{"id":79161,"date":"1997-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997"},"modified":"2015-05-10T09:57:24","modified_gmt":"2015-05-10T04:27:24","slug":"d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997","title":{"rendered":"D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.N. Ray, G.R. Pattanaik<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nD.V. SHANMUGHAM &amp; ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t25\/04\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nG.N. RAY, G.R. PATTANAIK\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/603319\/\">Present<br \/>\nHon&#8217;bleMr. Justice G.N. Ray<br \/>\nHon&#8217;bleMr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik<br \/>\nK. Parasaran,  Sr. Adv., V. Krishnamurthy, Adv.with<\/a> him for<br \/>\nthe appellants<br \/>\nMrs. K. Amreshwari, Sr.\t Adv.,G.  Prabhakar, Adv. with her<br \/>\nfor theRespondent<br \/>\n     The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:<br \/>\n      JU D G ME N T<br \/>\nPATTANAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appealis directed against thejudgment of theHigh<br \/>\nCourt of  Andhra Pradesh  dated15th April, 1994 in Criminal<br \/>\nAppeal no.  695of 1993arisingout of SessionsCase No. 251<br \/>\nof having  committed several  offences and weretried by the<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions  Judge,  Chittoor  at  Tirupati  and  by<br \/>\njudgment dated9th July,\t 1993all  ofthem  were convicted<br \/>\nunder different sections of  the penal Code. All  ofthem<br \/>\nexcept A-2 wereconvicted underSection302\/149IPC andwere<br \/>\nsentenced to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted<br \/>\nunder Section  148 andsentenced to  imprisonment  for one<br \/>\nyear,  under   section307\/149  theywere\t  sentenced  to<br \/>\nimprisonment for  five years  and underSection324\/149were<br \/>\nsentenced to  imprisonment forone year,\t all the sentences<br \/>\nhave been  directed torun concurrently.\t A-2 was convicted<br \/>\nunder Section 302 for causing murder ofMohan and Sekhar and<br \/>\nwas sentenced  to imprisonmentfor  life,  convicted  under<br \/>\nSection307  and sentenced  or rigorous imprisonment for\t 5<br \/>\nyears and a fine of  Rs. 200\/- in a default imprisonment for<br \/>\n2 months  convicted under  Section 324IPC andsentenced to<br \/>\nimprisonment of one year,  and324\/149IPC andsentenced to<br \/>\nimprisonment for one year, sentences torun concurrently. In<br \/>\nappeal,the  High Court by the impugned judgment set aside<br \/>\nthe conviction of accused Nos. 3, 4 and5 and acquittedthem<br \/>\nof allthe charges.  The HighCourt  Also\t set  aside the<br \/>\nConviction andsentence of  accused No.\t1  under  Sections<br \/>\n148,307\/149 and 324\/149 IPC.  His conviction  under Section<br \/>\n302\/149 was  modifiedto\t one undersection 302\/34 and<br \/>\nsentence  of   imprisonment  for  lifewas  confirmed. His<br \/>\nconviction under  Section 324  for causing  hurt to PW-2 was<br \/>\nalso maintained.  so far  as accused  no. 2 is concerned the<br \/>\nHigh Court  confirmed the  conviction and sentence passed by<br \/>\nthe learned  Sessions Judge  for the  offence under Sections<br \/>\n302 and 307 IPC.  His conviction  under\t Sections  148 and<br \/>\n324\/149and thesentence passedthereunder was set aside and<br \/>\nthus the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The prosecution  case  innutshell\tis  that  all the<br \/>\naccused persons\t belong\t to  village  Dasarimatam  and the<br \/>\ncomplainant party  belong to the same village. Some incident<br \/>\nhad happened  between the  two groups  on 6th  May, 1990  in<br \/>\nrespectof  which a  complainant had  been lodged by accused<br \/>\nNo.1. on  account of  the Same there was ill feeling between<br \/>\nthe two groupsand  on the  date\t ofoccurrence  on22nd<br \/>\nSeptember, 1990at 8.00P.M. when one Natarajanwas coughing<br \/>\non account of his feverthe accused No.1 was passing bythat<br \/>\nroad on his scooter.  He tookthis to be a  taunting, and<br \/>\ntherefore, brought  hisbrother accused No.2  and picked up<br \/>\nquarreland challenged him. Said Natarajan was a relation of<br \/>\nthe  complainant.   Shortly  thereafter\t at  10\t  P.m. the<br \/>\ncomplainant PW1 and  the deceased  &#8211; Mohan  were returning<br \/>\nfrom a theatre and whenthey had reached the house of one V.<br \/>\nMurli the  fiveaccused persons formed themselves into  an<br \/>\nunlawful assembly  andattacked\tthe  complainant  and the<br \/>\ndeceased with deadly weapons. While accused No.1 caughthold<br \/>\nof deceased-Mohan  accused No.2 stabbed him with a knife on<br \/>\nthe  abdomen   and  Mohan   fell  down wounded.\t When the<br \/>\ncomplainant, PW-1  intervened he  was also  stabbed with   a<br \/>\nknife by  accused No.2on hisleft hand  and accusedNo.1<br \/>\ndealt a blow with  a stick  onthe  right hand.\tPW-1then<br \/>\nraised an  alarm and  on hearing  the  cries  his  relatives<br \/>\nincluding Sekhar who isthe other deceased cameout of their<br \/>\nhouses and  rushed towards  Mohan. Thefive accused persons<br \/>\nthen also  attacked these  people  andwhile  accusedNo.3<br \/>\ncaught hold  ofSekhar, accused No.2 stabbed him with knife<br \/>\non hisabdomen and  caused  fatal  injury.  