P. EKNATH versus Y. AMARANATHA REDDY @ BABU & ANR.
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 394, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 394 
P. EKNATH 
v. 
Y. AMARANATHA REDDY @ BABU & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1792 of2013) 
FEBRUARY 09, 2017 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GROSE AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 324 - Double murder -
Attempt to murder - Double murder of daughter aged 12 years and 
her father aged 50 years; double life attempts on two. inflicting 
severe injuries; and theft in the dwelling house by the sole accused 
- Conviction and sentence for offences punishable u!ss. 302, 
307and 324 - However, acquittal by the High Court - On appeal, 
held: Material on record shows that the accused had the requisite 
motive for committing the offence - Weapon-sickle used can be 
convincingly linked to the injuries caused on the deceased - FSL 
report, credibility of witnesses, foot prints of the offender. narration 
of incident by the circumstantial witness, identification of the 
accused/weapon, presence of light in the murder scene, all leads to 
the guilt of the accused - High Court failed to appreciate the 
evidence brought before the Court and the facts of the case and set 
aside the order of the trial court by a non-reasoned order - Thus, 
the order passed by the High Court is perverse and not sustainable 
in the eyes of law, and is set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
Per Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.: 
HELD: 1.1 It appears that except motive, the High Court 
did not give any other plausible reasons for setting aside the well 
reasoned order of the
trial court. After going through .the evidence 
placed before this Court, there is no reason to disbelieve the 
G 
evidence of PWs 1 and 2- injured eye witnesses. The High Court 
did not even take into account the evidence of PWs 20-22 who 
just after the incident came to the spot in question. On considering 
the sketch of the spot, there is no doubt that deceased No.2 died 
on the ground floor, lying in a pool of blood, and the daughter 
H 
394
P. EKNATH v. Y. AMARANATHA REDDY@ BABU & ANR. 
aged 12 years old, was also lying dead in the middle of the 
staircase. It further appears that the reason behind this was that 
some loan was taken by the accused and was not returned to the 
deceased No.2 victim as a result whereof these ghastly murders 
took place. [Paras 15, 18) [399-E-H; 400-A) 
1.2 The evidence which was put forward by the doctor 
P.W.14 who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the 
deceased No.2, as well as the doctor P.W.13 who further 
conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.1 
clearly shows that all injuries were of a sharp edged weapon. There 
is no discrepancy with regard to the ocular evidence or the 
evidence of the doctors who deposed before the Court. The 
weapon (sickle) used by the accused was recovered at the 
instance of the accused himself, and the sickk also contained 
human blood in terms of the FSL Report. [Para 19)(400-B-C] 
1.3 It is found from the material available on record that 
the accused had the requisite motive for committing the offence 
and the weapon used i.e. the sickle, cau be convincingly linked 
to the injuries caused on the deceased. The FSL report, credibility 
of witnesses, foot prints of the offender, narration of incident by 
the circumstantial witness, identification of the accused/weapon, 
presence of light in the murder scene, all leads to the guilt of the 
accused. [Para 21) [400-E) 
1.4 The High Court failed to appreciate the evidence
brought before the Court and the facts which ought to have been 
taken into consideration at the time of deciding the matter and 
without giving any reasons, set aside the well reasoned order of 
the trial court. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is 
perverse aud not sustainable in the eyes of law and the order 
passed by the High court is set aside. [Paras 23, 24] [400-G-H] 
Per R. F. Nariman, J. (Concurring): 
395 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The High Court completely ignored the testimony of PW-
G 
13 who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased 
no.I, the young daughter, which testimony clearly showed that 
the daughter had been murdered by a sickle, all 9 injuries on her 
being incised injuries. The High Court erred in reading the 
H
396 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
evidence of PW-14 as a whole to conclude that injuries found on 
deceased no. 2 are not possible with a sharp edged weapon like 
a sickle, and that it is distinctly possible that they could have 
been caused with two distinct weapons. This reasoning ignores 
the hypothesis that a sickle has a blunt side which could cause 
"lacerated injuries". Further, as the trial court recorded, the 
doctor who used the expression "lacerated" actually meant 
"incised". Also, the fact that there were 14 wounds would not at 
all lead to the conclusion that they were caused with two distinct 
weapons-a complete surmise 011 the part of the High Court. The 
High Court mixed up the testimony of PWs-13 and 14 to conclude 
that the injuries sustained by both deceased nos. 1 and 2 were 
not possible with a weapon like a sickle. The High Court ignored 
vital evidence as to recovery of a blood stained sickle which was 
hidden under stones, and which was recovered with the complicity 
of the accused. To state that the accused carrying the sickle along 
with him is doubtful was to ignore this vital piece of evidence. 
