{"id":77081,"date":"1998-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998"},"modified":"2017-09-11T11:51:01","modified_gmt":"2017-09-11T06:21:01","slug":"kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998","title":{"rendered":"Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara … vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri … on 3 March, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara … vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri … on 3 March, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: M Mukherjee<\/div>\n
Bench: M.K. Mukherjee, Syed Shah Quadri.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKOVVURI SURYA BHASKARA REDDYSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHGOLUGURI ADIREDDY & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t03\/03\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nM.K. MUKHERJEE, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI.\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t    CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 336-337 of 1997
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nM.K. MUKHERJEE, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Six persons, namely, Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara Reddy, Tadi
\nVenkata\t Reddy,\t  Goluguri  Adireddy,\tKovvuri\t Surreddy  @
\nSuryanarayana\tReddy,\t  Kovvuri   Subbareddy\t and   Sathi
\nSatyanarayana Reddy  (hereinafter referred  to as  A1 to  A6
\nrespectively) were  indicted before the Sessions Judge, East
\nGodavary Division  at Rajahmundry  for rioting,\t murder\t and
\nother cognate offences. The trial ended in conviction of all
\nof them\t under Sections\t 148 and  302 I.P.C.  (simpliciter).
\nBesides, A1  to A4  were convicted  under Section 307 I.P.C.
\nand A5\tand A6\tunder  Section\t307\/149\t I.P.C.\t In  appeals
\npreferred by  them the\tHigh Court set aside the convictions
\nof A4  to A6 and acquitted them. As regards others, the High
\nCourt set  aside their\t conviction under Section 148 I.P.C.
\nand altered  the conviction  of A1  and A2 under Section 302
\nI.P.C. (simpliciter)  to 302\/34\t I.P.C.,  conviction  of  A1
\nunder Section  307 I.P.C. to 326 I.P.C. and conviction of A2
\nand A3\tunder Section 307 I.P.C. to 324 I.P.C. Assailing the
\njudgment of  the High  Court A1\t and A2 jointly filed one of
\nthese appeals  (Criminal Appeal\t No. 343  of 1997)  and\t the
\nState of  Andhra Pradesh  in its  turn filed  the other\t two
\nappeals (Criminal  Appeal Nos.\t336-337 of 1997) against the
\nacquittal of  A3 to  A6 of  the offers\tfor which  they were
\nconvicted by  the trial\t Court.\t During\t pendency  of  these
\nappeals A2  died and  his appeal,  therefore, stands abated.
\nAll the\t appeals have  been heard together and this judgment
\nwill dispose of them.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Briefly stated,  the prosecution  case is an follows :-\n<\/p>\n
(a) A1\tto A6  are related  to each  other as  also to P.W.1
\n(Kovvuri Srinivasa  Reddi) and\tP.W.6 (Kovvuri Suryanarayana
\nReddi), the two sons of Buchi Reddi (the deceased). While A1
\nis the\tnephew of  P.Ws.1 and 6, A2 is related to A1 through
\nhis wife.  A4 is  the brother  of the deceased and A5 and A6
\nare the\t son and brother-in-law of A4 respectively. They are
\nall residents  of Machavaram.  Since before  the  year\t1984
\nthere were disputes and differences between the two families
\nover properties\t and a\tcivil suit  had\t  been filed  by  A4
\nagainst Buchi  Reddi over  the right  of  passage  of  water
\nthrough their  land. A1\t to A6\talso  entertained  a  grudge
\nagainst P.W.1  as, according  to them, father of Buchi Reddi
\nhad given him more properties than was due in his share.\n<\/p>\n
(b) In the morning of July 31, 1992 P.W.1 accompanied by two
\nday labourers,\tnamely, P.W.3  (Sabbella Surreddi) and P.W.4
\n(Tadi Satyanarayana  Reddi) went  to their  plantain garden,
\nwhich was  in front of their cattle shed, for weeding. While
\nthey were  in the  field Buchi\tReddi came there at or about
\n4.30 P.M.  to tend  the cattle. A little later A1 to A6 came
\nthere armed  with various weapons like knife, spear and axe.
\nReaching there\tA1 hacked Buchi Reddi with a knife. This was
\nfollowed by  an assault\t on him\t by  A2\t to  A6\t with  their
\nrespective weapons  resulting in  his  instantaneous  death.
