows that the jeep
\nwas having  tarpaulin covers on both sides and when the case
\nof the\tprosecution is\tthat the  attack was  mounted by the
\naccused from  the front\t side it  is not possible to believe
\nthat all the witnesses would have seen the actual hurling of
\nbombs. Even  this submission  cannot  be  accepted  for\t the
\nsimple\treason\t that  the   prosecution  version  which  is
\nsupported by  eye-witness account  is  to  the\teffect\tthat
\naccused\t came  from  two  directions.  IN  fact\t the  entire
\nincident on  spot can  be divided into three parts that took
\nplace in  quick succession. In the first part accused-1 to 4
\ncame from  the right  side and\thurled three  bombs  on\t the
\naccupants of the jeep. That caused injuries to the occupants
\non the right side of the jeep including the driver P.W.1 and
\ndamaged the  jeep on  the right\t side. Thereafter in the 2nd
\npart of\t incident the  accused nos.5  to  9  came  from\t the
\nwestern side, that is, the left side and mounted bomb attack
\non the\tjeep which resulted in damage to the top of the jeep
\nwhich was set aflame and also caused injuries to complainant
\nRamalinga Reddy\t and other occupants on the left side in the
\njeep. When  such an  attack is\tmounted from  the front side
\nfrom two  directions, it  is  easy  to\tvisualise  that\t the
\noccupants would\t naturally get\tscared and would look on the
\nfront side  from where\tthe attack was being mounted and can
\nwitness the  culprits. In  this connection  also, it  may be
\nnoted that so far as deceased complainant Ramalinga Reddy is
\nconcerned he  was sitting  on the  extreme left in the front
\nseat and  he had  received injuries  from bomb\tblast on the
\nleft side  of his  body. Nature\t of the injuries suffered by
\nhim fully corroborates the eye-witness account deposed to by
\nP.W.1 and  4  to  7.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  said,  as
\nsubmitted  by\tShri  Lalit  for  the  accused,\t that  these
\noccupants of  the jeep who suffered from injuries on account
\nof bomb\t attack could  not have\t seen as  to  who  were\t the
\nculprits or authors of the attack. It was broad day light in
\nthe morning  of 1st  June 1957 and all the accused were very
\nwell known to these witnesses and when they attacked, coming
\nin front  of the  jeep from  both left and right sides, they
\nwould be  fully visible to the occupants of the jeep. It is,
\ntherefore, not possible to agree with the contention of Shri
\nLalit  that  the  occupants  of\t the  jeep  could  not\thave
\nidentified these  accused. The\tthird part  of the  incident
\nrefers to  what happened  to deceased nos.1 and 2 who jumped
\nfrom the jeep car and met their death by suffering from bomb
\ninjuries at  the hands\tof the\taccused in the course of the
\nvery same  transaction. For all these reasons, therefore, it
\nis not\tpossible to  agree with\t the submission\t of the Shri
\nLalit that the eye-witness account of these witnesses should
\nnot be\tbelieved. We  find that\t the High  Court  has  given
\ncogent reasons\tat pages  13 and  14 of\t the judgment  under
\nappeal as  well as at page 21 why the eye-witness account of
\nthese witnesses\t should be believed. We entirely concur with
\nthe same.  The High  Court has\talso  noted  one  submission
\ncanvassed on  behalf of\t the accused that when accused nos.1
\nto 9  were allegedly  throwing bombs at the jeep from either
\nside it\t would have been more prudent for deceased to remain
\nin the\tjeep itself. Said submission was rightly turned down
\nby the\tHigh Court  as it  is not possible to predicate with
\nany degree of certainty as to how a person would behave when
\nhe is  being attacked  by  bombs  from\tboth  the  sides  by
\nbelligerent attackers.\tIf getting  scared, Deceased-1 and 2
\njumped out  of the jeep along with P.Ws.8 and 9 it cannot be
\nsaid that they had acted in an unnatural manner or that they
\nshould have  continued to  remain in the jeep to suffer from
\nbomb blasts.  Instinct\tof  self-preservation  prompted\t the
\ndeceased to  get out  of harms\tway by\tjumping out  of\t the
\nattacked  jeep\t but  unfortunately   they  could  not\tsave
\nthemselves. Consequently,  it cannot  be said  that the eye-
\nwitness account\t of accused  nos.1 and\t4 to 7 in any way is
\nunbelievable or unacceptable. On the contrary, their account
\nis quite natural and remains well sustained on the record of
\nthe  case.   In\t this  connection,  we\tmay  also  note\t one
\nadditional submission  of Shri\tLalit. He submitted that the
\nFirst Information report Ex.P.17 mentioned that four persons
\nremained in  the jeep  after the  bomb attack  and 8 persons
\njumped out  of the  jeep whereas  the  eye-witnesse  account
\nshowed that  8 persons\tremained in  the jeep  and 4 persons
\njumped out.  We fail  to appreciate  how this would make any
\ndifference. Whether 4 persons jumped out or 8 persons jumped
\nout would  not affect the culpability of the accused who had
\nmounted\t the   attack  on  the\tjeep,  which  remained\twell
\nestablished on\trecord\tin  the\t light\tof  the\t eye-witness
\naccount. Even  otherwise as we have discussed earlier, while
\nconsidering point  no.1 the  eye-witness  account  of  these
\nwitnesses cannot  be contradicted with what is stated in the
\nFirst Information report by the complainant who could not be
\nexamined in the case. The version of the eye-witnesses could
\nbe contradicted\t with their  earlier police statements if at
\nall. Their  version cannot  be contradicted  with  what\t was
\nstated in  the First Information Report by a third party and
\nwhich by  itself was not a substantive piece of evidence and
\nwhich even  could not  be tested  on  the  anvil  of  cross-
\nexamination as\tthe complainant was dead prior to the trial.