Equally, with regard to the scene of offence in so far as the young 
daughter was concerned, to rely solely upon the Inquest Report 
and again to ignore the evidence of PWs-1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, (and 
the site plan referred), all of whom said consistently that the dead 
body of the deceased daughter was found on the
staircase and 
not in the bedroom, was again to ignore the overwhelming 
evidence in favour of the dead body being found on the staircase. 
Further, based only on PW-22's evidence, that there was a zero 
watt bulb which alone was burning in the house, and to ignore the 
evidence of PWs-1, and 20 to 23 on the sufficiency of the lighting 
in the house together with the common sensical conclusion that 
if the accused and the deceased no.2 were speaking together, it 
could not have been in the dark, was to ignore vital evidence. 
The High Court completely ignored "the dying declaration" made 
by PW-2 immediately after the incident. The High Court did not 
set aside the finding of the trial court together with its reasoning 
based on evidence that the offence under Section 307 was made 
out, and yet set aside the conviction based on Section 307. [Para 
12] [405-B-H; 406-A-C] 
Medical Jurisprudence on Toxicology by Dr. K. S. 
Reddy - referred to.
P. EKNATH v. Y. AMARANATHA REDDY @ BABU & ANR. 
397 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
A 
No. 1792 of2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2012 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. I 025 of 
2008. 
Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Ms.Tatini Basu, Advs., for the Appellant. 
V. Sridhar Reddy, V. N. Raghupathy, Guntur Prabhakar, 
Ms. Prerna Singh, D. Mahesh Babu, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. I. This appeal, filed by the 
appellant/Complainant is directed against the judgment and order dated 
17.08.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra 
Pradesh at Hyderabad, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed 
by the accused (Respondent No. I herein) and set aside the conviction 
and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences punishable 
under Sections 302, 307 and 324 !PC and acquitted him of the charges. 
2. This case pertains to double murder of the deceased Pasupuleti 
Lohita, aged 12 years and the deceased Pasupuleti Venkatramana, aged 
50 years and double life attempts on Pasupuleti Chandrakala and 
Pasupuleti Eknath, all residents of Prasanth Nagar, Madanapalle, and 
theft in the dwelling house by the sole accused Yerraballi Amaranatha 
Reddy @ Babu Reddy-Respondent No. I herein. 
3. The relevant facts which are necessary for the purpose of 
deciding this appeal are narrated hereunder: 
4. According to the case of the
prosecution, on 18.09.2005, at 
about I 0.00 p.m., the accused went to the house of P. Venkatramana 
(the deceased No.2) along with a sickle. While the deceased No.2 and 
the accused were talking and when the others had retired for the night, 
at about 1.30 a.m., the accused took out the sickle and attacked the 
deceased No.2 and hacked him indiscriminately. When P.W. 2 wife of 
deceased No.2 tried to intervene, he attacked her too and caused severe 
bleeding injuries. 
5. P.W.1 (son of deceased No.2) witnessed the incident, and 
called his brother P.W.3 on the phone and informed him about the incident. 
As P.W.3 was sleeping, he could not understand the message of P.W.l, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
398 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
so he called back. The accused lifted the phone and heard P. W. I talking 
to P.W.3 and went to the bedroom ofP.W. I and attacked him and cRused 
injuries which led to bleeding. When the deceased No. I tried to run 
down the stairs, the accused caught her on the staircase and hacked her 
to death. Meanwhile, P.W. I locked the doors of his bedroom. The 
accused also committed theft of Rs.2,500/- from the shirt of the 
deceased. 
6. On the information furnished by P.W.3, police came to the 
scene of offence and recorded the statement of P. W. I and Crim~ No. 
