Andhra High Court
Muddana Goud And Others vs State Of Ap, Rep By Public ... on 14 March, 2013
 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO    
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1012 of 2008 and batch     
dated:14-03-2013 
Muddana Goud and others....APPELLANTS     
State of AP, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad....RESPONDENT   
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
!Counsel for Appellants in Crl.A.No.1012 of 2008 and for respondents in Crl.A.No.475 of 2010:Smt.
D.Sangeetha Reddy ^Counsel for State: Addl. Public Prosecutor ?Cases referred:
1 2007 (2) ALT Crl 1 (D.B.) (A.P.) COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
1. Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment dt.09-07-2008 rendered in S.C.No.346 of 2007
on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, they are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. Crl.A.No.1012 of 2008 is preferred challenging the conviction of the appellants - A-1 to A-3 of the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months each; and
conviction of A-1 to A-7 of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months each; and conviction of A-4 to A-7 of the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and
to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months
each, and conviction of A-4 to A-6 of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months rendered in the aforesaid judgment. Whereas,
Crl.A.No.475 of 2010 is preferred by the State against the acquittal of the appellants - A-1 to A-10 of
the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the acquittal of appellants - A-8 to A-10 of the
offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 506 and 302 read with 149 IPC.
Muddana Goud And Others vs State Of Ap, Rep By Public ... on 14 March, 2013
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167616882/
1
3. The prosecution case in brief may be stated as follows: On 16-02-2006, at 04:00 p.m. the
deceased - Sanjeevaiah along with P.Ws.1 to 3 was proceeding towards Yemmiganur on motorcycle.
When they crossed Banavasi Farm, which is half kilometer away from Bodeband village, a jeep came
from their behind and hit the motorcycle, as a result, the deceased and P.W.1 fell on the road and
P.W.1 received injury on his left hand and left leg knee. Then, all the accused armed with sticks, got
down from the jeep and dragged the deceased to the margin of the road and A-1 to A-3 hacked him
on his neck, face and left ear. When P.Ws.1 to 3 tried to intervene, A-4 to A-6 threatened P.W.1, and
A-7 to A-10 threatened P.Ws.2 and 3 that if they come forward, they would also be killed. Thereafter,
all the accused fled away in the jeep. At about 05:00 p.m., when P.Ws.5 to 7 were at Dovabolla bus
stop, they saw A-1 to A-3, A-5 and others coming in the jeep from Yemmiganur side by raising cries
that they killed the deceased and A-7 was driving the jeep. Meanwhile, P.Ws.1 to 3 shifted the
deceased in the auto of P.W.4 to the Government Hospital. P.W.12- Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Community Health Centre, Yemmiganur, admitted the patient who was battling for life and started
treatment at 05.45 p.m., but within ten minutes i.e. at 05.55 p.m., the deceased - Sanjeevaiah died.
After his death, P.W.12 intimated the same to the police, Yemmiganur. On 16-02-2006, on receiving
Ex.P-1 - report from P.W.1, P.W.14 - Sub Inspector of Police, Yemmiganur Rural Police Station
registered as case in Cr. No.21 of 2006 and issued First Information Report (F.I.R.) which is marked
as Ex.P-11 and referred P.W.1 to Government Hospital for treatment. On 17-02-2006, he got the
scene of offence and the dead body photographed through P.W.13- photographer. P.W.15 - Inspector
of Police investigated into the matter and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the
presence of P.W.9 - the Panchayat Secretary at the relevant point of time of the incident and the
same is marked as Ex.P-2. He prepared an observation report and seized case properties viz., M.O.1-
motorcycle, M.O.7 - a pair of chappals and M.O.8 - spectacles and other material objects under
Ex.P-3 - panchanama. Ex.P-13 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 17-02-2006, on
requisition, P.W.12 - Doctor, held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the
cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage. Ex.P-10 is the postmortem report. He examined
P.W.1 and issued Ex.P-9 - Wound Certificate on the same day. After completion of investigation,
P.W.16 filed the charge sheet.