These  accused<br \/>\npersonsmore  particularly accused  No.4 and 5 hurled stones<br \/>\nwhich caused  injury tothe member of the complainant group.<br \/>\nAccusedNo.1 also stabbed one Ravi Kumar with aknife on his<br \/>\nleft elbow,  asa  result  of  which  said  Ravi\t Kumar was<br \/>\ninjured. The  injured persons were taken to thehospital for<br \/>\ntreatment and  Mohan died  during the midnight on account of<br \/>\nshock and  haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained<br \/>\nby him. The sub-Inspector  of Police, East PS,on receiving<br \/>\nthe information about the  incident rushed  tothe hospital<br \/>\nand recorded the statement of injured Sekhar at5 a.m. on 23<br \/>\nrd  September,1990  and\t Sekhar\t ultimately  died  in the<br \/>\nHospital on  24th September,  1990  p.m.  On  the  basis  of<br \/>\ninformation given by PW-1 the investigation proceeded and on<br \/>\ncompletion  ofinvestigation  charge  sheet  was\t submitted<br \/>\nagainstthe  five accused  persons as  already stated and on<br \/>\nbeing committedthey stood their trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The prosecution  to establish  thecharges against the<br \/>\naccused persons\t examined  asmany  as  23  witnesses and<br \/>\nexhibited a  large number  of documents. The defence did not<br \/>\nexamine any   witnessbut   exhibited several   documents<br \/>\nincluding the former statementsof the prosecution witnesses<br \/>\nrecorded underSection161   Cr.P.C.  for\t the purpose  of<br \/>\ncontradicting them  during thecourse of\t their examination<br \/>\nduring trial.  The learned  Sessions Judge  on scanning the<br \/>\nevidence  on   record  came   to  the  conclusion  that the<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses  are reliable  and basing upon  their<br \/>\ntestimony convicted  the accused  persons and sentencedthem<br \/>\nas already  stated. The High Court,  however, in the appeal<br \/>\nreappreciated the  evidence led by theprosecution andcame<br \/>\nto theconclusion that the prosecution  has been\t able  to<br \/>\nestablish the  charge beyond reasonabledoubt with regard to<br \/>\nthe role  played by  accused No.1 and 2for causing injuries<br \/>\nto deceased  &#8211; Mohan  on account  of which  Mohan ultimately<br \/>\ndied. But so far as theinjuries causedon Sekhar though the<br \/>\nprosecution hasbeen able to establish the roledescribed by<br \/>\naccusedNo.2  on that score butthe role ascribed to accused<br \/>\nNo.3 and  5 have  not  been  established  beyond  reasonable<br \/>\ndoubt. In otherwords, the HighCourt discardedthe evidence<br \/>\nof the eye-witnesses sofar as they ascribed different parts<br \/>\nplayed by  accused No.3,  4 and 5 in  formingthe  alleged<br \/>\nunlawful assembly  and in  assaulting  the complainant party<br \/>\nessentially because  none of  them in their earliest version<br \/>\nto thepolice and  implicated these accused persons. Having<br \/>\ncome to the aforesaidconclusion theHigh Court heldthat<br \/>\nnone of the charges  against accused  No.3, 4 and  5 can be<br \/>\nsaid tohave been established by the prosecution and assuch<br \/>\nthey were  acquitted of the charges.  But relying  upon the<br \/>\nevidence of  the self-same  prosecutionwitnesses  theHigh<br \/>\nCourtcame tohold that  the role ascribed toaccusedNo.1<br \/>\nand 2  in causing  injuries on deceasedMohan and Sekhar may<br \/>\nbe held to have\t been established  beyond reasonable doubt,<br \/>\nand therefore, convicted A-2 under Section 302 IPC and A-1<br \/>\nunder Section  302\/34 IPC.  TheHigh  Court  also  convicted<br \/>\nthese accused 1and 2 who are the  appellants in this appeal<br \/>\nunder Section  324 IPC of  causing hurt\t to PW-2  andPW-1<br \/>\nrespectively  and   further  convictedaccused No.2  under<br \/>\nSection307 IPCfor attempting to commit the murder of PW-7.<br \/>\nIt may be stated that the High Court gave a positive finding<br \/>\non reappreciating  the evidencethat accused No.4 and 5have<br \/>\nnot Pelted  stones as  narratedby the prosecution witnesses<br \/>\nan this finding will  have vital  bearing in  deciding the<br \/>\npresentcriminal\t appeal. It  may alsobe stated\tthat the<br \/>\nstate has  not preferred any appeal against theacquittal of<br \/>\naccusedNo.3,  4 and  5which  order of acquittal hasthus<br \/>\nbecome final.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. K.  Parasaran,the learned senior counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the two appellants arguedwith  emphasis that no doubt<br \/>\ntwo persons  Mohan andSekhar have  died in  the course\tof<br \/>\noccurrence butthe prosecution story as unfolded through a<br \/>\nnumber of  prosecution witnesses  who are  alleged to be the<br \/>\neye-witnesses to  the occurrence  is not the correct version<br \/>\nand theprosecution is guilty of suppressing the genesis and<br \/>\nthe origin  of the occurrence in asmuchas no explanation has<br \/>\nbeen  offeredfor  the\tinjuries  sustainedby  the two<br \/>\nappellants  as well  as\t their\tfather\tSubramanium,more<br \/>\nparticularly, the  injuries onthe head of accused  No.1 on<br \/>\naccountof  which the said accused had multiplestitches and<br \/>\nwas required  to be  removed toNeurological Surgical Centre<br \/>\nand the injuryis  grievous in nature,  Mr.  