\nSeeing the  assault P.W.2  (Subbella Venkata  Reddi) who was
\nstanding at  a little  distance\t started  shouting.  In\t the
\nmeantime, when\tP.W.1 had  attempted to\t run away  from\t the
\nplace out  of fear, A1 aimed a blow on hi head with a knife.
\nWhen he\t tried to  ward off  the blow  it landed  on hi left
\npalm. A2  made a  similar attempt  with a  spear on his neck
\nwhich also  he warded  off causing injuries on his thumb and
\nindex finger.  A3 also\thacked him  with a battle axe on his
\nleft thigh.  On being  so assaulted  he\t fell  down  on\t the
\nadjacent sugar\tfield. Then  P.Ws. 3 and 4 ran away from the
\nfield as also A1 to A6.\n<\/p>\n
(c) P.W.2  gave first aid to P.W.1 by tying his Lungi on his
\nleft palm  and then  left for  the village  to inform  P.W.5
\n(Tadi Satyanarayana  Reddi), father-in-law  of P.W.1.  P.W.5
\ncame  there   and,   having   found   P.W.1   groaning\t and
\nunconsciously, went  back to the village to fetch a bullock-
\ncart. In  that car  P.W.1 was  taken to\t and admitted in the
\nGovernment  Hospital,\tKakinada,  where   P.W.10  (Dr.\t  K.
\nSudhakara Reddy) examined him and attended to his injuries.\n<\/p>\n
(d) After  regaining consciousness  in the following morning
\nP.W.1 narrated\tthe incident  to P.W.  11 (Md. Khasim), Head
\nConstable foe  Kakinada Town Police Station, who was present
\nin the\thospital. P.W.\t11 reduced  the statement in writing
\n(Ext. P-11)  and forwarded  it to  the Officer-in-Charge  of
\nRayavaram police  station,  within  whose  jurisdiction\t the
\nincident had taken place.\n<\/p>\n
(e) On\treceipt of  Ext. P-11,\tP.W.14 (K.  Nookaraju), Head
\nConstable of  Rayavaram Police Station registered a case and
\nP.W.15 (K.  Veera Bhadrarao), the Circle Inspector of Police
\ntook up investigation. He went to the scene of offence at or
\nabout 2\t P.M. and  held inquest\t over the dead body of Buchi
\nReddi which  was still\tlying there.  He their forwarded the
\ndead body  to Government Hospital, Ramchandrapuram for Post-
\nmortem examination.\n<\/p>\n
(f) P.W.9 (Dr. D.D. Prasada Rao), Civil Asst. Surgeon of the
\nhospital  held the autopsy and found 18 external injuries as
\nalso some internal injuries.\n<\/p>\n
(g) On\tcompletion of  investigation PW. 15 submitted charge
\nsheet in  the case  and in due course the case was committed
\nto the Court or Session.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  To prove its case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses
\nof whom P.Ws 1 to 4 figured as eye witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The  appellants  pleaded  not  guilty  to\tthe  charges
\nlevelled against  them and  contended that they were falsely
\nimplicated due\tto family  disputes. In\t their defence\tthey
\nexamined seven witnesses to prove the following facts: D.W.1
\n(K, Satyam),  Mandal Revenue Office, Rayavaram had addressed
\na letter (Ext. D.12) to the Station House Officer, Rayavaram
\nPolice\tStation\t on  August  1,\t 1992  intimating  that\t the
\nincident  had\ttaken  place   on  the\tpathway\t leading  to
\nMachavaram village (not near the cattle shed of the deceased
\nas   alleged\tby   the   prosecution);   D.W.2   (Velagala
\nSatyanarayana Reddy), owner of a rice mill at Machavaram and
\nD.W.3 (Boda  Suryarao), a  clerk of  that mill to prove that
\nP.W.4’s claim  that he\thad seen  the incident was false for
\nhe  was\t  working  in  the  rice  mill\tat  that  time.\t The
\nattendance-cum-wage register  (Ext. D-14)  of the  mill\t was
\nexhibited by  D.W.3 in corroboration of that fact; D.W.6 (V.
\nSuryanarayana), an  Assistant Labour  Officer and D.W.7 (Ch.
\nKishan), a Factory Inspector had seen the above register and
\nsigned the  same in token of its genuineness; and D.W.4 (Dr.