4. The learned Sessions Judge framed the following charges against the accused:
"FIRSTLY: That you A-1 to A-10 on 16-02-2006 at 5 p.m. near Park opposite to M.B.Petrol Bunk, at
Yemmiganur village, were members of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the common
object of such assembly to wit, to attack and kill Boya Gundralla Sanjeevaiah and to attack Boya
Gaddam Peddaiah, committed the offence of rioting and at that time were armed with deadly
weapons, the weapons of offence likely to cause death, to wit, attacked and killed Boya Gundralla
Sanjeevaiah and attempted to kill Boya Gaddam peddaiah and that you thereby committed an
offence punishable U/Sec. 148 IPC and within my cognizance.
SECONDLY: That you A-1 to A-10 on the same day, time and at a distance of half kilometer to
Bodabanda village, after passing Banavasi Farm, did an act to wit, dashed the motorcycle on which
the deceased Boya Gundralla Sanjeevaiah and Boya Gaddam Peddaiah were traveling, from behind
with the jeep bearing No.AP-21V-5019, with such intention or knowledge and under such
circumstances viz., by such dashing, that if by that act you had caused the death of Boya Gundralla
Muddana Goud And Others vs State Of Ap, Rep By Public ... on 14 March, 2013
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167616882/
2
Sanjeevaiah and Boya Gaddam Peddaiah, you would have been guilty of murder and that you caused
hurt to the said Boya Gundralla Sanjeevaiah and Boya Gaddam Peddaiah by the said act, and that
you thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.307 IPC and within my cognizance.
THIRDLY: That you A-4 to A-6 on the same day, time and place as mentioned in Charge No.2 supra,
committed criminal intimidation by threatening Boya Gaddam Peddaiah with injury to his person,
at the point of sickles, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.506 IPC and
within my cognizance.
FOURTHLY: That you A-4 to A-10, on the same day, time and place as mentioned in Charge No.2
supra, committed criminal intimidation by threatening Boya Bandakanti Sreenivasulu and Boya
Gaddam Chinna Thayanna with injury to their person, at the point of sickles, and that you thereby
committed an offence punishable U/Sec.506 IPC and within my cognizance.
FIFTHLY: That you A-1 to A-3 on the same day, time and place as mentioned in Charge No.2 supra,
did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Boya Gundralla Sanjeevaiah,
by you A-1 hacking with hunting sickle on the left side of the head above the ear, you A-2 and A-3
hacking with hunting sickles on throat, face, chest and shoulders, and that you thereby committed
an offence punishable U/Sec.302 IPC and within my cognizance.
SIXTHLY: That you A-4 to A-10, on the same day, time and place as mentioned in charge No.2
supra, were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of you A-1 to
A-10, when A-1 to A-3, committed the murder of Boya Gundralla Sanjeevaiah, an offence punishable
with death or imprisonment for life, you are thereby U/Sec.149 IPC guilty of committing the said
offence punishable U/Sec.302 IPC and within my cognizance."
5. When the above charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P-1 to
P-23 besides case properties M.Os.1 to 26.
7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.D-1 to
D-9 were marked. Exs.X-1 to X-6 were marked by third parties. They denied the same and reported
no oral evidence.
8. The trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, found the
appellants - A-1 to A-7 guilty of the charges leveled against them and convicted and sentenced them
as stated supra and found the appellants - A-8 to A-10 not guilty of the charges leveled against them
and acquitted them as indicated above. Being aggrieved by that judgment, A-1 to A-7 filed
Crl.A.No.1012 of 2008 and the State filed Crl.A.No.475 of 2010.