K.\tParasaran<br \/>\nfurtherarguedthat  the\tprosecutionis  also  guilty  of<br \/>\nshifting  theplace  of\t occurrencein  asmuchas\t though<br \/>\naccording  tothe  prosecution\twitnesses  the\t incident<br \/>\nincluding the  stabbingof  Mohan and  Sekhar took  place in<br \/>\nfront of  the house of accused Murli but the blood and blood<br \/>\nstainedstone could be recovered from the Veranda of one Mr.<br \/>\nReddy which  isfar away from the houseof accused Murli and<br \/>\nthe prosecution is totally  silent as to how such blood and<br \/>\nblood stained  stone could  be recovered from the Veranda of<br \/>\nShri Reddy.  Mr. K  Parasaran also  contented that  all the<br \/>\nprosecution eye-witnesses are related to each other andthey<br \/>\nhave repeated  the version  in the  same mannerand theonly<br \/>\nindependent witness  PW-10 didnot support  the prosecution<br \/>\ncase atall andin suchcircumstances when other independent<br \/>\nwitnesses wereavailable as  narratedby\tthe prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses  themselves, non-examination\t ofsuch\t  other<br \/>\nindependent witnesses availableaffectsthe prosecutioncase<br \/>\nalso. Mr.  K. Parasaran, lastlyurged that the role ascribed<br \/>\nto accused  No.1 and  accused No.3  being  identical  namely<br \/>\naccusedNo.1  caught hold of Mohan whenaccusedNo.2 stabbed<br \/>\nMohan and  accused No.3 caughthold  of Sekharwhen accused<br \/>\nNo.2 stabbed Sekhar andthe High Court having Re-appreciated<br \/>\nthe evidence  has already  rejected the same so\t far as the<br \/>\nrole  ascribedto  accused  No.3\t is  concerned,\t thesame<br \/>\ninfirmities m  relationto the role ascribed toaccusedNo.1<br \/>\nalso vitiates  the ultimate  conclusionof the High Court in<br \/>\nconvicting accused  No.1 and the accused No.1 is entitled to<br \/>\nget benefit  ofdoubt  .\t Mrs.Amreshwari,  learned  senior<br \/>\ncounselappearing  for the state on theother hand contended<br \/>\nthat when  two courts  of facthave already appreciated the<br \/>\nevidence and  have recorded  their conclusion  to the effect<br \/>\nthat the  prosecution has been able to establish the charges<br \/>\nagainstaccusedno. 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt it would<br \/>\nnot beproper for  thecourt  to interfere  with\tthesame<br \/>\nconclusion in  exerciseof  power under Section 136  of the<br \/>\nConstitution more  particularlywhen  two precious lifehave<br \/>\nbeen lost.  Thelearned counsel also  urged that it istrue<br \/>\nthat prosecution  has not  beenable  to explain injuries on<br \/>\nthe accused  persons but  the said  question has  alsobeen<br \/>\nconsidered by  the High Court and  yetin viewof the clear<br \/>\nagent evidenceof theprosecution witnesses  when theHigh<br \/>\ncourt has  convicted the  two accused persons. the sameneed<br \/>\nnot beinterfered with by this  Court.  According  to the<br \/>\nlearnedcounsel the substratum of thecase isthat accused<br \/>\nNo.1 caught  hold of  Mohan when  accused No.2 stabbed Mohan<br \/>\nwith the  knifeat  hisabdomen has been\tfully established<br \/>\nthroughthe  several  witnesses who  themselves\thavebeen<br \/>\ninjuredin  the Course of  incident,and\ttherefore, the<br \/>\nconviction of  the twoappellants maintained  by\t theHigh<br \/>\nCourt need  not be  interfered with  by\t this CourtMrs.<br \/>\nAmreshwari, however,  in her ultimate submission statedthat<br \/>\nthough accusedNo.1 may\tbe entitled to benefit of doubt by<br \/>\napplying the  same reasoning and the same infirmities in the<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses  on  which  accused  No.3\t hadbeen<br \/>\nacquitted,  but\t so  far  as  accusedNo.2  is  concerned,<br \/>\nconviction being  basedupon  clear and cogentevidence the<br \/>\nsame cannot be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Coming  to the  questionof\t non-explanation  of the<br \/>\ninjuries on  the accused,  it appears  from  Exhibit  D-6  ,<br \/>\nPrivate WoundCertificate  the  accused\tappellant  No.\t1<br \/>\nsustained  a  lacerated injury of  5&#215;1\/2  cmon\tparietal<br \/>\neminence-clot formed  and  wasadmitted\tin  MS\tIII  under<br \/>\nNeurosurgery ward  but discharged against the medical advice<br \/>\nand the said injury  is grievous  in nature but mighthave<br \/>\nbeen caused  byblunt  object. It is also clearfrom Exhibit<br \/>\nP-10 issued  by Dr.  S.\t Koteswara  Rao,  Casualty  Medical<br \/>\nofficerof  thehospital at Tirupati that the appellantNo.1<br \/>\nwas dischargedfrom the hospital on 24.4.1990 at 10 p.m. to<br \/>\nget treatment  for Neurosurgery care at\t higher centre. The<br \/>\nDoctor (PW-15) in his evidence stated :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;A-1 was  examined by  me on  the<br \/>\n     requisition  sent by  East\t  P.S.