\nShri lalit next contended that the prosecution has not fully
\nestablished its case that this party was going to attend the
\nmarriage at village Mahanandi. It is difficult to appreciate
\nthis contention.  The eye-witness account which has remained
\nunshaken  in  cross  examination  shows\t that  there  was  a
\nmarriage in  the family\t of complainant\t Ramalinga Reddy  at
\nvillage Mahanandi and they were all going to attend the said
\nmarriage. The  occupants in  the jeep  car  along  with\t the
\ncomplainant Ramalinga  Reddy were P.W.1 his son, his younger
\nson Lakshmi  Reddy, his\t brother Damodara Reddy and his son-
\nin-law Rajsekhara  Reddy Deceased-2, and other relatives and
\nacquaintances, in  all 10  and who  were also accompanied by
\ntwo menial servants P.Ws.8 and 9. But even assuming that the
\noccasion  of   marriage\t at   village  Mahanandi   was\t not
\nestablished even  then if  the complainant’s party was going
\non the fateful morning in a jeep car for attending any other
\nsocial function\t at Mahanandi and if that party was attacked
\nby bombs  by the  accused in  the manner  deposed to  by the
\nprosecution witnesses  the culpability\tof accused would not
\nbe lessened in any manner. For all these reasons, therefore,
\nthere is  no substance\tin this additional submission of the
\nlearned senior\tcounsel for the accused for disbelieving the
\neye-witness account of injured eye-witnesses P.Ws.1 and 4 to\n<\/p>\n
7. This point is, therefore, answered in the affirmative.
\nPoint No.4
\n     So far  as this point is concerned, Shri Lalit, learned
\nsenior counsel\tfor the\t accused, vehemently  submitted that
\nP.W.17 Bhaskaran  who  conducted  investigation\t had  almost
\nplayed in  the hands  of complainant Ramalinga Reddy and had
\ntried to  develop prosecution case as he wished by roping in
\nthe accused  no.1 and all of his family members. That it was
\nan unfair investigation. In order to support this contention
\nhe highlighted the following aspects :\n<\/p>\n
(i)  When  complainant\tRamalinga  Reddy  reached  Mahanandi
\nPolice\tStation\t after\tthe  incident,\thead  constable\t was
\nalready\t present   who\tinstead\t  of  recording\t  the  First
\nInformation report  sent a  message to\twitness Bhaskaran at
\nNandyal Police\tStation. Thus  it appeared  that complainant
\nRamalinga Reddy\t wanted\t to  make  out\ta  case\t only  after
\nBhaskaran met him.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The conduct  of P.W.17  Bhaskaran after having received
\nthe message  was also  unnatural inasmuch as before reaching
\nMahanandi Police  Station though  he visited  the  scene  of
\noffence and found two dead bodies he is said not to have got
\ndown from the jeep and instead had waited for one hour or at
\nleast half  an hour  in the jeep and made no spot enquiry at
\nthat place but put the criminal investigation machinery into
\nmotion only  after meeting  complainant Ramalinga  Reddy  in
\nMahanandi Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  So called  First Information\tReport was  a got-up
\ndocument prepared  at the  instance of Ramalinga Reddy after
\nfull consultation with this witness.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) That the  police diary  was  not  produced\t before\t the
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
(v)  That the head constable to whom Ramalinga Reddy is said
\nto have\t first met  after the  incident at  Mahanandi Police
\nStation was not examining the case.\n<\/p>\n
(vi) That according  to the  P.Ws.8  and  9,  P.W.17  Police
\nInspector was  writing something  on the  scene\t of  offence
\nwhere he  halted before\t reaching Mahanandi  Police Station.