115 of2005 under Sections 302 and 307 !PC was registered. P.W.23 
held inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.1 and got the scene 
of offence photographed and sent the deceased No.2 and P. W.2 to the 
hospital for treatment. While undergoing treatment, deceased No.2 died 
in the hospital and an inquest was held on his dead body. The body was 
also sent for postmortem examination. 
7. On 15.10.2005, P.W. 23 arrested the accused and recorded 
his confessional statement in the presence ofP.Ws 11 and 12 and seized 
the sickle used in the commission of offence at his instance. The accused 
also showed the place where he burned his blood stained shirt. 
8. P.W. 13 doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead 
body of the deceased No.1, opined that the deceased died due to injury 
to .skull bones, cervical vertebrae leading to internal and external
ha.emorrhage, shock and death. P.W. 14, the doctor who conducted the 
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No. 2, opined that the 
deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage due 
to multiple injuries to the vital organs by a sharp object. P.W. 23 sent the 
material objects to FSL for examination and on receipt of the report 
from the FSL and on completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet 
against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has framed charges 
under Sections 302, 307 and 380 !PC against the accused. 
9. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined 
P.Ws 1to23. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidence 
adduced, both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has been 
able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, artd 
convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 
and 324 !PC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to 
also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 with default stipulation.
fl. EKNATH v. Y. AMARANATHA REDDY @ BABU & ANR. 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE] 
10. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before 
the High Court and the said Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the 
appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial 
Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 !PC 
and acquitted him. 
11. The appellant-Complainant preferred this appeal, by way of 
special leave. 
12. We have heard Mr. Suyodhan Byrapaneni, the learned 
counsel appearing for the appellant-Complainant and Mr. V. Sridhar 
Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the accused/Respondent No. I and 
Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, the learned counsel appearing for the State at 
considerable length. 
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that 
the High Court erred in acquitting the accused without taking into 
consideration the well reasoned judgment of the Trial Court completely 
ignoring the evidences of P.Ws 1 and 2, who were the eyewitnesses and 
also the injured witnesses in the incident. 
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused 
contended that the High Court is right in coming to its conclusion by 
observing that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive for the 
commission of offence by the accused. 
15. After hearing the contentions of the parties and carefully 
perusing the records of the case and after going through the judgments 
of both the trial Court as well as the High Court, it appears
to us that 
except motive, the High Court has not given any other plausible reasons 
for setting aside the well reasoned order of the Trial Court. 
16. Further, after going through the evidence which has been 
placed before us, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 
and 2 who are injured eye witnesses. The High Court has not even 
taken into account the evidence of PWs 20, 21 and 22 who just afterthe 
incident came to the spot in question. 
17. We have also considered the sketch of the spot which has 
been shown to us, and there is no doubt that deceased No.2 died on the 
ground floor, lying in a pool of blood, and the daughter who is 12 years 
old, was also lying dead in the middle of the staircase. 
399 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
400 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
18. It further appears that the reason behind this is that some 
loan was taken by the accused and was not returned to the deceased 
No.2 victim as a result whereof these ghastly murders have taken place. 
19. The evidence which has been put forward by doctor P.W.14 
who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased No.2, as 
well as the other doctor P.W.13 who further conducted autopsy over the 
dead body of the deceased No. I clearly shows that all injuries were ofa 
shart edged weapon. In our considered opinion, there is no discrepancy 
with regard to the ocular evidence or the evidence of the doctors who 
deposed before the Court. The weapon (sickle) which was used by the 
accused was recovered at the instance of the accused himself. The 
said sickle also contained human blood in terms of the FSL Report which 
was produced before the Court at the time of hearing of the matter in 
question. 
20. After taking into consideration and summing it up together, it 
appears to us that the High Court did not take into account all these 
facts which were brought before us had been placed before the High 
Court at the time of hearing of the appeal. 
21. We have been able to find out from the material available on 
record that the accused had the requisite motive for committing the 
offence and the weapon used i.e. sickle can be convincingly linked to 
the injuries caused on the deceased. The FSL report,
credibility of 
witnesses, foot prints of the offender, narration of incident by the 
circumstantial witness, identification of the accused/weapon, presence 
oflight in the murder scene, all leads to the guilt of the accused. 