<br \/>\n     Tirupati on  23.9.90. TheA-1  was<br \/>\n     sent to the hospital with an escort<br \/>\n     of fivepolice constables.\t I<br \/>\n     examined A-1  on 23.3.1990 at 4.45<br \/>\n     a.m. As  per accident  register A-1<br \/>\n     told me  at that  time that  he was<br \/>\n     assaulted with  iron  rods,  sticks<br \/>\n     and chains.  I  found  a  lacerated<br \/>\n     injury  5X\t 1\/2  cms.   On\t  right<br \/>\n     parietal eminence. Blood clot were<br \/>\n     found. X-ray  was also  taken.  A-1<br \/>\n     was admitted  in M.B.3  ward  under<br \/>\n     Neurosurgeon. Theinjury found  on<br \/>\n     A-1 was  grievous and  there are 12<br \/>\n     and  13   stitches and  after  the<br \/>\n     receipt of the said injury to A-1,<br \/>\n     heshould have profused bleeding.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Exhibit D-11  is the  certificategiven  by\t thesaid<br \/>\nDoctor indicating  thaton 5.10.1990 the accused &#8211; appellant<br \/>\nNo.1 attended  the hospital  for sutureremovaland dressing<br \/>\nand even on that date the woundwas notcompletely healed up<br \/>\nand according to Doctor. It would take another one month for<br \/>\nhealing. The aforesaid injury on accused &#8211; appellant No.1 on<br \/>\nvital part  of the bodyis undoubtedly a grievous injury and<br \/>\nthe injured  must have profusedbleeding as stated by PW-15.<br \/>\nThe accused-  appellantNo.2  had  sustained  the  following<br \/>\ninjuries as  isapparent\t from ExhibitD-7, which\t was the<br \/>\ncertificate  Issued by PW-15:\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;1.  Multiple    abrasions\t   with<br \/>\n     swelling of  2&#215;1 cm.      Size over<br \/>\n     right eye.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.\t Rightblack eye present.\n<\/p>\n<p>     3.\t Swelling of  right Molar  bone<br \/>\n     present.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     PW-15 in his evidence alsostated:\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;The samepolicebrought A-2\t at<br \/>\n     4.45  a.m.\t and  examined him  on<br \/>\n     police requisition.  He  identified<br \/>\n     A-2  Comparing  his  identification<br \/>\n     marks. A-2 also stated  before  me<br \/>\n     that he  was  assaulted  with  iron<br \/>\n     rods, chains  and sticks.I\t found<br \/>\n     the following  injuries on A-2  at<br \/>\n     that time. I. Swelling  of 2&#215;1 cm.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Size on the right molar bones. 2. A<br \/>\n     black eyepresent. 3.  Swelling in<br \/>\n     right molar  bone.The injuries are<br \/>\n     simple innature. Ex.D.7 is\t the<br \/>\n     certificate issued in favour of A-\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     The aforesaid injuries on accused &#8211;  appellant No.2 are<br \/>\nundoubtedly simple in nature. The father of both the accused\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211;  appellants,Subramanium  also\t sustained  the\t following<br \/>\ninjuries as  isapparent\t from the  certificateExhibit D-8<br \/>\nissued by PW-15:-\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;1.  An abrasion of 5 cm. In length<br \/>\n  over the  vault of  the skull.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Red in colour.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.\t Swelling in left eye brow.\n<\/p>\n<p>     3.\t Swelling in upper part of leg.\n<\/p>\n<p>     4.\t Abrasion of  6&#215;3 cm. Over left<br \/>\n  calf muscle.\n<\/p>\n<p>     5.\t Abrasion of 7&#215;4 cm. below left<br \/>\n  calf muscle<br \/>\n     X-Ray No.1505\/14536 of  skull AP-\n<\/p>\n<p>     Nobony injury noted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Hehas been admitted in MSIII ward<br \/>\n     under Neurosurgery and  discharged<br \/>\n     against Medical advice.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The injury is  simple  in nature,<br \/>\n     might have been  caused  by  blunt<br \/>\n     object  and  the  age  isabout  6<br \/>\n     hours.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Station : Tirupati.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>     20.10.90  20-10-90<br \/>\n  (Dr. S. KOTESWARA RAO)<br \/>\n  CIVILASST. SURGEON<br \/>\n  S.V.R.R. HOSPITAL,<br \/>\n  TIRUPATI.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     PW-15 also in his evidence\t reiterated  the  same\tby<br \/>\nstating:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Ifound  the following injuries on<br \/>\n     him. I  have examined  himat  4.45<br \/>\n     a.m.  1.  An  abrasion  5cms.  In<br \/>\n     length over  the walt  of skull, 2.<br \/>\n     Swelling on  left eye browpresent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     3.Swelling\t of upper  part of  the<br \/>\n     left leg.4. Abrasion of 6 x 3 cm.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     over the  left calf  muscle. 5.  An<br \/>\n     abrasion of  7&#215;4 cms.  