Muddana Goud And Others vs State Of Ap, Rep By Public ... on 14 March, 2013
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167616882/
3
9. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the
accused for the charges leveled against all the accused i.e. A- 1 to A-10 beyond all reasonable doubt
and whether the judgment under challenge is correct
10. The learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A.No.1012 of 2008 and for respondents in
Crl.A.No.475 of 2010 contended that though the prosecution examined P.Ws.2 and 3 as
eye-witnesses to the incident, the trial Court disbelieved their evidence to the extent of their
witnessing the incident in causing injuries to the deceased by the accused, and that the trial Court
solely relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and came to the wrong conclusion, that P.W.1 is a partisan
witness who belongs to one group of faction namely the group led by the deceased, and therefore his
evidence has to be viewed with suspicion, that the evidence of P.W.1 is disbelieved by the trial Court
with regard to the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation of P.W.1 and
also threatening of P.W.2 by A-4 to A-10, his evidence cannot be relied upon for other charges, that
similarly, the act of attempt to murder against P.W.1 was disbelieved by the trial Court; that, in these
circumstances, it cannot be said that P.W.1 is a wholly reliable witness as some part of his evidence
was disbelieved by the trial Court, and so, it requires corroboration; that admittedly, there are two
factions in the village of Potekal and the medical evidence does not fit into the overt acts attributed
to the accused and the ocular testimony is highly improbable as the evidence would go to show that
the deceased was dragged to some extent on the road but there were no abrasions or contusions on
the back of the body of the deceased; that the case against A-4 to A-7 is standing on the same footing
as that of A-8 to A-10 who were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with 149 IPC; that
the prosecution has not come to the Court with clean hands; and that the incident had not taken
place at the time and date as mentioned and testified by the witnesses, but the incident took place
about 2.00 or 2.30 p.m., and the said incident has not been witnessed by anybody, and due to
political factions in the village, the accused who are the inimical terms with the deceased, were
falsely implicated in the case taking advantage of the death of the deceased; that Ex.X-4 would
clearly go to show that a correction was made on it with regard to the time when the deceased was
brought to the Government Hospital, Yemmiganur; that in view of these circumstances, it is not safe
to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 alone so as to convict A-1 to A-7; and therefore,
she prays to acquit the accused.
11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended
that P.Ws.2 and 3 are also eye witnesses to the incident and the reasons given by the trial Court for
rejecting their evidence are not justifiable and proper; and that the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 has
been clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. which was given two hours after the incident and there was no
scope or possibility for P.W.1 to speak about the presence of these two witnesses; that the Doctor's
evidence would clearly go show that the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Yemmiganur
by P.W.1 which suggests that he was present at the time of the incident; that unless P.W.1 was
present, he could not be in a position to narrate as to how the incident took place and the
discrepancies with regard to disbelieving the part of evidence of P.W.1 cannot be a ground to
discredit the entire testimony; that the medical evidence would clearly go to show that there are
injuries on the body of P.W.1 said to have been caused as narrated by P.Ws.1 to 3 and some of the
witnesses saw the accused running away from the scene of offence, and therefore, the order of
conviction needs no interference by this Court.
Muddana Goud And Others vs State Of Ap, Rep By Public ... on 14 March, 2013
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167616882/
4
12. With regard to Crl.A.No.475 of 2010, she stated that A-8 to A-10 were also travelling along with
the other accused and all the accused were armed with sickles and deadly weapons, and that mere
presence by itself is an offence to bring them under the purview of Section 302 read with 149 IPC;
that unless A-8 to A-10 had shared their common object with A-1 to A-7 with an intention to
eliminate the deceased, they would not have travelled in the same jeep and that A-7 was the driver of
the jeep and he should be having knowledge that the other accused are likely to cause the death of
the deceased, and therefore, they are also liable for punishment and can be convicted as in the case
of A-4 to A-7. Hence, she prays to allow the Crl.A.No.475 of 2010.
13. It is not in dispute that the place of the incident is half kilometer away from Bodeband village,
Yemmiganur Mandal after crossing Banavasi Farm. The incident took place on 16-02-2006 at about
05:00 p.m. The police seized the blood-stained earth and control earth i.e. M.Os.9 and 10
respectively and also a pair of cheppals and spectacles from the scene of occurrence of offence.
