LEGAL ISSUE: Criminal liability in cases of faction killings.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy @ Rama Krishna Reddy & Ors.
Judgment Date: July 3, 2018
Date of the Judgment: July 3, 2018
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J.
Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s conviction based on minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving a brutal faction killing in Andhra Pradesh. The core issue revolves around the reliability of eyewitness accounts in a crime where multiple individuals were involved, and the extent to which minor contradictions should impact the overall credibility of the witnesses. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, delivered the judgment, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case stems from a violent incident in Chindukur village, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, a region known for its factional conflicts. Two rival groups, one led by V. Venkateswara Reddy and the other by Sivarami Reddy, were engaged in a bitter feud. Following the murder of V. Venkateswara Reddy in July 1992, there were retaliatory killings of Sivarami Reddy’s supporters. On October 11, 1994, cases were registered against members of both factions under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Sivarami Reddy was released on bail, with a condition to report at the Gadivemula Police Station every Sunday. On October 30, 1994, while Sivarami Reddy was en route to the police station, a deadly attack occurred, resulting in the deaths of Sivarami Reddy and three of his associates.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 1992 | V. Venkateswara Reddy was murdered. |
| July 1992 | Four supporters of Sivarami Reddy were murdered in retaliation. |
| October 11, 1994 | Cases were registered against both factions under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. |
| October 30, 1994, 9:00 a.m. | Sivarami Reddy and his supporters left his residence to report to the Gadivemula Police Station. |
| October 30, 1994 | Attack on Sivarami Reddy and his supporters resulting in four deaths. |
| October 30, 1994, 9:45 a.m. | Statement of A. Ayyalanna (PW-1) recorded by police. |
| October 30, 1994, 11:00 a.m. | FIR No. 99/1994 registered. |
| October 30, 1994, 12:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. | Inquest conducted by the police. |
| October 30, 1994, 5:00 p.m. | FIR sent to the Magistrate. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted several accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. However, it acquitted some of the accused, including A-1 to A-5, A-8, A-24, and A-43 to A-47. The convicted individuals appealed to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which overturned the trial court’s judgment and acquitted all the accused. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.
Legal Framework
The case involves several key legal provisions:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with the concept of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly, stating that if a member of an unlawful assembly commits an offense in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every member of that assembly is guilty of that offense.
- Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908: Relate to offenses involving the use and possession of explosive substances.
Arguments
Appellant (State of Andhra Pradesh) Arguments:
- The incident occurred in a faction-ridden village, right outside the house of A-1, wife of a slain leader of a warring group.
- There was prior animosity between the two factions, and the motive was to eliminate Sivarami Reddy.
- There was no delay in lodging the FIR, and the eyewitness accounts were consistent in material particulars.
- The eyewitness testimony was corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.
- In faction-ridden villages, independent witnesses are unlikely to come forward, making the testimony of relatives crucial.
- The High Court erred in discarding the evidence of eyewitnesses based on their relationship with the deceased.
- Even if some accused were acquitted, the evidence can be relied upon to convict others.
- The High Court should not have interfered with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court.
- The High Court focused on minor contradictions, ignoring the fact that four people were killed in broad daylight.
- The judgment of the High Court is perverse and should be set aside.
Respondent (Accused) Arguments:
- Every accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and this presumption is strengthened by an acquittal.
- The Supreme Court should be slow to interfere with a High Court’s acquittal if the view is a possible one.
- The entire genesis of the case is doubtful, especially since A-1, the alleged mastermind, was acquitted.
- All eyewitnesses were members of the rival faction, and their credibility is suspect.
- The eyewitnesses had a motive to falsely implicate the accused.
- The incident took place a long time ago, and the accused have suffered the agony of trial for almost 25 years, so a compassionate view should be taken.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability of Eyewitnesses | ✓ Eyewitness accounts were consistent in material particulars. ✓ Medical and forensic evidence corroborated eyewitness testimony. ✓ Relatives’ testimony is crucial in faction-ridden villages. |
✓ Eyewitnesses were members of the rival faction, and their credibility is suspect. ✓ Eyewitnesses had a motive to falsely implicate the accused. |
| Interference with Acquittal | ✓ High Court should not have interfered with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. ✓ High Court focused on minor contradictions, ignoring the gravity of the crime. |
✓ Every accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and this presumption is strengthened by an acquittal. ✓ Supreme Court should be slow to interfere with a High Court’s acquittal if the view is a possible one. |
| Doubtful Genesis of the Case | ✓ The entire genesis of the case is doubtful, especially since A-1, the alleged mastermind, was acquitted. | |
| Compassionate View | ✓ The incident took place a long time ago, and the accused have suffered the agony of trial for almost 25 years. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in overturning the trial court’s conviction and acquitting all the accused, particularly considering the eyewitness testimony and the nature of the crime.
The sub-issues were:
- Whether the High Court was right in discarding the testimonies of the eye witnesses based on minor contradictions.
