REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 886 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12764 OF 2022)
NAGARAJ REDDY                  ...APPELLANT(S)
 
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU        ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 31 st
March 2022, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras
in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   34   of   2019,   wherein   the   High   Court
dismissed   the   appeal   preferred   by   accused   No.   1,   appellant
herein, against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20 th
December 2018, passed by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge,   Hosur   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘trial   court’),   in   S.   C.
No. 7  of 2007,  for  the  offences  punishable  under   Sections  302
1

and   341   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860   (for   short   ‘IPC’),
sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment. 
2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:
2.1. One   Rajappa   (the   deceased)   along   with   all   other   accused
persons,   including   the   appellant   herein,   hail   from   Oozhiyalam
village   in   Krishnagiri   district.   It   is   pertinent   to   note   that   the
deceased   and   the   accused   persons   belong   to   different
communities. Radha (PW­3), wife of Rajappa, was the president
of the local Outreach Women Self Help Group.
2.2. A portion of land in Oozhiyalam village was purchased by
the   aforesaid   Self   Help   Group.   To   build   a   compound   wall
around   the   said   land,   a   contract   for   building   the   same   was
given   to   the   people   hailing   from   the   deceased’s   community.
Such   an   act   inflamed   tensions   between   the   two   communities
and several quarrels ensued, one of which led to criminal cases
being   registered   against   both   the   parties   in   the   Bagalur   Police
Station.   Both the parties were facing prosecution in the Court
of Judicial Magistrate, Hosur. 
2

2.3. While   the   situation   stood   thus,   Rajappa,   on   14 th
September   2004   at   around   10   AM,   left   his   home   on   his
motorcycle along with his elder brother Narayanappa (PW­1) to
depose   before   the   Court   of   the   Judicial   Magistrate,   Hosur.   On
their   way   to   Court,   accused   Nos.   1   to   5   waylaid   them   near   a
check   post,   quickly   sprinkled   chili   powder   on   the   face   of
Rajappa and hacked him to death. It is specifically alleged that
the   present   appellant   threw   chili   powder   on   Rajappa   and
subsequently used his sickle to deliver a blow on the left side of
Rajappa’s   head.   After   committing   the   crime,   all   the   accused
went   back   to   the   village   and   pelted   stones   at   the   house   of
Rajappa   while   loudly   proclaiming   that   they   had   finished
Rajappa off, and that other members of Rajappa’s family would
meet the same fate too. In the meanwhile, Narayanappa(PW­1),
who had escaped from the place of occurrence, ran back to the
village   and   informed   Radha   about   the   attack   on   Rajappa.
Thereafter,   they   along   with   others,   returned   to   the   place   of
occurrence.   In   the   meanwhile,   the   son   of   Koopaliappa,   who   is
Rajappa’s brother, rushed to the Bagalur Police Station to lodge
3

a complaint, whereas Koopaliappa (PW­4) himself rushed to the
check post where he found his brother Rajappa dead. 
2.4 Thereafter, on the basis of the statement given by PW­1 to
Rajsekhar   (PW­11),   the   Village   Administrative   Officer,   which
was treated as a complaint, a case being Crime No. 251 of 2004
was   registered   at   HUDCO   Police   Station   on   the   same   day,   i.e.
14 th
  September   2004,   at   around   1   PM,   for   the   offences
punishable   under   Sections   147,   148,   341   and   302   of   the   IPC,
against   five   accused   persons,   including   accused   No.   1­
Nagaraja   Reddy,   the   appellant   herein.   Muthamizh   Mudalvan
(PW­16),   the   Investigating   Officer   (IO),   prepared   a   mahazar
report and, thereafter, conducted an inquest over the dead body
of   Rajappa.   The   dead   body   of   Rajappa   was   then   sent   to
Government Hospital, Hosur, where an autopsy was performed
and   the   cause   of   death   was   determined   to   be   injury   to   a   vital
organ, i.e. the brain. The IO, thereafter, arrested accused Nos. 2
to   5,   with   the   date   of   their   arrest   being   shown   as   22 nd
September   2004.   On   the   very   next   day,   i.e.   23 rd
  September
2004,   the   appellant   herein   surrendered   before   the   Judicial
4