When those material objects have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, it was found that
they contained human blood. P.W.9 - the Panchayat Secretary at the relevant point of time of the
incident was present at the time of preparing Ex.P-3 - panchanama. From these documents and the
evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.16
- Investigating Officer, it is clear that the incident occurred at the place indicated above. Even the
accused are not seriously disputing about the place of occurrence.
14. P.W.15 - Inspector of Police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 17-02-2006
at about 07:00 a.m. and recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 8. Ex.P-2 is the inquest report. As
seen from Ex.P-2, the injuries sustained by the deceased have been clearly mentioned. The inquest
mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of incised injuries found on the dead body of the
deceased.
15. P.W.12 - Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at about 10.15 a.m.
and 10.30 a.m. on 17-02-2006, found the following injuries:
"1. An incised injury of 6x3x2 cms seen vertically at left shoulder joint.
2. An incised in jury of 8x2 cms. bone deep seen at horizontally left temporal region.
3. An incised injury of 6x1 cms. bone deep obliquely situated above to the left eye.
4. An incised injury of 6x1 cms. bone deep situated vertically at left fore head.
5. An incised injury of 10x3x2 cms. situated at left part of the neck.
6. An incised injury of 6x2 cms. bone deep obliquely situated at left parietal bone.
7. An incised injury of 8x2 cms. skin deep horizontally situated at right chest.
Muddana Goud And Others vs State Of Ap, Rep By Public ... on 14 March, 2013
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167616882/
5
8. Contusion of 6x6 cms. seen at medial aspect of the right knee joint.
9. Abrasions of 4x2 cms. epithelial deep seen at later to the right knee joint.
10. Abrasions of 6x2 cms. epithelial deep seen at posterior to the right elbow joint.
11. Abrasions of 3x1 cms. epithelial deep seen at front part of the right shoulder joint."
The doctor opined that the cause of the death was due to shock and hemorrhage because of the
hacking injuries found on the body. He also found that injuries 1 to 7 in Ex.P-10 would have been
caused with a sharp-edged weapons like hunting sickles similar to M.Os.13 to 22, whereas injuries 8
to 11 have been caused by falling on the ground in a motorcycle accident. Even after lengthy cross-
examination nothing has been elicited so as to doubt the testimony of P.W.12 and the recitals in
Ex.P.10. So, the homicidal nature of the death of the deceased has been established. No suggestion
was given to this witness that his opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased is not correct.
Therefore homicidal nature of the death of the deceased is established beyond all reasonable doubt.
16. Now it is to be seen whether the accused are assailants of the deceased or not
17. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined by the police to speak about the actual incident narrating the specific
overt acts attributing with regard to each of the accused. P.Ws.5 to 7 were examined by the police to
speak about the accused running away from the scene of offence. The trial Court disbelieved the
evidence of P.Ws.2 to 7 and placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 alone.
18. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 solely on the ground that they might
have arrived to the scene of occurrence after the assault on the deceased. But there is no basis for
arriving at such a conclusion that P.Ws.2 and 3 have come to the scene of occurrence while the
accused were running away from the place of the incident. The other reason given by the trial Court
is that P.W.2 stated in his evidence that while himself and P.W.3 tried to rescue the deceased, A-7 to
A-10 threatened them saying that they would be killed when P.W.1 interfered, A-4 to A-6 threatened
him which is totally contradictory to the evidence of P.W.3 who stated that while himself and P.W.2
tried to interfere, A-7 to A-10 threatened them and when P.W.1 intervened, A-4 to A-6 threatened
him throwing sickles, whereas the version of P.W.1 was that he was the person threatened by A-4 to
A-6 in the first instance and thereafter P.Ws.2 and 3 reached and at that juncture they were
threatened. Therefore, P.Ws.2 and 3 ought not have seen the incident of threatening P.W.1 by A-4 to
A-
6. Credibililty of testimony of a witness depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of totality of
the evidence, not isolated scrutiny. In other words evidence should be considered on the basis of
total effect of the entire statement of a witness. The incident took place in the month of February,
2006, whereas nearly 11/2 years thereafter the witnesses were deposing in the Court. Some minor
contradictions or deviations are bound to occur even in a case of truthful witnesses when they were
made to depose about the actual incident after lapse of a long time. So, on those minor discrepancies
or contradictions, it cannot be presumed that P.Ws.2 and 3 came to the scene of offence after the
Muddana Goud And Others vs State Of Ap, Rep By Public ... on 14 March, 2013
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167616882/
6
attack was made on the deceased. The main substratum of the prosecution case has to be looked into
for the purpose of verifying whether P.Ws.2 and 3 were in fact present at the time when the actual
attack was made. For that purpose, the earliest report given by P.W.1 and other facts and
circumstances have to be looked into.