\nV. Satyadev),  Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics and D.W.5
\n(R. Pratap),  an Anaesthetist,\tboth of Government Hospital,
\nKakinada to  prove that\t P.W.1 was  conscious throughout the
\nnight between  July 31\tand August  1 and that he was in the
\noperation table\t between the  hours 7 A.M. to 10 A.M. on the
\nfollowing morning,  (which necessarily\tmeant that statement
\nof P.W. 1 could have been recorded in the previous night but
\nnot on\tthe following  morning at  9.30\t A.M.,\tas  was\t the
\nprosecution case).\n<\/p>\n
5.   From the  judgment\t of  the  trial\t Court,\t which\truns
\nthrough 120  pages, we find that after a detailed discussion
\nof the\tentire evidence\t adduced by the parties in the light
\nof the\tdiverse\t arguments  canvassed  on  their  behalf  to
\nestablish their\t respective cases, it held that the evidence
\nof P.Ws.  1 to\t4  was\ttrustworthy  and  that\tthe  medical
\nevidence fully\tcorroborated their ocular version. The other
\nreasons which  weighed with  it to  accept the\tevidence  of
\nP.W.1 – and for that matter the prosecution case – were that
\nthe injuries  found on\this  person  by\t P.W.10\t proved\t his
\npresence at  the time of the incident and that he lodged the
\nF.I.R detailing\t the substratum\t of the\t prosecution case at
\nthe earliest available opportunity. In arriving at the above
\nconclusions the trial Court observed that the entries in the
\nhospital record\t on the basis of which D.Ws. 4 & 5 testified
\nwere wholly unreliable; that the evidence adduced by defence
\nto   prove that\t P.W.4 was  working in\tthe rice mill at the
\nmaterial time was unacceptable; and that the report (Ext. D-\n<\/p>\n
12)  sent  by  D.W.1  did  not\tin  any\t way  discredit\t the
\nprosecution version as regards the place of incident.\n<\/p>\n
6.   In disposing  of the  appeal in  the  manner  indicated
\nearlier the  High Court concurred with the reasons canvassed
\nby the\ttrial Court  for not  placing any  reliance  on\t the
\nevidence of  the defence witnesses. Besides, it accepted the
\nclaim of  P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they witnessed the incident. In
\nspite thereof,\tthe High  Court found  it unsafe  to rely on
\ntheir evidence\tso far as it sought to implicate A3 to A6 in
\nthe murder  of Buchi Reddi principally on the ground that in
\nthe F.I.R,  P.W.1 had  not stated  about the manner in which
\nthey assaulted\tthe deceased  though he had stated about the
\nspecific overt acts of A1 and A2 in the murder. According to
\nthe High  Court, non-disclosure\t of such  details led to the
\nirresistible conclusion\t that either  P.W.1 had not seen the
\nparticipation of  A3 to\t  A6  in the  attack or\t that he had
\nimproved his  version while  tendering evidence in the Court
\nby attributing\tspecific overt\tacts to A3 to A6 as well. So
\nfar as\tP.W.2 is  concerned the\t High  Court  observed\tthat
\nthough they  were not  persuaded to  think  that  he  was  a
\nplanted\t witness   and\the  would  not\thave  witnessed\t the
\noccurrence at all, still then, it was not expected of him to
\nsee from  a distance of about 60 feet as to the actual parts
\nplayed by each of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The evidence  of P.Ws.  3 and  4 was disbelieved by the
\nHigh Court  firstly on\tthe ground  that in the F.I.R. P.W.1
\nstated only  in general\t terms that coolies were working but
\nhe did\tnot give  the names  of P.Ws. 3 and 4 as the coolies
\nnor did\t he state that they witnessed the incident. The next
\nground was  that the  incident took  place between  6.30 and
\n7.00 P.M.  when darkness  had set in and not at 5.00 or 5.30
\np.m. as\t alleged by  the prosecution  and it was, therefore,
\ndoubtful whether agricultural labours would still be working
\nat that\t time to remove the weeds. The steps of reasoning of
\nthe High  Court in  fixing the\ttime of\t the incident are as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
     “He (P.W.1)  was  admitted\t in  the
\n     hospital at 10.30 P.M. according to
\n     P.Ws. 2,  5, and  10. The\tdistance
\n     between Machavaram\t and Kakinada is
\n     about 35 KMs. According to P.W. 15,
\n     he took  45 minutes  to travel in a
\n     jeep. According  to P.W.2, the taxi
\n     was  brought  at  about  6-30  P.M.