Below  right<br \/>\n     cough     muscles. He   was   also<br \/>\n     admitted ward  No.3  in charge  of<br \/>\n     Neurosurgeon.  The\t injuries   are<br \/>\n     simple innature and  the age  is<br \/>\n     about sixhours. 5xD.8 isthe said<br \/>\n     certificate.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The aforesaid injuries no doubt are simplein nature as<br \/>\nopined by PW-15.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court came  to the  conclusion that  both the<br \/>\naccused\t appellants as well as\ttheirfather &#8211; Subramanium<br \/>\nreceived the  injuries in  course  of  the  occurrence. The<br \/>\nquestion  thatarisesfor\t consideration\tiswhether the<br \/>\nprosecution hasofferedany explanationfor such injuries on<br \/>\nthe accused-  appellants as  well as  their father and if no<br \/>\nexplanation has been offered  then forsuch non explanation<br \/>\nhas  been   offered  then   for suchnon-explanation the<br \/>\nprosecution case  in anyway  gets affected.  The law inthis<br \/>\nregard has  been well  discussed in a judgment of this Court<br \/>\nin theCase of LAKSHMI  SINGH AND  OTHERS  VS.  STATE  OF<br \/>\nBIHAR,(1976) 4SCC 394,\tIt has\tbeen held  bycourt in the<br \/>\nAforesaid casethat where  theprosecution fails to explain<br \/>\nthe injuries onthe accused then two results may follow:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.   that the evidence of the prosecution witness is untrue;<br \/>\nand\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   that the  injuriesprobabilise  the plea  taken by the<br \/>\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Ithas  also beenheld inthe aforesaid case thatin a<br \/>\ncase that  in  a  caseof  murder  non-explanation  of the<br \/>\ninjuries sustained  by the  accused at about the time of the<br \/>\noccurrence is  a very  important circumstance from which the<br \/>\ncourt can draw the following inferences:\n<\/p>\n<p>     (1)  that the   prosecution   has<br \/>\n  suppressed the genesis and the<br \/>\n  origin of  the occurrence  and<br \/>\n  has  thus  not  presented  the<br \/>\n  true version;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (2)  that the  witnesses  who  have<br \/>\n  denied  the  presence of  the<br \/>\n  injuries on  the person of the<br \/>\n  accused are  lying on a  most<br \/>\n  material point  and  therefore<br \/>\n  theirevidence is unreliable;\n<\/p>\n<p>     (3)  thatin   case\t there\t is  a<br \/>\n  defence version whichexplains<br \/>\n  the injurieson the person of<br \/>\n  the  accusedit  isrendered<br \/>\n  probable so  as to throw doubt<br \/>\n  on the prosecution case.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Ithas  further been  heldthat omission on the part of<br \/>\nthe prosecutionto explain the injurieson the person of the<br \/>\naccusedassumes much greater  importance wherethe evidence<br \/>\nconsists of  interestedor  inimical witnesses. But  it\tis<br \/>\nequallywell  settled that the prosecution is not obliged to<br \/>\nexplain the  injuriessustained\tby  the\t accused  if the<br \/>\ninjuries are  minor and superficial and\t wherethe injuries<br \/>\nare not sustained in  course of\t the occurrence.  On abare<br \/>\nexamination theinjuries found on the two appellants aswell<br \/>\nas their  father   &#8211; Subramanium,  we found  that though the<br \/>\ninjuries on  appellant No.2  aswell asfather &#8211; Subramanium<br \/>\nwere minor  in nature  and quite superficial and as such the<br \/>\nprosecution was not obliged  to explain\t thoseinjuries but<br \/>\nthe injury  on appellant  No.1 was  of such  nature that  it<br \/>\ncannot go  unnoticed bythe witnesses to the occurrencemore<br \/>\nso when the medical  evidence is  to the  effect that there<br \/>\nmust be profused bleeding.  In respect\tof  such  grievous<br \/>\ninjury sustained  by the  appellant No.1  the prosecution is<br \/>\nbound to  offersome  explanation and  if explanation is not<br \/>\noffered\t then the  court is  entitled to  drawinference as<br \/>\nheld by this Court in the caseof LAKSHMI SINGH\tAND OTHERS<br \/>\nVS. STATE OF BIHAR referred to supra, PW-1 who is admittedly<br \/>\nan eye-witnessto  theoccurrence and was at the stop right<br \/>\nfrom the  beginning, inhis evidence stated: &#8220;It is nottrue<br \/>\nto saythat in the incident  A-1 and A-2 received bleeding<br \/>\ninjuries on  the head and A-1 sustainedserioushead injury.<br \/>\nIt is  not true to say that at\tthe time  of the  incident<br \/>\nSubramanium &#8211;  the father  of A-1 and A-2 was present and he<br \/>\nreceived injury on heshead and other parrots of his body.&#8221;<br \/>\nPW-2 who  is also an eye-witness to theoccurrence stated &#8220;I<br \/>\nhave seen  the bleeding injuries on the head of A-1 and A-2<br \/>\nbut he said injuries were caused due tohurlingof stones by<br \/>\nA-4 and A-5 from  the building.