22. Learned counsel for the respondent cited before us some 
judgments which, in our opinion, cannot be helpful to the respondent in 
the facts and circumstances of this case. 
23. In our opinion, the High Court has failed to appreciate such 
evidence which was brought before the Court and further the facts which 
ought to have been taken into consideration at the time of the matter to 
be decided by the High Court and without giving any reasons, set aside 
the well reasoned order of the Trial Court. 
24. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is perverse 
and not sustainable in the eyes of law and we set aside the order passed 
by it affirming the order passed by the trial Court.
P. EKNATH v. Y. AMARANATHA REDDY@ BABU & ANR. 
401 
25. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 
A 
26. We direct the concerned Police Authorities to take custody 
of the respondent forthwith to serve out the remainder of sentence 
imposed by the Trial Court. 
R. F. NARIMAN, J. (Concurring) 1. A concurring judgment is 
usually written because a Judge feels that he can reach the same 
conclusion, but by a different process of reasoning. In the present case, 
the reason I have penned this concurrence is because the impugned 
judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, 
dated 17'" August, 2012, has been characterized by my learned brother 
as "perverse". "Perverse" is not a happy expression, particularly when 
used for a judgment of a superior court of record. I am constrained to 
observe this because in the facts of the present case, there has been a 
heinous double murder, as has been pointed out by my learned brother. 
And, despite an extremely well-considered judgment by the trial court, 
dated 31" July, 2008, the High Court has acquitted the respondent-
accused before us. I entirely agree that this judgment is "perverse", and 
wish to give my own reasons as to why it is so. 
2. The skeletal facts necessary to understand the present case 
have already been set out by my learned brother. The salient features 
of the case are that the accused entered the family home of deceased 
no. 2 on 18'" September, 2005 at about 10.00 P.M. PW-2, being the wife 
of the
deceased no. 2, a grievously injured eyewitness in the present 
case. She cooked some food for him, and then went to bed along with 
her two children by about 11.00 P.M. At about 1.30 A.M. on 19'" 
September, 2005, she heard a tremendous commotion, ai1d found the 
accused hacking away at her husband with a sickle. She also witnessed 
the accused hacking away at her daughter, who was a young girl of 
tender age. The accused succeeded in his attempt at murdering both 
her husband and her daughter. She narrowly escaped death only because 
she feigned unconsciousness, but ultimately did become unconscious. 
Her 14 year old son also escaped being murdered, and was also seriously 
injured, because he bolted himself inside a bedroom, and contacted his 
brother by phone who came to the scene of the crime some time later. 
What is interesting to note is that, at 3.57 A.M. on 19'" September, 2005, 
PW-2 recorded what was supposed to be a dying declaration to the duty 
doctor Shri. R. Chennaiah, at the Area Hospital, Madanapalle. This dying 
declaration reads as follows: 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
402 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
"On 18.9.2005 night I 0.00 hours, we came out after meals and 
babu locking the gate (my babu name Ekanth). At that time 
Babu Reddy, Yerracherlopalli came. At that time preparing meals 
and asked him to take meals prepared chapathi and given him. 
My husband and himself sat by discussion. I went and slept. 
After about 1.00 hours, I woke up on hearing sounds and saw 
Babu Reddy hacking my husband P.Venl<atramana with sickle. 
I went to rescue and he hacked me. I lost my conscious. Again 
hacked my husband as having life. On hearing sounds, my 
children Ekanth, Lohita and sister son Manoj woke up. Hacked 
my daughter Lohitha. My son Ekanth bolted the door. Babu 
Reddy having money dealings with my husband. Babu Reddy 
due amount. I caught the legs but not left me. Though I am 
having conscious and acted as unconscious. He left me as I 
died. My son Ekanth phoned to Sreedhar and Sreedhar came 
after phone cal I." 
3. Ultimately, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under 
Sections 302, 307, and 380 ofthe Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as there 
were two murders and two attempts at murder of two other persons 
who narrowly escaped with their lives. 