19. No doubt, First Information Report in a criminal case is a valuable piece of evidence which can
be used to corroborate the evidence of the maker under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
or for contradictory in the maker as provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or
for impeaching the credit of witnesses under Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The
incident took place on 16-02-2006 at 05:00 p.m.; The First Information Report was lodged at 07:00
p.m. In the first instance, P.W.1 took the deceased in an Auto and reached the Government Hospital,
Yemmiganur at about 05.50 p.m. After preparing a Ex.P-1 - report, he went to the police station at
about 07:00 p.m. A perusal of Ex.P-1 would go to show that himself, the deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3
were proceeding from Yemmiganur to Kotekal village and the deceased - Sanjeevaiah and P.W.1
were sitting on one motorcycle whereas P.Ws.2 and 3 were coming on another moped; that after
crossing Banavasi Farm, which is half kilometer away from Bodeband village, all the accused armed
with sickles got down from the jeep and dragged the deceased to the margin of the road and then A-1
to A-3 hacked him on his neck, face and left ear; that some of the accused threatened P.Ws.1 to 3. It
is also stated that P.Ws.2 and 3 were coming behind them and when they reached the place of
incident they were also threatened. Once the recitals in First Information Report were found to be
true, they can be used to corroborate with the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is more or
less in support with the recitals as stated in Ex.P-1. But, in his evidence, he specifically stated that
A-1 to A-3 hacked Sanjeevaiah on his neck and left ear whereas A-4 to A-6 threatened that he would
be killed; and when P.Ws.2 and 3 came to the rescue of Sanjeevaiah, A-7 to A-10 threatened that
they would be killed if they come forward. Therefore, all the three witnesses stood there without
moving towards the place where the deceased was attacked. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent
with regard to A-1 to A-3 causing injuries to the deceased. There were no discrepancies in this
regard in the evidence.
20. It is not in dispute that there were a serious disputes in the village among two groups for the last
30 years, and as on the date of the incident, the deceased Sanjeevaiah was the leader of the people
belonging to Boya caste whereas A-1 was the leader of the people belonging to Lingayat caste, and
the deceased and his group were in Congress Party while all the accused were in Telugu Desam
Party. It is also not in dispute that the junior paternal uncle of A-1 was murdered in the year 1992. In
that case, admittedly, P.W.1 and the deceased were shown as accused and they were convicted by the
learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool. On appeal, their conviction and sentence were set aside by this
Court. Therefore, in view of this long standing rivalry between the two groups, the evidence of
P.Ws.1 to 3 has to be appreciated in a right perspective in arriving at a correct conclusion. No doubt,
in the cross- examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, some discrepancies are elicited but that cannot be a ground
to disbelieve this evidence when those discrepancies are trivial in nature.
21. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/accused that in view of the fact that
a part of the testimony of P.W.1 has been disbelieved, the entire evidence has to be disbelieved on
that ground. We are unable to accept the contention that the latin maxim, falsus in uno and falsus in
Muddana Goud And Others vs State Of Ap, Rep By Public ... on 14 March, 2013
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167616882/
7
omnibus (false in one thing and false in every thing) has no application to the Indian Law. The Court
has to apprise the evidence to see to what extent it is worthy of acceptance and merely because the
Court considers it unsafe to rely on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessary follow as a
matter of law that it should be discarded in all other respects. The Court can sift the evidence and
separate the truth from the falsehood. Court can disengage the truth from the falsehood. If the
evidence of witness is found to be acceptable, then his evidence can be acted upon. In evaluating the
evidence of the eye-witnesses, two important considerations are that; (1) in the facts and
circumstances of the case whether the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is probable and (2) whether there is
anything inherently improbable in their evidence so as to discard the said evidence.