&#8221;  It was  elicited from his<br \/>\ncross-examination :  &#8220;police asked  me as to how A-1 and A-2<br \/>\ngot bleeding  injuries and  1 did not state to the police at<br \/>\nthat time that A-1 and A-2 received bleeding injuries due to<br \/>\nhurlingof  stones by A-4 and A-5&#8221;. PW-3 who isalso aneye-<br \/>\nwitnessto  theoccurrence  didnot state anything about the<br \/>\ninjuries beingsustained\t by  A-1  and A-2  and\thowsuch<br \/>\ninjuries were  sustained. PW-6 is also an eye-witness to the<br \/>\noccurrence andwas himself also one ofthe injured. Healso<br \/>\nin hisevidence stated that there  were no injuries on A-1<br \/>\nand   A-2 at  the timeof occurrence  and further he states<br \/>\nthat he does not  knowwhetherA-1 andA-2 andtheir father<br \/>\nwere admitted to the hospital by the Police. PW-7 is also an<br \/>\nwitnessto  theoccurrence  andhe\t stated inhis evidence<br \/>\nthat at the time  of  occurrence  there\t wereno\t bleeding<br \/>\ninjuries on  the head  of A-1  and A-2. PW-8 is\t equally  a<br \/>\nwitnessto the occurrence and he no doubt had stated that he<br \/>\nhad marked  thebleeding injuries on the head of A-1 and A-2<br \/>\nbut did not state   asto how accused A-1 and A-2 sustained<br \/>\nthose injuries.PW-10 though was examined by the prosecution<br \/>\nbut did not  support  the  prosecution and  therefore was<br \/>\npermitted  bythe  court\t  to be\t cross-examined\t by the<br \/>\nprosecution. PW-12  is a  witness to  the assault by accused<br \/>\nNo.2 on Sekharas  well as  the assault\ton PW-7 by accused<br \/>\nNo.1. He  in hes  evidence hasstated :\t&#8220;at the\t scene\tof<br \/>\noccurrence didnot see any bleeding injuries on A-1 and A-<br \/>\n2&#8221;. Thus,  out of  theaforesaid\t 7  eye-witnesses  to the<br \/>\noccurrence except  PW-2and  PW-8 rest did not even state to<br \/>\nhave seen  the injuries on the head  of\t thetwo\t accused<br \/>\nappellants. PW-8  though statedto havesen theinjuries but<br \/>\ndid not offer explanation  as too  howthose  injurieswere<br \/>\nsustained by  the accused appellants. PW-2 though offered an<br \/>\nexplanation namely  theinjuries are sustained on account of<br \/>\nhurlingof  stones by  A-4 andA-5 but the High  Court  on<br \/>\nappreciating the  evidence came to the positive conclusion<br \/>\nthat the  prosecution story  that A-4  and A-5were hurling<br \/>\nstones is not believable and infact they had not hurled the<br \/>\nstones as  alleged. That apart as has been indicated earlier<br \/>\nthe PW-2  had not  stated  before  thepolicewhile  being<br \/>\nexamined underSection161  Cr.P.C. about\t theexistence of<br \/>\ninjuries on  the head  of the  accused personsor as to how<br \/>\nthose injurieswere caused.  In the  aforesaidcircumstance<br \/>\nthe conclusionis irresistiblethat the prosecution has not<br \/>\noffered any   explanation  for the  grievousinjuries  on<br \/>\naccused-appellant No. 1which the prosecution was obliged to<br \/>\nexplainand  such omission on the part of the prosecution to<br \/>\nexplainthe  injuries  on  accused  appellant  No.1  assumes<br \/>\ngreatersignificance  since all the  eye-witnesses  to the<br \/>\noccurrence  are related\t to  the  deceased  and\t thuswere<br \/>\ninterested in  the prosecution. In asmuchas PWs 1 and 2 are<br \/>\nbrothers of  deceased Sekhar, PW-3 is the mother of deceased<br \/>\nSekhar,PWs  6 and 7 are brothers of deceased Mohan, PW-8 is<br \/>\nthe brother-in-law  of Mohan and PW-12is the elder brother<br \/>\nof Mohan.  In the  aforesaid premises,we findconsiderable<br \/>\nforce in the submissionof Mr. Parasaran, the learned senior<br \/>\ncounsel for   the  appellants, that  prosecution  has not<br \/>\nexplained the  grievousinjuryon thehead\t of  accused  &#8211;<br \/>\nappellant No.1 and suchnon-explanationpersuades us todraw<br \/>\nan inference that the prosecution has not presented thetrue<br \/>\nversionat  least so  far as  the  role played by  accused<br \/>\nappellant No.1and thewitnesses who have beenexamined and<br \/>\nwho have ascribed a positive role to the appellant No.1that<br \/>\nhe caught  holdof  Mohan whenappellant No.2 stabbed Mohan<br \/>\nare not true on\t material point and their evidence thus has<br \/>\nbecome vulnerable.  Even though the accused-appellantNo.2<br \/>\nalso sustainedsome injuries as indicated earlier but those<br \/>\ninjuries beingsimple and  superficialthe  prosecution may<br \/>\nnot beobligedto offer the explanation to thesame but the<br \/>\nsame principlewill have\t no application\t whenan injury of<br \/>\nsuch grievous  nature as  was sustainedby accused-appellant<br \/>\nNo.1 had not been explained by the prosecution witnesses who<br \/>\nare grossly  interestedin the prosecution being all related<br \/>\nto one another.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Atthis  stage it would beproper for us to; notice the<br \/>\ncontention advanced  byMrs.  Amreshwari, the learned senior<br \/>\ncounsel appearing   for\t the  State  that  the prosecution<br \/>\nevidence having been scrutinised  by the  learned  sessions<br \/>\nJudge and the High Court and having been accepted by the two<br \/>\ncourts below  it wouldnot beproperfor  this  Court  to<br \/>\ninterfere withthe convictionin exercise\t ofpowers under<br \/>\nArticle136  ofthe  Constitution. We,however, are unable<br \/>\nto persuade  ourselves to agreewith the submission wince we<br \/>\nare not appreciating the  evidence inthis case but we are<br \/>\nonly applying  a principle  ofcriminal jurisprudence which<br \/>\ncasts an  obligation  on  the  prosecution  toexplain the<br \/>\ninjuries on  the accused  particularly when theinjuries are<br \/>\nof  grievous  nature  and  theconsequences  of\tsuchnon-<br \/>\nexplanation ofthe injury.  