4. The trial court convicted the accused both under Section 302 
E 
for the double murder, as well as Section 307 for the attempt to murder 
PW-I and PW-2, and the accused was convicted and sentenced to life 
F 
G 
H 
imprisonment on both counts. 
5. In appeal to a Division
Bench of the High Court, the accused 
was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 as well as the offence 
under Section 307. 
6. The reasoning of the High Court in acquitting the accused of 
this heinous double murder anti the heinous attempt at another double 
murder leaves much to be desired. In its reasoning, the High Court 
judgment begins with the evidence ofPW-13 and PW-14. It must not be 
forgotten that PW-I 3 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy ov~r the 
dead body of deceased no. I, who was the murdered daughter in the 
present case. PW-14, on the other hand, conducted the autopsy over 
the dead body of deceased no. 2, who was the father and the head of 
the family. 
7. After setting out the evidence of PW-13 and PW-14, the High
P. EKNATH v. Y. AMARANATHA REDDY @ BABU & ANR. 
[R. F. NARJMAN, J.] 
Court examined only the evidence of PW-14, and stated that despite the 
fact that the doctor opined that the deceased would have appeared to 
have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries caused to 
the vital organs, and despite stating the above injuries could be caused 
by a sharp edged weapon like a sickle, in his cross-examination he admitted 
that the injuries are "lacerated" injuries. The trial court has correctly 
appreciated this evidence, and stated that what was really meant was 
that the injuries were caused by a sharp object. However, the High 
Court came to the conclusion, based on Medical Jurisprudence on 
Toxicology by Dr. K.S. Reddy, that "lacerated" injuries could only be 
caused with a blunt object. The High Court then went on to state that in 
his re-examination the doctor stated that "lacerated" injuries could be 
caused ifthe reverse side of a sickle is used, which is blunt. 
8. On this evidence, the High Court concluded that injuries found 
on deceased no. 2 are not possible with a sharp edged weapon like a 
sickle. It also went on to conclude that given the number of injuries, it is 
also possible that it could have been done with two distinct weapons. 
Both the aforesaid reasons are perverse. There was no gainsaying that 
the blunt edged side of a sickle could possibly have been used. Be that 
as it may, the theoretical possibility that the injuries could have been
caused with two distinct weapons is purely in the nature of surmise. But 
this does not end the matter. What is seriously wrong with the judgment 
under appeal is that it conveniently forgets the entire testimony of PW-
13. In so far as PW-I3's testimony is concerned, there is no doubt 
whatsoever that all 9 injuries caused on deceased no. I, who was the 
daughter, were incised in juries and that they were all caused with a 
sharp edged weapon being a sickle. The High Court judgment conveniently 
forgets about PW-13, and then lumps PW-13 and PW-14 together to 
arrive atthe astounding conclusion thatthe injuries sustained by deceased 
nos. I and 2 are not possible with a sickle and that further, more than one 
weapon might have been used. 
9. The High Cou11 then goes on to discuss whether the accused 
could be said to have carried the sickle along with him at all. lt arrives 
at the conclusion that the accused carrying the sickle along with him is 
itself doubtful. This is done without at all adverting to the fact that the 
sickle was recovered under a pile of stones only because the accused 
led the police to the hiding place of the sickle. Further, it also ignored the 
FSL report which made it clear that there was human blood found on the 
403 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
404 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
said sickle. And this omission becomes even more egregious in that the 
High Court, in passing, while narrating the facts, has itself observed: 
"On 15.10.2005, PW.23 arrested the accused at 
Neerugattuvaripalle and recorded his confessional statement in 
the presence of PWs.11 and 12 and seized the sickle used in the 
commission of offence from the heap of stones at 
Ammacheruvemitta and the accused also shown the place where 
he has burnt his blood stained shirt." 
I 0. With regard to the scene of the offence, in so far as the dead 
body of the female child was concerned, the High Court refers only to 
the inquest report Exh.P7 to conclude that since the evidence of PW-1 
and PW-2 state that the body of the girl child was on the staircase, and 
the inquest report states that it was found in the middle of the bedroom 
of the children, there is contradictory evidence with regard to the finding 
of the dead body of deceased no. I. Here again, the High Court falls 
into grievous error in completely ignoring the evidence of PW-3, 4, 5, 
and 6, all of whom consistently record thatthe dead body of the girl child 
was found only on the staircase. Further, in the rough sketch that was 
drawn by the Investigating Officer and exhibited as Exh.P-16, it is also 
made clear that the dead body of the deceased female child was found 
only on the staircase. 