22. Within two hours after the incident, the First Information Report was given by P.W.1. All the
material particulars with regard to the incident in question have been clearly stated and the same is
completely in corroboration with the evidence of P.W.1. Further, if really P.W.1 was not present at
the time of the incident, he would not have sustained injuries on his body. When the jeep dashed
against the motorcycle, the deceased and P.W.1 fell down from the motorcycle and received those
injuries.
23. P.W.12, Doctor, who examined P.W.1 at about 8 p.m., found abrasions of 2 x 1/2 x 1/8 cm at left
arm and 3 x 1 x 1/8 cms on left knee joint. The infliction of those injuries can be possible by falling
from a vehicle and those injuries might have been caused about 3 to 4 hours before his examination.
Ex.P-9 is the Wound Certificate. The Doctor - P.W.12 has categorically stated that while he was
present in Community Health Centre, Yemmiganur on 16-02-2006, at about 5 p.m., the deceased
was brought to the hospital at about 5.45 p.m. by P.W.1 and in the colum of relevant register, it is
alleged to have been injured due to attack by a group of known persons with a hit and sharp edged
weapon. Therefore, if really, P.W.1 was not present, he could not have taken the deceased to the
hospital within 45 minutes after the incident. The distance between the place of incident and the
hospital at Yemmiganur is about 15 kilometers. So, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also Ex.P-8,
which is the Medico Legal Case Intimation to the police, would clearly go to show that P.W.1 was
present at the time of occurrence. Therefore, presence of P.W.1 at the relevant point of time of the
incident has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. The totality of the evidence of a witness
has to be taken into consideration for fixing the probative value. The evidence of a witness will have
to be assessed by its intrinsic worth. The probative value of a piece of evidence means the weight to
be given to it. The evidence should be free from infirmity and doubts. Such is the case, he could be in
a position to witness the incident as the incident took place in the evening when there would be
sufficient light.
24. The deceased sustained as many as seven incised injuries. If really, P.W.1 wanted to implicate all
the remaining accused also, he would have stated in the complaint as well as in the Court that A4 to
A7 also caused injuries to the deceased. But he did not state any specific overt acts against any one of
the other accused except A-1 to A-3. Thus, in our considered opinion, P.W.1 was telling facts which
are with in his exclusive knowledge. If really he wanted to complicate the other accused, he would
have stated specific overt acts with regard to causing injuries to the deceased by the other accused.
He categorically stated that at about 04:00 p.m. the deceased and himself started on motorcycle
driven by the deceased whereas P.Ws.2 and 3 were coming on moped belonging to P.W.2 and they
Muddana Goud And Others vs State Of Ap, Rep By Public ... on 14 March, 2013
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167616882/
8
were proceeding towards Kotekal village from Yemmiganur. The presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is spoken
to by P.W.1 in his evidence. When there was clinching evidence on record with regard to the
presence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the trial Court simply presumed that they might have come to the scene of
occurrence after the incident. That finding appears to be incorrect. No doubt, they also belong to a
group of the deceased-Sanjeevaiah, but at the same time, their evidence has to be scrutinized
carefully and cautiously. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the appellants/accused placed
reliance on the decision reported in Golla Peramasani Sivaiah and Others Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.1, wherein it was held as follows: "27. The law is well settled
that the evidence of partisan witnesses cannot be brushed aside on the ground that it is not
corroborated by independent witnesses and that the conviction can be based on the uncorroborated
testimony of partisan witnesses depending upon the circumstances of each case, provided that their
evidence is reliable and trustworthy. It is also well settled that the evidence of partisan witnesses has
to be scrutinized carefully with more than ordinary care and caution with reference to the
probabilities, medical evidence and other circumstances of each case."