That apartin appropriate cases<br \/>\nthere is  no bar on thepowers of this Court even to examine<br \/>\nthe evidence  if the  appreciation of  such evidence  by the<br \/>\nCourts below  on the  face of it appears to be erroneous and<br \/>\nsuch erroneousappreciation causes  miscarriage of justice,<br \/>\nHowever, we  are not delving further into the question since<br \/>\nwe arenot appreciating\t the evidencein the case in hand.<br \/>\nThe High  Courtin  ouropinion committed\t gross\terror  in<br \/>\ncomingto   the\tconclusion  that  non-explanation  of the<br \/>\ninjuries on  A-1 is  not material.  Thevery approach of the<br \/>\nHigh Court  that since police did not confront the witnesses<br \/>\nabout the  accused receiving  injuries while  examiningthem<br \/>\nunder Section  161 Cr.P.C., no explanation is forthcoming is<br \/>\nerroneous.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Itwould  also appear fromthe materials on recordthat<br \/>\nthough according  to the eye-witnesses the incident occurred<br \/>\nin front  of the  houseof  accused No.3 where both deceased<br \/>\nMohan and  Sekhar werestabbedby\t accused No.2  and  while<br \/>\ntaking the  injured persons  Mohan felldown infront of the<br \/>\nhouse of  Prabhakar asa result of which bloodfell down in<br \/>\nfront of  the house  ofPrabhakar.  yetit  is difficult\tto<br \/>\nimagineas  to how blood stainswere found fromthe house of<br \/>\nPrabhakar uptothe house of Venkat Reddy as has been stated<br \/>\nby PW-2 and PW-22  oneof  theinvestigating  officers and<br \/>\naccording to the said PW-22 thedistance between Prabhakar&#8217;s<br \/>\nhouse and Venkat Reddy&#8217;s house is more than 120feet. Though<br \/>\nMohan and  Sekhar werestabbedin\t front of  the\thouse  of<br \/>\naccusedNo.3  as stated by the prosecution  witnesses but<br \/>\nblood stains  being available upto the house ofPrabhakar is<br \/>\nexplained fromthe  fact\t that the  injured  personswere<br \/>\ncarriedupto that placebut beyond thatit is no body&#8217;scase<br \/>\nthat the  injured persons  werecarried any further  and as<br \/>\nsuch no explanation is forthcoming as to howblood stains<br \/>\ncould be found upto theVerandaof the house ofVenkat Reddy<br \/>\nand then  bloodstained stoneswere also recovered from the<br \/>\nVerandaof  said Venkat Reddy.This  feature also indicates<br \/>\nthat the  prosecution witnessesare notsure asto where the<br \/>\noccurrence tookplace. It also appearedfrom the evidence of<br \/>\nPW-2 and  PW-8 that  there were several\t  other people who<br \/>\nwitnessed the  occurrence and  they arenot theresidents of<br \/>\nthat locality.If suchindependent witnesses were available<br \/>\nand yet were not examined by the prosecution and only those<br \/>\npersonswho  are related\t to the deceased were examinedthen<br \/>\nin  such   a  situation the  prosecution  case has  to\tbe<br \/>\nscrutinised  with   more  care and  caution.Further Mr.<br \/>\nParasaran is  right inhis submissionthat  the  witnesses<br \/>\nascribed the  role of  caching hold of Mohan byaccusedNo.1<br \/>\nand role  of caching  hold of Sekhar byaccusedNo.3 and the<br \/>\nHigh Court  gave the  benefit to  accused No.  3  since the<br \/>\nwitnesses had  not narrated  the same  to  thepolicewhen<br \/>\nexamination   under  Section  161  Cr.P.C.  took  place and<br \/>\ntherefore the self sameinfirmities having crept in when the<br \/>\nprosecution witness  stated about  catching hold of Mohan by<br \/>\naccusedNo.1,  the said accused No.1  is\t entitled  to the<br \/>\nbenefitof doubt. In fact as stated earlier Mrs. Amreshwari,<br \/>\nthe learned  senior counsel  appearing for  the Statealso<br \/>\nfairly stated that possibly it would bedifficult to sustain<br \/>\nthe convictionof accused  No.1 when  the accused No. 3 has<br \/>\nhot benefit andhas been acquitted and no appeal against the<br \/>\nsaid order  of acquittal  has been  filed by  the State.  On<br \/>\naccountof  such infirmities  in that  prosecution  case\t as<br \/>\nindicated above and more  particularlywhen the prosecution<br \/>\nhas  failed  to offerany  explanation  for  the\t grievous<br \/>\ninjuries sustained  by accused No.1 on his headand theHigh<br \/>\nCourt has  already found  that the saidinjury was caused in<br \/>\ncourse of  the incident,  we have no hesitationto heldthat<br \/>\nthe accused-appellant  No. 1  D.V. Shanmugam  is entitled to<br \/>\nthe benefit  ofdoubt  and  weaccordingly  set  aside the<br \/>\nconviction and sentenceof the said accused- appellant No. 1<br \/>\nboth under  Section 302\/34  IPCas wellas under Section 324<br \/>\nIPC and directthat heshall be set atlibertyforthwith if<br \/>\nhis detention is not required in any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     But comingto the case of appellant No.2 the same stand<br \/>\non a  slightly different footing. Mr. Parasaranno doubt had<br \/>\nargued with vehemence that the entire case mustbe discarded<br \/>\nin asmuchas  the prosecution  has  notpresented\t thetrue<br \/>\nversionand  has suppressed  the genesis\t and origin  of the<br \/>\noccurrence  which   inference  is   tobe  drawn\t fornon-<br \/>\nexplanation of the injuries on the accused person. But as we<br \/>\nfound that  theinjuries\t on the\t accused-appellant No.2 are<br \/>\nall simple  andsuperficial in nature and the Prosecution is<br \/>\nnot bound  to explain  such minor  and superficial injuries.