PEDDIREDDY SUBBAREDDI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1990-2-8
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on February 14,1990

PEDDIREDDY SUBBAREDDI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VADIVELU THEVAR CHINNIAH SERVAI VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

RAJEEV LOCHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2014-8-99] [REFERRED TO]
GOLDEN SATHEESAN @ SATHEESAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-8-137] [REFERRED TO]
CIT VS. PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2005-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
N BLOCK WELFARE ASSN REGD VS. DMRC [LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-183] [REFERRED TO AND]
VENKATEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-70] [REFERRED TO]
GURMUKH SINGH S/O ISHWAR SINGH BY CASTE SIKH, R/O GANPATPURA POLICE STATION SADAR BUNDI, DISTRICT BUNDI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
GABBU B LODHI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2003-5-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAGOPAL @ KEMBABAN BINU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU SONKAR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
SATPAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-2-75] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI KANT SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-230] [REFERRED TO]
GUMAN SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2005-7-59] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE VS. DILIP [LAWS(MPH)-2012-8-225] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NIWAS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2012-8-145] [REFERRED TO]
Halo @ Jaymangal Majhi VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2011-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. SAMAYLAL [LAWS(MPH)-1994-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
GAJJU @ GAJENDRA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2000-5-80] [REFERRED TO]
R KULANDAVELU VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1992-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
SANGILI @ SANGILIMADASAMY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-141] [REFERRED TO]
BOOMAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1993-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
NAND LAL YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2003-11-106] [REFERRED]
PALANI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-90] [REFERRED TO]
VEERABHARATHI AND VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2000-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAJKUMAR S/O KERBA DHANADE [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-86] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD S/O BABURAI UMREDKAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-9-194] [REFERRED TO]
SUKANTA BEHERA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1998-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
Somanath @Jogi Gouda VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2009-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA ALIAS KUSHALPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMINATHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1992-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
PALANISWAMY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1992-2-63] [REFERRED TO]
FAKU ALIAS FAKIR KHAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2001-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
KANT VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-98] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal is preferred by the appellants 1-7 canvassing the correctness of the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 1986 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The appellants took their trial before the Trial Court under four charges for offences under Ss.- 120B, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 201, I.P.C. on the allegations that all of them formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause the death of Lakshmireddy, the deceased herein, and in prosecution of the same they murdered the deceased; attempted the cause _ the death of PW 1 and caused disappearance of evidence of murder by throwing the dead body into the river Kundu with the intention of screening themselves from the legal punishment. The Trial Court for the reasons given in the judgment convicted the appellants under all the charges - namely under S. 148, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years; under S. 302 read with S. 149, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and under S. 20 1, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of four years with the directions that all the sentences are to run concurrently. However, all the appellants were acquitted of the offence under S. 307 read with S. 149. Of the appellants, appellants Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers and they are residents of Kulur Village. Appellants Nos. 3 to 7 are the residents of Kottala Village which is at a distance of about seven furlongs from Kulur. All the appellants are inter-related. The deceased was a native of Karrapadu Village, about eight miles from Kottala. The maternal grand-father of the deceased by name Chinna Konda Reddi belonging to Kottala brought him to his house and looked after him. He also performed the marriage of the deceased with P.W. 3. The grandfather also executed a will bequeathing his properties to the deceased. On account of this the appellants were enemical towards the deceased.
(2.)The occurrence in question took place on 26-6-85. On the said day, the deceased and his son-in-law P.W. 1 went together to Kulur Village to obtain a loan of Rs. 5,000/- from P.W. 4, co-brother of the deceased. P.W. 4 told them that he was not having any money ready and that he himself would bring the money within two or three days. Thereafter the deceased and P.W. 1 left Kulur at about 6 p. m. When they were proceeding along a path way, after covering a distance of three furlongs from Kulur, A-1 to A-4 armed with axes and A-5 to A-7 each armed with a dagger attacked the deceased and attempted to murder P.W. 1. The deceased fell down crying 'I am dead'. P.W. 1 ran to a distance of 20 yards. Thereafter he ran away from that place to his native village and informed his motherinlaw P.W. 3. P.W. 3 sent word to P.W. 9 and others. Thereafter a crowd collected and searched for the deceased but they could not trace the deceased. On the next morning at about 7 a.m. they once again resumed the search. They went to the scene of offence and found trace of blood and ultimately found the dead body in the river. According to the prosecution P.W. 2 a resident of Idamadaka village came there. On enquiry, P.W. 1 told that A-1 to A-7 killed the deceased. On the next morning i.e. on 27-6-85 while P.W. 1 and others were at the dead body, the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 14) came to the spot at 8 or 9 a.m. on the information given by P.W. 11 and got the written report Exh. P-1 from P.W. 1. Then Investigating Officer, after noting the features at the scene of occurrence, examined the witnesses. P.W. 6 the woman Asstt. Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and noticed 12 external injuries as mentioned in the post-mortem certificate, Exh. P-9. The injuries on the head and the chin, according to the Medical Officer were.post-mortem injuries and the rest were anti mortem injuries. After completing the investigation P.W. 15 filed the charge-sheet. All the appellant denied their complexity with the offence in question. The trial Court, placing much reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. The High Court has affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this appeal.
(3.)The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the evidence of P.W. 1 who is the sole eye-witness in this case cannot be accepted and acted upon since his evidence is highly interested besides being highly artificial. We have gone through the testimony of P.W. 1 carefully. As we have pointed out earlier that P. W. 1 is none other than.the son in-law of the deceased. After witnessing the occurrence he did not go to the village and inform any one of the villagers, but on the other hand, he went to his village which is said to be at the distance of four furlongs. He states that he informed only his mother-in law (P.W. 3). P.W. 1 came with the present version only on the next morning. The conduct of P.W. 1 in not reporting to any of the villagers about the occurrence throws a considerable doubt on the verasity of his evidence which is incredible. The report about the occurrence was given by a delay of 15 hours.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.