1988 INSC 0104
                                       Desaji Wadia Samkaiah and Others

                                                           Vs

                                              State of Andhra Pradesh

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1978

                                     (M.M. Dutt, K. Jagannatha Shetthy JJ)

                                                      04.02.1988

                                                        ORDER

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
whereby the High Court affirmed the order of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellants under
Section 302/149 IPC and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. Initially, there were 11 accused including the appellants. The prosecution case in brief was that
the appellants and other accused attacked the deceased Sontireddy Venkata Reddy, a lecturer in a
college at Warangal inflicting injuries on him to which he succumbed. All the accused including the
appellants were prosecuted and tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal on a charge of
murdering the deceased Sontireddy Venkata Reddy. During the pendency of the criminal
proceedings against the appellants and other before the learned Sessions Judge, accused 6 died and,
consequently the proceedings against him abated. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 7 to 11
but convicted the appellants and accused 3 and 4. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused 3
and 4 but maintained the convictions and sentences of the appellants. Hence this appeal.

3. Mr. G. Narashimulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has strenuously urged
that in view of certain discrepancies between the statements of PWs 5 and 9 during the inquest and
the FIR (Ex. P-1) the High Court should have disbelieved the prosecution case and acquitted the
appellants. It is true that PW 5 in his statement made at the time of inquest only implicated accused
1, 3 and 5 and one brother-in-law of accused 6. Further it was stated by him that the accused were
armed with iron rods and sticks with which they inflicted injuries on the deceased. The opinion of
the doctor who had conducted post-mortem on the deceased was that the injuries could have been
caused only with a blunt weapon. On the other hand, in the FIR (Ex. P-1) it was stated that accused
1, 2, 4 and 5 were armed with sticks with which the injuries were inflicted on the deceased. In view
of the discrepancies, it is urged by the learned counsel that the High Court should have acquitted the
accused. A similar contention was made before the High Court. The High Court however, besides
these witnesses, has placed reliance upon the evidence of PW 2. It has been found by both the courts
below that PW 2 was all along with the deceased and was an eye-witness of the incident. It is
submitted on behalf of the appellants that the High Court should have disbelieved the evidence of
PW 2 because he is a relation of the deceased. In our opinion this contention has not substance at
all. It may be that PW 2 was a relation of the deceased but that did not preclude the High Court
from placing reliance on his evidence.

4. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the presence of PW 2 has not been mentioned by
PW 5 at the inquest. In view of that fact, it is urged that the High Court should have held that PW 2
was not at all present and should have discarded his evidence altogether. We are unable to accept
this contention. It is not necessary that at the time of inquest PW 5 was required to make a statement
as to who others were present during the occurrence. It may be an omission. But it does not follow
from such omission that PW 2 was not present. The High Court and the learned Sessions Judge have
found PW 2 to be a very trustworthy witness, and accordingly, were quite justified in placing
reliance upon his evidence. The evidence of PW 2 finds corroboration from PW 6 so far as accused
1 and 2 are concerned. His evidence is also corroborated by PW 6, so far as accused 5 is concerned.
The name of accused 5 appears in Ex. P-1 and PW 3 has also deposed about the participation of
accused 5 in the crime. In the circumstance we do not think that we would be justified in interfering
with the concurrent findings arrived at by the High Court as also the learned Sessions Judge.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.

</html