25. Even from the law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case, it is necessary to
scrutinize the evidence of partisan witnesses carefully who are close and belong to one faction in the
village. The evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that the moment he reached the scene of
occurrence, a jeep came and hit the motorcycle, as a result, the deceased and P.W.1 fell down and all
the accused persons armed with sickles came out of the jeep and dragged Sanjeevaiah to the margin
of the road. Among the accused, A-1 to A-3 hacked Sanjeevaiah on his neck, face and left ear. When
P.Ws.2 and 3 tried to intervene, they were threatened by A-7 to A-10 with dire consequences. While
P.W.1 tried to interfere to save the deceased, he was threatened by A-4 to A-6 showing the sickles.
26. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.3 is to the same effect as testified by P.W.2. Both the witnesses
have stated that on 16-02-2006, they went to Yemmiganur on their own work and after the work,
they returned to Kotekal, by which time, they saw the deceased going and some of them at a
distance. Except giving suggestion that he was not going to Kotekal at any point of time of the
incident, nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3. No doubt, P.W.2
made an admission that after taking the deceased to the hospital, himself, P.Ws.1 and 3 were in the
hospital till they were examined on the next day. Based on the admission, the learned counsel for
the appellants/accused contended that giving a report by P.W.1 is highly doubtful and that since
P.W.1 was present in the hospital itself, Ex.P-1 - report cannot be given by him. A small inadvertent
admission of one of the witnesses cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. When
P.W.1 has categorically stated that after admitting the deceased in the hospital, he went to the police
station and lodged Ex.P-1 at about 07:00 p.m. Similarly, P.W.14 - Sub Inspector of Police has
categorically stated that on 16-02-2006, at about 07:00 p.m., P.W.1 came to the police station and
lodged Ex.P-1 - report, and then he registered a case against the accused. Though it is suggested to
him that after due deliberations and consultations with the local MLA and his son-in-law - Basi
Reddy and also after consulting his superior officers, P.W.1 was planted as an eye witness, the same
was denied. If P.W.1 was planted as a witness, the doctor who examined the deceased would not
have stated that the deceased was brought by P.W.1. Therefore, the contention that P.W.1 was
planted as an eye witness cannot be accepted because the documentary evidence would clearly
indicate that he had taken the deceased to the hospital within 45 minutes after occurrence of the
Muddana Goud And Others vs State Of Ap, Rep By Public ... on 14 March, 2013
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167616882/
9
incident and he is an injured witness.
27. In view of the fact that there are serious discrepancies with regard to some of the accused
threatening either P.W.1 or P.W.2 or P.W.3, at best, the trial Court ought to have discarded the
evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with regard to the other accused viz., A-4 to A-10. On that aground the
entire evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be disbelieved. From the above omissions elicited in the
evidence of witnesses, it can be said that they are innocuous which are inconsequential. Such of
those omissions amount to contradictions that militate against the meat or core of the prosecution
case are alone material. An omission would not discredit the evidence of a witness. If it is a material
omission with regard to actual incident, it merits consideration. So from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3,
it is clear that it is A-1 to A-3 who caused severe injuries to the body of the deceased which resulted
in his death.
28. Insofar as A-1 to A-10 are concerned, the offence leveled against them is one punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. There cannot be any dispute that in order to convict the
accused under vicarious liability, it must be shown that those persons shared the common object
with other accused an intention to eliminate the deceased. In view of the fact that the object for
which they were traveling in the jeep is locked up in the minds of the accused, it is difficult for the
prosecution to establish that with what object the other accused were traveling in the jeep. If an
offence has been committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common
object of that assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be
committed, each member is equally guilty though he may not be directly responsible for the death of
the deceased and in case where Section 149 IPC is applicable, it is not necessary for the prosecution
to prove individual lover acts of each of the accused. Therefore, it is a matter of inference from the
proved circumstances. The expression "knew to be likely to be committed" in Section 149 IPC
founded upon facts known to the members of the assembly an offence of particular kind would be
committed. Common object of an assembly has to be derived by reasoning or implication from
various factors like weapons with which the members were armed, their movements, acts of
violence, or the result thereof, conduct and behaviour, animosity or grouse if any. Some of the
circumstances to draw an inference that the accused shared the common object with the other
accused are: whether which of the accused proceeded to the scene of occurrence, whether they were
armed with any weapons; whether they had any common object so as to cause the death of the
deceased and whether they have participated in commission of the offence in the absence of any
intervening circumstances where the common object can be culled out from such circumstances.