Magistrate Krishnagiri and, on 1 st
  October  2004, he was taken
into police custody. 
2.5 During   the   course   of   investigation,   the   role   of   accused
Nos. 6 to 13 came to the fore and they too were arrested, on the
allegation   that   they   had   conspired   to   get   rid   of   Rajappa,   a
prominent   figure   of   his   community.   Thereafter,   the   trial
commenced   where   all   the   accused   pleaded   not   guilty.   Nagi
Reddy,   accused   No.   2,   perished   during   the   course   of   trial   and
as such, the trial against him abated. 
2.6 At   the   conclusion   of   trial,   the   trial   court,   vide   its
judgement   and   order   dated   20 th
  December   2018,   acquitted
accused   Nos.   4   to   13   but   convicted   accused   Nos.   1   and   3   for
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of the IPC
and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment along with a
fine   of   Rs.   1500/­.   The   trial   court   largely   relied   on   the
testimonies of PWs 1, 3 and 4 for convicting them. 
3. Aggrieved   by   their   conviction   and   sentence,   accused   Nos.
1 and 3 preferred an appeal before the High Court. Pertinently,
the   State   did   not   prefer   any   appeal   against   the   acquittal   of
5

accused   Nos.   4   to   13.   The   High   Court,   vide   the   impugned
judgment   and   order,   confirmed   the   conviction   and   sentence
imposed   on   the   appellant   herein   but   acquitted   Sridhar   Reddy,
accused   No.   3   of   all   the   charges   levelled   against   him,   finding
that, while he had been arrested a few days after  the incident,
the date of his arrest was shown only as 22 nd
 September 2004.
4. Hence, the present appeal. 
5. We   have   heard   Shri   Venugopala   Gowda,   learned   Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant and Dr. Joseph Aristotle S.,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent­State. 
6. It   is   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the   High
Court   has   grossly   erred   in   convicting   the   appellant   for   the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of the IPC. He
submitted   that   on   the   basis   of   the   evidence   of   Narayanappa
(PW­1),  accused No.  3  –  Sridhar  Reddy  has  been  acquitted.  He
further   submitted   that,   the   conviction   of   the   appellant   on   the
basis of the same is not tenable in law.
6

7. Dr.   Joseph   Aristotle   S.,   on   the   contrary,   submitted   that
the   trial   court   as   well   as   the   High   Court   has   concurrently,
found the present appellant guilty of the offence on the basis of
appreciation of evidence. He submits that no perversity could be
noticed in the concurrent findings of fact.  
8. The   conviction   by   the   trial   court   and   the   High   Court   is
primarily on the basis of evidence of Narayanappa (PW­1). 
9. Narayanappa (PW­1), in his evidence, has stated about the
deceased’s   previous   enmity   with   the   accused   persons   in   the
year 2002, wherein the deceased and his wife Radha (PW­3) had
gotten   injured   after   a   scuffle   between   the   parties.   PW­1   also
stated that the trial with regard to that incident was ongoing in
the   Judicial  Magistrate  Court,  Hosur.  PW­1  further  stated  that
on   14 th
  September   2004   at   around   09:45   hours,   he   and   his
deceased brother were riding on a TVS 50 motor vehicle. When
they   were   riding   towards   MS   Nursery   Farm,   accused   No.   1   –
Nagaraja   Reddy,   accused   No.   2   –   Nagi   Reddy,   accused   No.   3   –
Sridhar Reddy, accused No. 4 – Krishna Reddy and accused No.
7