\nThat showed that he had taken undue interest in the case.\n<\/p>\n
(vii)\t  That\tthe  jeep  car\twhich  is  alleged  to\thave
\nreceived the  impact of\t bomb  blast  at  the  time  of\t the
\nincident was not got photographed nor was it seized.\n<\/p>\n
     In our  view none\tof  the\t aforesaid  submissions\t can
\nwhittle down  the efficacy of the eye-witness account of the
\ninjured eye-witnesses  who had suffered bomb blast injuries.
\nOn a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record we find that
\nthe investigation  cannot be said to be partial or unfair to
\nthe accused from any angle.\n<\/p>\n
     Evidence of  P.W.17 Bhaskaran  shows that\ton 1st\tJune
\n1987 he\t was in\t Taluk Police Station of Nandyal. That about
\n10 a.m. he received information regarding occurrence through
\nVery High  Frequency  Set  from\t Station  House\t Officer  of
\nMahanandi  Police  Station.  Immediately  he  collected\t the
\npresence of  Shri L.  Thirupal Reddy, the then sub-inspector
\nof Nandyal  taluk Division  and in  his company he rushed to
\nthe scene  of offence.\tNow it\tmust be\t kept in  view\tthat
\ncomplainant  Ramalinga\t Reddy\treached\t  Mahanandi   Police
\nStation, he  informed the  Station House  Officer about\t the
\nincident. Station  House Officer  immediately  sent  a\tHigh
\nFrequency Message  to witness  K.N. Bhaskaran  who  was\t his
\nsuperior. It  is not  even alleged  that full details of the
\nincident were  informed by  the\t complainant  in  that\thead
\nconstable. Therefore, if an offence is not registered in the
\nabsence of  full details  and only if it is informed that an
\nincident in  which bombs were thrown on a jeep car and which
\nhad killed  two persons\t and  injured  the  complainant\t and
\nothers who  had come to the Police Station it cannot be said
\nthat full details of occurrence of a cognizable offence were
\nconveyed to  the Police\t Station  Officer  who\tshould\thave
\nrecorded  the  First  Information  Report.  Looking  to\t the
\nserious nature of the incident if the head constable thought
\nit fit to immediately send a message to his superior officer
\nsaid conduct  cannot be said to be unnatural from any angle.
\nNor can\t it be\tsaid that at that stage P.W.17 Bhaskaran who
\nhad not\t even met  the complainant had developed any special
\ninterest in  him. The  evidence shows  the  complainant\t had
\nhimself written\t down the  complaint and he was awaiting the
\narrival of  witness  Bhaskaran\tto  the\t Police\t Station  at
\nMahanandi and  moment the  witness reached  Mahanandi Police
\nStation\t the  written  complaint  was  submitted  which\t was
\nregistered as  an F.I.R. Consequently it cannot be said that
\nthe said  written complaint  was not  an F.I.R.\t in the real
\nsense of the term or that for preparing the same the witness
\nhad taken  any undue  interest or monitored the same as Shri
\nLalit would  like to  have it.\tP.W.17 Bhaskaran had clearly
\nstated that  on his  reaching the police station complainant
\nRamalinga Reddy submitted the written complaint Ex.P.1 which
\nwas already  prepared by  him  even  before  his  (P.W.17’s)
\nreaching the  police station.  Nothing substantial  could be
\ntaken  out   in\t his  cross-examination\t to  discredit\tthis
\nversion. In  fact in  his cross-examination he made it clear
\nthat he\t had received only information from Mahanandi Police
\nStation about  the occurrence  while he\t was at\t Nandyal and
\nthat the message simply informed him that bombs were hurled,
\ntwo  persons  died  and\t several  others  received  injuries
\nwithout disclosing  the names of the assailants and those of
\nthe victims.  In the  entry made  by him  he only noted that
\nthere was  an attack  with bombs  against a  jeep travelling
\nalong the  Nandyal Mahanandi road on the morning of 1st June
\n1987. And  that immediately  on receiving  that\t message  he
\nproceeded to  the scene\t of offence.  It becomes, therefore,
\nobvious that  no information  regarding the  commission of a
\ncognizable offence  with all  its details was ever available
\neither to  the police  station officer\tat Mahanandi  Police
\nStation\t or   to  the  witness\tat  Nandyal  and  that\tsuch
\ninformation became  available to  him only when, on reaching
\nMahanandi Police Station he got a written complaint from the