29. P.Ws.1 to 3 did not state to police that on 08-06-2005, A-2, A-4 to A-6, A-8 to A-10 came in the
jeep along with A-3 and A-7 and they were assaulted in the village Kotekal. P.Ws.1 and 3 did not
state to police that P.W.2 went to Yemmiganur on a moped separately after seeing the incident.
P.Ws.2 and 3 did not state to police that A-4 to A-6 threatened P.W.1 when he tried to intervene
when the assault was going on; that P.W1 was found with injuries on left hadn and left leg; that
P.W.1 reported the matter to police. Exs.D-1 to D-6 are minor contradictions. P.Ws.4, 6 and 7 did
not state to police that A-1 to A-3, A-5 and A-7 and some others were present in the jeep.
Muddana Goud And Others vs State Of Ap, Rep By Public ... on 14 March, 2013
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167616882/
10
30. Except their presence at the scene of occurrence, there is no other evidence to show that they
participated in commission of the offence in view of the fact that the incident occurred in an isolated
place. If really A-4 to A-10 shared the common object with A-1 to A-3 so as to eliminate the
deceased, definitely they would have caused injuries to the deceased and they might have assisted in
some way to A-1 to A-3 to eliminate the deceased. They have not stated or uttered anything either at
the time prior to or after the incident. They did not cause any injuries to P.Ws.1 to 3 except
threatening them. They did not cause any injuries to the deceased. They even did not threaten the
deceased. In the absence of any intervening circumstances, if really they had shared the common
object, they would have caused some injuries to the deceased, but that was not done so. They might
be traveling in the jeep of A-1 to A-3 without having any knowledge that A-1 to A-3 would attack the
deceased in case the deceased happened to come in their direction or in the opposite direction.
Therefore, the presence of A-4 to A-10 in the zeep of A-1 to A-3 was coincidence and the mere
presence of A-4 to A-10 itself is not a ground to infer that they shared the common object with A-1 to
A-3 to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, the conviction of A-4 to A- 10 for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC has to be set aside.
31. But the evidence on record would clearly go to show that A-1 to A-3 armed with deadly weapons
caused severe injuries to the deceased and because of such injuries, the deceased died within half an
hour after the incident. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court in convicting A-1 to A-3 of the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC are correct and the same need not be interfered with.
32. Insofar as Crl.A.No.475 of 2010 is concerned, since the case of A-8 to A-10 stands on the same
footing as that of A-4 to A-7, their case needs no interference, and accordingly, A-8 to A-10 are
acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 506 and 302 read with Section 149
IPC and Section 307 IPC.
33. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed against appellants 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 in
Crl.A.No.1012 of 2008, vide judgment dated 09.07.2008 in S.C. No.346 of 2007 on the file of II
Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, are
confirmed. The appellants 4 to 7/A.4 to A.7 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with 149 IPC; appellants 1 to 7/A.1 to A.7 are found not guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 148 IPC; and appellants 4 to 6/A.4 to A.6 are found not guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, and they are acquitted of the respective charges. The fine
amount, if any paid by them, shall be refunded to them. Appellants 4 to 7/A.4 to A.7 shall be
released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.1012
of 2008 is partly allowed. Criminal Appeal No.475 of 2010 preferred by the State is dismissed
confirming the findings of the trial court in respect of A.8 to A.10.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  J U S T I C E  K . C . B H A N U
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO 14-
03-2013
Muddana Goud And Others vs State Of Ap, Rep By Public ... on 14 March, 2013
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/167616882/
11