5   –   Ranganatha   Reddy,   stopped   them   by   brandishing   harvest
knives and then threw chili powder in their eyes. He stated that
accused No. 1 – present appellant, stabbed the deceased with a
harvest   knife,   due   to   which   the   deceased   Rajappa   fell   down.
Thereafter,   accused   No.   2   –   Nagi   Reddy   attacked   him   with   a
harvest   knife   with   considerable   force   on   his   right   leg.
Resultantly,   his   leg   was   severed   into   two   parts.   PW­1   further
stated that, thereafter, accused No. 3 – Sridhar Reddy attacked
the deceased on his left foot. After that, accused No. 4 – Krishna
Reddy attacked him on the middle part of the deceased’s head.
He submitted that, thereafter, he ran through a short cut route
and   informed   Radha   (PW­3),   wife   of   Rajappa   about   the   said
incident.   
10. Insofar   as   other   witnesses   are   concerned,   undisputedly,
none of them is an eye witness. The other witnesses, including
Radha(PW­3),   wife   of   the   deceased,   only   stated   that   all   of   the
accused persons came to their home in the village and exhorted
that they had killed Rajappa.
8

11. On   the   basis   of   the   very   same   evidence,   all   the   accused,
except   accused   No.   1   –   present   appellant   and   accused   No.   3   –
Sridhar   Reddy,   were   acquitted   by   the   trial   court.   The   High
Court   acquitted   accused   No.   3   ­   Sridhar   Reddy,   only   on   the
ground that he was arrested by the police within few days after
the   incident,   whereas   the   arrest   is   shown   on   22 nd
  September
2004.   The   present   appellant   was   convicted   on   the   ground   that
he   was   absconding   after   the   incident   and   that   he   surrendered
voluntarily before the Magistrate on 23 rd
 September 2004. 
12. We   find   that   the   reasoning   given   by   the   High   Court   in
distinguishing   the   case   of   the   present   appellant   as   against
accused No. 3 is totally perfunctory. 
13. Undisputedly,   Narayanappa   (PW­1)   is   an   interested
witness,   being   the   brother   of   the   deceased.   He   has   also
admitted   that   there   existed   previous   enmity   between   the
parties.  As   held   by  this   Court  in   a   catena   of   cases  including   a
recent   decision   in   the   case   of   Khema   alias   Khem   Chandra
9

etc. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1
, previous enmity is a double­
edged sword. On the one hand, it provides for the motive and on
the   other   hand,   the   possibility   of   false   implication   cannot   be
ruled out. 
14. This   Court   in   the   case   of   Vadivelu   Thevar   vs.   State   of
Madras 2
 has held thus: 
“11.   .……   Hence,   in   our   opinion,   it   is   a   sound   and
well­established rule of law that the court is concerned
with   the   quality   and   not   with   the   quantity   of   the
evidence   necessary   for   proving   or   disproving   a   fact.
Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may
be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no
difficulty   in   coming   to   its   conclusion   either   way   –   it
may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single
witness,   if   it   is   found   to   be   above   reproach   or
suspicion   of   interestedness,   incompetence   or
subornation. In the second category, the court equally
has   no   difficulty   in   coming   to   its   conclusion.   It   is   in
the   third   category   of   cases,   that   the   court   has   to   be
circumspect   and   has   to   look   for   corroboration   in
material   particulars   by   reliable   testimony,   direct   or
circumstantial…”
1  2022 SCC-OnLine SC 991
2  (1957) SCR 981
10

15. Undisputedly,   Narayanappa   (PW­1)   has   been   found   to   be
unreliable by the trial court insofar as the other accused, except
accused Nos. 1 and 3, are concerned. The High Court has also
disbelieved   the   testimony   of   PW­1,   insofar   as   accused   No.   3   is
concerned. 
16. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion
that   the   conviction   could   not   have   been   based   solely   on   the
testimony   of   Narayanappa   (PW­1),   without   corroboration   of   his
testimony. 
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 
18. The impugned judgment dated 31 st
 March 2022, passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Madras, thereby confirming the
conviction and sentence of the present appellant passed by the
trial   court,   vide   its   judgment   and   order   dated   20 th
  December
2018,   are   quashed   and   set   aside.   The   appellant   herein   is
acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and is directed
to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
11

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.   
…….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
…….........................J.       
[VIKRAM NATH]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 21, 2023 
12