\ncomplainant Ramalinga  Reddy. It,  therefore, cannot be said
\nthat  the   said  complaint   Ex.  P.1\t was   prepared\t  in
\ncollaboration with or under guidance of the witness as tried
\nto be submitted by Shri Lalit.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the second submission is concerned, evidence
\nof K.  Srikantha Reddy, P.W.1, driver of the jeep shows that
\nfor going  to Mahanandi from Boyalkuntla one has to be cross
\nNandyal Giddable  road, at  a distance of about 3 kilometres
\nfrom that  village. Nandyal-Haddalur  road runs from east to
\nwest. Bovalkuntla  lies to the south of that road. For going
\nto Mahanandi one has to proceed towards north after crossing
\nGiddalur road.\tIt, therefore,\tbecomes clear that for going
\nfrom Nanadyal  To Mahanandi  the scene of offence would fall
\non way. The evidence of P.W.17 Bhaskaran shows that at 10.00
\na.m. he\t was at\t Nandyal Police\t Station and  the moment  he
\nreceived the  High Frequency  Message he started in his jeep
\nfor going  to Mahanandi,  On way  came the  scene of offence
\nwhere he  halted having found two dead bodies and two police
\nconstables keeping  a watch  there. Even  if he\t might\thave
\nwaited for  half an  hour in  his jeep\tcar on\tthe scene of
\noffence\t it  cannot  be\t said  that  he\t had  exhibited\t any
\nunnatural conduct.  He had  already come  to know  that\t the
\ncomplainant had\t reached Mahanandi Police Station from where
\nhe   got   the\t High\tFrequency   Message.   Under   these
\ncircumstances, if  he did  not make  any further  inquiry on
\nthat spot  but proceeded further to reach the destination of
\nhis journey,  that is,\tMahanandi Police  Station to get the
\nfirst hand  information from the complainant it could not be
\nsaid that  he  had  exhibited  any  undue  interest  in\t the
\ncase.Shri Lalit\t was very sanguine about his contention that
\nit is  unnatural that  a police\t office would  not come down
\nfrom the  jeep having  seen the\t dead bodies on the spot. It
\ncannot be  forgotten that he was on way to Mahanandi and had
\nhalted on way near the scene of offence in the course of his
\nonward journey.\t By then  he had  not got full details about
\nthe incident.  The police  constables  found  on  spot\twere
\nkeeping\t a   watch  over   the\tdead  bodies.  They  had  no
\ninformation to\tconvey all  the happenings  of the incident.
\nThere was  no one  else round  about to give him any further
\ninformation. Under  these circumstances,  if he\t did not get
\ndown from  the jeep  but having enquired from the constables
\nand having  come to  know that\tthe complainant\t was already
\nwaiting at  the Mahanandi  Police Station  to give  all\t the
\ndetails about  the incident  if he  proceeded  in  his\tjeep
\nwithout alighting  from the jeep it cannot be said that such
\na behavior by itself exhibited an unnatural conduct.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  third submission  is concerned, we have
\nalready seen  while considering the submission of Shri Lalit
\nthat the  First Information Report Ex.P.1 was handed over to
\nhim when  he reached  Mahanandi\t Police\t Station  and  prior
\nthereto no  detailed information  about the  commission of a
\ncognizable offence,  information about\tthe  nature  of\t the
\nattack and  the authorship  of\tthe  attack  were  available
\neither at  the end of Mahanandi Police Station or at Nandyal
\nPolice Station. As we have seen above witness P.W.17 clearly
\nstated in  his evidence\t and that  too in  cross-examination
\nthat only  information which  he received  in the message at
\nNandyal was  about the\toccurrence of  an incident  of\tbomb
\nattack but no details were available to him at that time. It
\ncannot, therefore,  be said  that E.P.1 was not an F.I.R. in
\nthe real  sense of  the term. It also cannot be said that he
\nwas instrumental  in getting  in prepared  as it was already
\nmade ready  by the  complainant\t by  the  time\tthe  witness
\nBhaskaran reached Mahanandi Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  fourth submission\tof non-production of
\npolice diary  is concerned  the High  Court has rightly held
\nthat no attempt was made by the defence during trial to call
\nupon the  prosecution side  to\tproduce\t the  police  diary.
