1986 (8) TMI 458 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis:

1. The case involved an appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the acquittal of two respondents (accused 1 and 2) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had set aside their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. The respondents were accused of murdering an individual in Kalekal village. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimonies, including PWs 4, 5, 7, and 8. The Sessions Judge had convicted accused 1 and 2 based on this evidence, while acquitting accused 3 and 4 due to lack of proof of their involvement.

3. The High Court overturned the conviction citing various reasons. It questioned the reliability of the witnesses, highlighted procedural lapses, and raised doubts about the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the respondents.

4. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, particularly focusing on the testimony of PW 6, who was considered a crucial eyewitness. The Court found the High Court's failure to consider PW 6's credible and independent testimony as a serious flaw in its judgment.

5. Additionally, the Supreme Court pointed out distortions in the High Court's perspective, such as questioning the conduct of PW 1 in reporting the incident directly to the Police Station and raising doubts about the motive without substantial evidence. The Court also criticized the High Court's unsupported theory regarding the timing of the incident.

6. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found the evidence of PW 6 to be reliable and unassailable. Considering the discrepancies highlighted by the High Court in the testimonies of other witnesses, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of accused 1 and 2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, setting aside their acquittal by the High Court.

7. The Supreme Court emphasized that the errors in the High Court's judgment were significant and could not be ignored, leading to the decision to restore the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the respondents. The Court directed the respondents to surrender themselves for serving the sentence.