\n     P.W.5 stated  that\t it  took  about
\n     1,1\/2  hours   to\treach  Kakinada.
\n     According to P.W.1, they started to
\n     Kakinada by  about 7-30  P.M.  Even
\n     then there is an unexplained gap of
\n     2 to 2, 1\/2 hours, according to the
\n     learned counsel  for the appellant.
\n     It\t is   true  that   there  is  an
\n     unexplained gap  of at least 1, 1\/2
\n     hours if  not  2,\t1\/2  hours  even
\n     after giving  allowance to the fact
\n     that the  villagers  may  not  have
\n     good time\tsense. The  journey from
\n     Machavaram to  Kakinada  could  not
\n     have  taken   more\t than  an  hour.
\n     Considering   all\t  the\trelevant
\n     circumstances, we\tare of\tthe view
\n     that  the\tincident  did  not  take
\n     place either  at 5\t or 5-30 P.M. as
\n     stated by\tthe prosecution\t but  it
\n     should have  taken place between 6-
\n     30\t and  7-00  P.M.  most\tprobably
\n     after sun-set.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Lastly,  the   High  Court\t  observed  that  there\t was
\ncontradiction between  their evidence and that of P.W. 15 as
\nto the time when their statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C.
\nwere  recorded\tand  that  there  were\tsome  contradictions
\nbetween\t their\tdepositions  in\t Court\tand  the  statements
\nrecorded during investigation.\n<\/p>\n
9.   After having  discussed the  evidence of the above four
\neye witnesses  the High\t Court drew the following conclusion
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The  net\t result\t of   the  above
\n     discussion\t is   that  amongst  the
\n     alleged   eye-witnesses,\twe   are
\n     inclined to  think that P.Ws. 1 and
\n     2 did  witness the\t occurrence  and
\n     there is nothing to discredit their
\n     testimony as  a whole.  However, in
\n     view of  the partisan nature of the
\n     evidence of these two witnesses and
\n     the    improbability    of\t   P.W.2
\n     observing the details of the attack
\n     against the  deceased and P.W.1, we
\n     feel  it  safe  to\t rely  on  their
\n     evidence to  the extent it receives
\n     corroboration from the statement of
\n     P.W.1  (Ex.   P-1)\t made\tat   the
\n     earliest opportunity.  In Ex.  P-1,
\n     specific overt acts were attributed
\n     to A-1 and A-2 as far as the attack
\n     on P.W.1  is  concerned.  The  said
\n     evidence is  in conformity with the
\n     medical evidence………..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.  On perusal of the record we are constrained to say that
\neach of\t the reasons  given by\tthe High Court for recording
\nthe order  of acquittal\t on favour  of A3  to A6 is patently
\nwrong. That apart, some of the observations made by the High
\nCourt  in  that\t regard\t stand\tcontradicted  by  its  other
\nobservations. For example, having observed that it was quite
\naware of  the fact  that P.W.1\twas severely  injured and he
\nmight not  have been  in a  mood to  narrate the incident in
\ngreat details  the High\t Court could  not have\texpected  of
\nP.W.1 –\t nor was  it necessary – to give the graphic details
\nof the\troles played  by each  of the accused in the murder.