\nTherefore, grievance  regarding the  same  would  pale\tinto
\ninsignificance. But even that apart, as P.W.17 Bhaskaran had
\nstated in his evidence all that he noted in the police diary
\non receipt  of the  message  was  about\t occurrence  of\t the
\nincident without any details and consequently non-production
\nof the\tpolice dairy  had not resulted into any prejudice to
\nthe defence.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  fifth submission  of non-examination of
\nthe police  head constable  at Mahanandi  Police Station  is
\nconcerned, as the evidence of P.W.17 has shown the said head
\nconstable’s only role was to send the High Frequency Message
\nto his\tsuperior  calling  him\tto  the\t police\t station  at
\nMahanandi. No  other details were available about the nature
\nof  the\t  offence  to\tthe  said   police  head  constable.
\nConsequently his non-examination had no effect either way on
\nthe fate of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as\t the  sixth  submission\t is  concerned,\t the
\nevidence shows\tthat the statements of witnesses P.Was.8 and
\n9 were\trecorded by  P.W.17 Bhaskaran  after he came back to
\nthe scene of offence after visiting Mahanandi Police Station
\nand after  the\tcomplaint  was\tregistered.  Even  if  prior
\nthereto during\this first  halting visit  to  the  scene  of
\noffence en  route to  Mahanandi Police Station and after the
\ncomplaint was  registered. Even\t if prior thereto during his
\nfirst halting  visit to\t the scene  of offence\ten route  to
\nMahanandi Police Station, he had taken any notes of his own,
\nthat had no impact on the conduct of investigation after the
\nregistration of the offence. In fact, on this aspect nothing
\nwas tried  to be elicited from him in his cross-examination.
\nConsequently this contention is devoid of any merit.\n<\/p>\n
     So\t far   as  the\tseventh\t submission  of\t absence  of
\nphotograph of jeep car is concerned it may be noted that the
\n`panchnama’ of the damaged jeep car is already on record and
\nthis `panchnama’ was promptly got made by the witness P.W.17
\nonce the  investigation started.  That `panchnama’  gives  a
\ngraphic picture\t of the\t damage suffered  by the jeep car on
\naccount of  the bomb  blast at\tthe time  of  the  incident.
\nConsequently whether the jeep car was photographed on not or
\nwas seized  or not,  would not be a circumstance which would
\nhave any  serious impact  on the prosecution case one way or
\nthe other.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the aforesaid salient features of the case,
\ntherefore, it  is not possible to countenance the submission
\nof Shri Lalit that the investigation was faulty or biased or
\nwas a  partial one. This point is therefore, answered in the
\nnegative.\n<\/p>\n
Point No. 5<\/span><\/p>\n
     As a result of the aforesaid discussion it must be held
\nthat the  High Court was quite justified in interfering with
\nthe order  of acquittal\t as passed by the trial Court and in
\nconvicting the\taccused of the offences with which they were
\ncharged. Eye-witness  account of injured eye witnesses being
\noccupants in  the jeep car P.W.1 and P.Was 4 to 7 as well as
\neye witness  account of\t P.Was. 8  and 9  has remained\twell
\nsustained on the record and is fully corroborated by medical
\nevidence as  well as  by the  evidence of damage to the jeep
\ncar as\tfound in  `panchnama’ Ex. P.19. Consequently no case
\nis made out for our interference in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court … on 8 December, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (7) 232, JT 1995 (9) 33 Author: M S.B. Bench: Majmudar S.B. (J) PETITIONER: UPPARI VENKATASWAMY & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/12\/1995 BENCH: MAJMUDAR S.B. […]<\/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-53810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court ... on 8 December, 1995 - 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\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court ... on 8 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-05T17:51:31+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=\"67 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court … on 8 December, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-05T17:51:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995\"},\"wordCount\":13328,\"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\\\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995\",\"name\":\"Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court ... on 8 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-05T17:51:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court … on 8 December, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court ... on 8 December, 1995 - 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\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court ... on 8 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-05T17:51:31+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":"67 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court … on 8 December, 1995","datePublished":"1995-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-05T17:51:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995"},"wordCount":13328,"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\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995","name":"Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court ... on 8 December, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-05T17:51:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uppari-venkataswamy-ors-vs-the-public-prosecutorhigh-court-on-8-december-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Uppari Venkataswamy & Ors vs The Public Prosecutor,High Court … on 8 December, 1995"}]},{"@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\/53810","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=53810"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53810\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}