<br \/>\nThat apart  where the  evidenceis absolutely, clear, cogent<br \/>\nand consistent coming from an independent source that it far<br \/>\noutweighs the  effect of  the omissionon thepart of the<br \/>\nprosecution toexplainthe injuries onthe accused, insuch<br \/>\na casea conviction  can be based notwithstanding injury is<br \/>\nnot being  explained as has been  heldby thiscourt in the<br \/>\nvery case  of  LAKSHMI SINGH AND OTHER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR on<br \/>\nwhich Mr.  Parasaran,  the  learned  senior  counsel  placed<br \/>\nreliance upon.So faras the substratum of the prosecution<br \/>\ncase of accused &#8211;  appellant No.2  is concerned it hasbeen<br \/>\nconsistently  stated   by  all the  eye-witnesses  to the<br \/>\noccurrence that accused No.  2stabbedMohan on his abdomen<br \/>\nwith the  knifeand  stabbed Sekhar also on theabdomenwith<br \/>\nthe knife.  Their evidence  also gets  corroborated from the<br \/>\nmedicalevidence as well as from the post-mortem examination<br \/>\nof thedead bodies of the two deceasedpersons. Even in the<br \/>\nearliest version,  in the  FIRit  had been  categorically<br \/>\nstated that  accused No.2  D. VaidvelustabbedMohan with a<br \/>\nknife on  his abdomen  and alsostabbedSekhar with Knife on<br \/>\nhis stomach andintestine came out. In view of the aforesaid<br \/>\nclinching evidence  so for as the role ascribedto accused &#8211;<br \/>\nappellant No.  2, notwithstanding  the infirmities indicated<br \/>\nearlierfor  which we have given benefit of doubt to accused\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; appellant  No. 1,  itmust  be heldthat the prosecution<br \/>\ncase as against the  appellantNo.2  has been proved beyond<br \/>\nreasonable doubt  and therefore the convictionand sentence<br \/>\nagainstthe said accused &#8211; appellant No.2 as affirmed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court  does not warrant any interference by this court.<br \/>\nIn thenet result, theconviction and sentenceof appellant<br \/>\nNo.1 -D.V. Shanmugam passed by the High Courtis set aside<br \/>\nand heis acquitted  of the  charges. He\t be set at liberty<br \/>\nforthwith unless  required in  any other  criminal case but<br \/>\nconviction andsentence as against appellant No.2 passed by<br \/>\nthe bythe High Court stands affirmed and the appeal so far<br \/>\nas A-2is concerned isdismissed. Thisappeal is allowed in<br \/>\npart.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997 Author: Pattanaik Bench: G.N. Ray, G.R. Pattanaik PETITIONER: D.V. SHANMUGHAM &amp; ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/04\/1997 BENCH: G.N. RAY, G.R. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: Present Hon&#8217;bleMr. Justice G.N. Ray Hon&#8217;bleMr. Justice G.B. [&hellip;]<\/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-79161","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-10T04:27:24+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-10T04:27:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997\"},\"wordCount\":4749,\"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\\\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997\",\"name\":\"D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-10T04:27:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-10T04:27:24+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997","datePublished":"1997-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-10T04:27:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997"},"wordCount":4749,"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\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997","name":"D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-10T04:27:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-shanmugham-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-april-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.V. Shanmugham &amp; Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 April, 1997"}]},{"@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\/79161","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=79161"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79161\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79161"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79161"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79161"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}