\nWhile on  this point  it will  be pertinent  to refer to the
\nstatements made\t therein. After giving the background of the
\nenmity between\ttheir family  and that\tof the accused P.W.1
\nstated that  on July 31, 1992 at or about 5.00 P.M. when he,
\nhis father  and coolies\t were in their field the six accused
\npersons came there armed with knives and spears and suddenly
\nattacked his  father. A1 hacked him with a knife on the head
\nand A2\twith a\tspear on the neck and then the other accused
\nassaulted  him\t (the  deceased)   with\t knives\t and  spears
\nindiscriminately. This was followed by a statement as to the
\nmanner of  assault on  him by some of the accused. Lastly he
\nstated that  P.W.2 witnessed  the  incident  and  P.W.4\t had
\nbrought him to the hospital. It would thus b e seen that all
\nmaterial facts\trelating to  the incident  find place in the
\nF.I.R.; and,  therefore, the  High  Court  was\tnot  at\t all
\njustified in  brushing aside  the prosecution case regarding
\nparticipation of  A3 to\t A6 in the murder on the sole ground
\nthat  the  manner  in  which  they  actually  assaulted\t the
\ndeceased was  not mentioned therein. Absence of the names of
\nA3 and\tA4 in  the F.I.R. should not also have been made one
\nof the\tgrounds\t to  discard  that;  evidence  when  it\t was
\nspecifically mentioned\ttherein that  coolies  were  working
\nwith them  in their  field at the time of the assault (which
\nnecessarily meant  that they were witnesses to the incident)
\nand  when   admittedly\tP.Ws.  3  and  4  work\tas  collies,
\nIncidentally, it  may be  mentioned that  name of P.W.4 does
\nfind place  in the  F.I.R.(as noticed earlier) as the person
\nwho took P.W.1 to the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
11.  As regards\t the finding  of the  High  Court  that\t the
\nincident took  place between  6.30 and\t7.00 P.M. and not at
\n5.00 P.M.  or 5.30  P.M. the  same is  contradictory to\t its
\nother finding.\tHaving accepted\t the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and
\n2, who\tcategorically stated that the incident took place at
\n5.00 or\t 5.30 P.M.  and, relying thereupon, having convicted
\nA1, A2\tand A3\t(for assaulting\t P.W.1) the High Court could
\nnot have  concluded that it took place between 6.30 and 7.00
\nP.M. That apart, when read in the context of the evidence of
\nP.W.2 and  P.W.5 regarding  the sequence  of events  and the
\nsense of  time of  Unsophisticated villagers (which the High
\nCourt itself  noticed)\tthe  reasoning\tof  the\t High  Court
\n(quoted earlier)  to draw  the above  conclusion  is  wholly
\nunsustainable. According  to the  above witnesses, after the
\nincident took  place P.W.2  first went\tto  the\t village  to
\ninform\tP.W.5,\tfather-in-law  of  P.W.1.  On  getting\tthat
\ninformation P.W.5  came to  the spot  and  having  seen\t the
\ncondition of P.W.1 went back to the village to fetch a cart.
\nWith the  cart he came back again to the place of occurrence
\nand took  P.W.1 to  his house  in the village. Thereafter he
\nand P.W.2  went on  bicycle up to a bridge and after keeping
\ntheir bicycle  there went  to Ramachandrapuram taxi stand to
\nhire a taxi. They brought the taxi to the house of P.W.1 and
\nthen took  P.W.1  to  Kakinada\tGovernment  Hospital  which,
\naccording to  P.W.15 was  at a\tdistance of 35 Kms, and took
\nhim 45\tminutes to reach in a jeep. When the above facts are
\ntaken into  consideration the  conclusion is inevitable that
\nthe prosecution story that the incident took place either at
\n5.00 or\t 5.30 P.M. cannot be doubted nor can it be said with
\nprecision that there was an unexplained gap of at least 1 to
\n1 1\/2  hours. Even if there was such an unexplained gap, the
\nHigh Court  could not have  by back calculation, refixed the
\ntime of\t the incident  at 6.30 P.M. or 7 P.M. (after sunset)
\nwhich was  not even the case of the defence during trial. In
\nview of this discussion of ours the other reason of the High
\nCourt to  disbelieved P.W.3  and P.W.4\tthat as agricultural
\nlabour they were not expected to work after sunset cannot be
\nsupported also.\n<\/p>\n
12.  Now that  we have\tfound that  none of  the grounds put
\nforward by  the\t High Court to discard the evidence of P.W.3
\nand 4  altogether and  to acquit  A3 to\t A6 of the charge of
\nmurder cannot  at all be sustained, we have to look into the
\nevidence on  record to\tascertain whether the convictions of
\nA1 for\tthe murder  and assault on P.W.1, acquittal of A3 of
\nthe offence  of murder\tand of A4 to A6 of both the offences
\nare justified. Coming first to the evidence of P.W.1 we find
\nthat he has narrated the entire prosecution case as detailed
\nearlier. Next,\tthe unimpeachable  evidence of\tP.W.10,\t who
\nexamined him  at the Kakinada Hospital at 10.50 P.M. on July
\n31, 1992  proves that  he had  six injuries  on his  person.