11. Also, with regard to the amount of light that was there in
the 
house in order that the injured eye-witnesses could be said to have 
successfully identified the accused, the High Court refers only to the 
evidence of PW-22, S.l. of the Police, to state that "a zero watt bulb 
was burning in the bedroom". From this it concludes that "only a zero 
watt bulb was burning in the house" whereas both the eye-witnesses 
stated thatthere was power supply and illumination oflights. Here again, 
the High Court falls into grievous error in completely ignoring the consistent 
testimony of PWs-20, 21, and 23, all of whom state that there was more 
than sufficient light in the house at the time of the incident. Further, it is 
clear that both deceased no.2 and the accused were sitting and talking 
till the incident occurred, and this they obviously did with the lights on in 
the house. 
12. What is also ignored by the High Court is the entire discussion 
of the trial court on the heinous hacking away at the two injured eye-
witnesses, and the dying declaration recorded at 3.57 A.M. shortly after
P. EKNATH v. Y. AMARANATHA REDDY @ BABU & ANR. 
405 
[R. F. NARIMAN, J.] 
the incident by PW-2 in the hospital before the Doctor-in-charge. Without 
A 
setting aside the finding of the trial court based on the necessary evidence, 
the High Court went on to upset the conviction under Section 307. 
To summarize therefore -
(i) The High Court completely ignored the testimony of PW-13 
who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased 
no.I, the young daughter, which testimony· clearly showed 
that the daughter had been murdered by a sickle, all 9 injuries 
on her being incised injuries; 
(ii) The High Court has erred in reading the evidence of PW-14 
as a whole to conclude that injuries found on deceased no. 2 
are not possible with a sharp edged weapon like a sickle, and 
that it is distinctly possible that they could have been caused 
with two distinct weapons. This reasoning ignores the 
hypothesis that a sickle has a blunt side which could cause 
"lacerated injuries". Further, as the trial court records, the 
doctor who used the expression "lacerated" actually meant 
"incised". Also, the fact that there were 14 wounds would 
not at all lead to the conclusion that they were caused with 
two distinct weapons - a complete surmise on the part of the 
High Court; 
(iii) The High Court mixes up the testimony ofPWs-13 and 14 to 
conclude that the. injuries sustained by both deceased nos. I 
and 2 are not possible with a weapon like a sickle; 
(iv) The High Court ignores
vital evidence as to recovery of a 
blood stained sickle which was hidden under stones, and which 
was recovered with the complicity of the accused. To state 
that the accused carrying the sickle along with him is doubtful 
is to ignore this vital piece of evidence; 
(v) Equally, with regard to the scene of offence in so far as the 
young daughter was concerned, to rely solely upon the Inquest 
Report and again to ignore the evidence of PWs-1, 3, 4, 5, 
and 6, (and the site plan referred to above), all of whom said 
consistently that the dead body of the deceased daughter was 
found on the staircase and not in the bedroom, is again to 
ignore the overwhelming evidence in favour of the dead body 
being found on the staircase; 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
406 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
(vi) To conclude, based only on PW-22 's evidence, that there was 
a zero watt bulb which alone was burning in the house, and to 
ignore the evidence of PWs-1, and 20 to 23 on the sufficiency 
of the lighting in the house together with the commonsensical 
conclusion that if the accused and the deceased no.2 were 
speaking together, it could not have been in the dark, is again 
to ignore vital evidence; 
(vii) The High Court has completely ignored "the dying declaration" 
made by PW-2 immediately after the incident; and 
(viii)The High Court has not set aside the finding of the trial court 
C 
together with its reasoning based on evidence that the offence 
under Section 307 was made out, and has yet set aside the 
conviction based on Section 307. 
13. In the result, it must be declared that the Division Bench 
judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court cannot but be characterized 
D 
as perverse on all counts, and must therefore be set aside. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal allowed.