\nP.W.10 opined  that all\t the injuries  were fresh and one of
\nthem (injuries No. 6) was grievous. According to him some of
\nthe injuries  could be caused by axe and knife. The injuries
\nfound on  the person  of P.W.1\tfully supports\this claim of
\nhaving been  present at the scene of offence. Then again, in
\nview of\t the concurrent\t finding of the learned Courts below
\nthat the  evidence adduced  by\tthe  two  doctors  who\twere
\nexamined as  defence witnesses, namely D.W.4 and D.W.5 could
\nnot be relied upon – a finding with which we are in complete
\nagreement –  it must  be said  that the F.I.R. was lodged at
\nthe  earliest\tavailable  opportunity.\t  This\tis   another
\ncircumstance to corroborate the evidence P.W.1. In assailing
\nhis evidence  Mr. Lalit, appearing for A1, urged that having
\ndisbelieved his evidence so far as it sought to implicate A3
\nto A6,\tthe High Court ought not to have placed any reliance
\nupon his  evidence to  convict A1.  This contention  of\t Mr.
\nLalit also  drew our attention to some contradictions in his
\nevidence. To  eschew prolixity\twe  refrain  from  detailing
\nthose contradictions as they are minor contradictions and do
\nnot in any way distract from his credibility.\n<\/p>\n
13.  The evidence of other three witnesses, namely P.Ws.2, 3
\nand 4  fully support  that of P.W.1 and inspite of searching
\ncross examination the defence could not make a dent in their
\nevidence to  discredit them.  The evidence  of the  four eye
\nwitnesses clearly  establishes that the accused persons came
\nthere  armed   with  various   weapons\tand   all  of\tthem
\nparticipated in\t the murder  of Buchi  Reddy. 18 injuries of
\ndifferent nature,  shapes and sizes all over his body, which
\nresulted in his immediate death, as testified by P.W.9, go a
\nlong way  to support the version of all the eye witnesses as
\nto the\tmanner in  which the  assault took  place. Taking an
\nover all  view of  the entire  evidence on record we find no
\nhesitation in  concluding that\tthe murder  was committed by
\nall the\t accused persons  in  furtherance  of  their  common
\nintention. That necessarily means that A1, A3, A4 and A6 are
\nliable\tfor   conviction   under   Section   302\/34   I.P.C.
\nAccordingly, we\t uphold the  conviction and  sentence of  A1
\nunder Section  302\/34 I.P.C.  and, after  setting aside\t the
\nacquittal of A3 to A6 of the above offence convict them also
\nunder Section  302\/34 I.P.C. For the conviction each of them
\nshall suffer  imprisonment for\tlife. The  convictions of A1
\nand A3 under Section 326 and 324 I.P.C. respectively for the
\nassault on  A1 and  the sentences  imposed upon them for the
\nabove  convictions   by\t the  High  Court  will\t stand.\t The
\nsentences of A1 and A3 shall run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
14.  On the  conclusions as above we dismiss Criminal Appeal
\nNo. 343\t of 1997  and allow  Criminal Appeal Nos. 336-337 of
\n1997  to  the  extent  indicated  above.  Let  A3  (Goluguri
\nAdireddy). A4  (Kovvuri Surreddy  @ Suryanarayana Reddy), A5
\n(Kovvuri Subbareddy)  and A6 (Sathi Satyanarayana Reddy) b e
\n,.M?btaken into\t custody to  serve  out\t the  sentences\t now
\nimposed upon  them for their conviction under Section 302\/34
\nI.P.C.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara … vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri … on 3 March, 1998 Author: M Mukherjee Bench: M.K. Mukherjee, Syed Shah Quadri. PETITIONER: KOVVURI SURYA BHASKARA REDDYSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHGOLUGURI ADIREDDY & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/03\/1998 BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI. […]<\/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-77081","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKovvuri Surya Bhaskara ... vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri ... on 3 March, 1998 - 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\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara ... vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri ... on 3 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-11T06:21:01+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara … vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri … on 3 March, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-11T06:21:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3634,\"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\\\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998\",\"name\":\"Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara ... vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri ... on 3 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-11T06:21:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara … vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri … on 3 March, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara ... vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri ... on 3 March, 1998 - 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\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara ... vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri ... on 3 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-11T06:21:01+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara … vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri … on 3 March, 1998","datePublished":"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-11T06:21:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998"},"wordCount":3634,"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\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998","name":"Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara ... vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri ... on 3 March, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-11T06:21:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kovvuri-surya-bhaskara-vs-state-of-andhra-pradeshgoluguri-on-3-march-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kovvuri Surya Bhaskara … vs State Of Andhra Pradeshgoluguri … on 3 March, 1998"}]},{"@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\/77081","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=77081"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77081\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77081"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77081"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77081"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}