- Whether the High Court was right in discarding the testimonies of the eye witnesses based on their relationship with the deceased.
- Whether the evidence can be relied upon to convict the other accused even if some accused were acquitted.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was right in discarding the testimonies of the eye witnesses based on minor contradictions. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in discarding the testimonies of the eye witnesses based on minor contradictions. It emphasized that minor contradictions should be ignored if there is a ring of truth in the testimony. |
| Whether the High Court was right in discarding the testimonies of the eye witnesses based on their relationship with the deceased. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the evidence of the eye witnesses on the ground that they were close relatives and supporters of the deceased. The Court held that in faction-ridden villages, relatives are the most likely to come forward as witnesses. |
| Whether the evidence can be relied upon to convict the other accused even if some accused were acquitted. | The Supreme Court held that even if some accused are acquitted on the ground that the evidence of a witness is unreliable, the other accused can still be convicted by relying on the evidence of the same witness. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227 | Privy Council | The court noted the submission of the counsel for the respondent that though the Privy Council in this case held that there was no real distinction between appeal against acquittal and an appeal against a conviction, the approach of this Court has been qualitatively different in cases of appeals against acquittal. |
| Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537 | Supreme Court of India | The principle of ‘Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ has not been accepted in our country. |
| Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381 | Supreme Court of India | Even if some accused are acquitted on the ground that the evidence of a witness is unreliable, the other accused can still be convicted by relying on the evidence of the same witness. |
| State of U.P. v. Dan Singh (1997) 3 SCC 747 | Supreme Court of India | Minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of a witness are to be ignored if there is a ring of truth in the testimony of a witness. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s argument that the incident happened in a faction ridden village, right outside the house of Accused No. 1 | The Court acknowledged this fact as an admitted fact of the case. |
| Appellant’s argument that there was prior animosity between the two factions | The Court acknowledged this fact as an admitted fact of the case. |
| Appellant’s argument that there was no delay in lodging the FIR. | The Court acknowledged this fact. |
| Appellant’s argument that the oral evidence of all the prosecution witnesses is consistent in material particulars except for some minor contradictions and inconsistencies. | The Court agreed that there were minor contradictions and inconsistencies but held that they should be ignored if there is a ring of truth in the testimony of a witness. |
| Appellant’s argument that the occular evidence of the eye witnesses is corroborated by the medical and forensic evidence on record. | The Court agreed with this submission and held that the medical evidence was in conformity with the testimonies of the eye witnesses. |
| Appellant’s argument that in faction ridden villages , even if some independent or impartial witnesses were present at or near the scene of the incident they are not likely to volunteer to give evidence and it is only the relatives who would be willing to tender evidence. | The Court agreed with this submission and held that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the evidence of the eye witnesses on the ground that they were close relatives and supporters of the deceased. |
| Appellant’s argument that the High Court was wrong in discarding the evidence of the eyewitnesses on the ground that they were interested and partisan. | The Court agreed with this submission and held that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the evidence of the eye witnesses on the ground that they were close relatives and supporters of the deceased. |
| Appellant’s argument that even if the evidence of the eyewitnesses was disbelieved qua some accused, it can still be relied upon to convict the other accused. | The Court agreed with this submission and held that even if some accused are acquitted on the ground that the evidence of a witness is unreliable, the other accused can still be convicted by relying on the evidence of the same witness. |
| Appellant’s argument that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. | The Court agreed with this submission and held that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. |
| Appellant’s argument that the entire approach of the High Court appears to be focused on minor contradictions oblivious to the fact that four people were killed in broad daylight on 30.10.1994. | The Court agreed with this submission and held that the High Court was wrong in focusing on minor contradictions and ignoring the fact that four people were killed in broad daylight. |
| Appellant’s argument that the judgment of the High Court is perverse and deserves to be set aside. | The Court agreed with this submission and held that the judgment of the High Court was perverse and deserved to be set aside. |
| Respondent’s argument that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. This presumption is further strengthened by a finding of acquittal arrived by a Court. | The Court acknowledged this fact but held that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. |
| Respondent’s argument that this Court should be slow in interfering with the judgment of acquittal of the High Court, if the view of the High Court is a possible one. The judgment of the High Court ought not be set aside unless it is perverse. | The Court acknowledged this fact but held that the judgment of the High Court was perverse and deserved to be set aside. |
| Respondent’s argument that on merits, the entire genesis of the case is extremely doubtful. As per the FIR, A-1 was the mastermind of the attack and on her instigation the other accused attacked the deceased. This version was disbelieved by the Trial Court and A-1’s plea of alibi was accepted. A-2 to A-5, A-8, A-24, A-43 to A-47 were also acquitted by the trial Court. This finding has attained finality as the Appellant-State has not chosen to file an appeal against the acquittal of A-1 and thus the whole incident as deposed by the eyewitnesses is riddled with uncertainty and is highly doubtful. In such a situation, the benefit of the doubt should accrue to the accused. It is not safe to convict any of the Respondents/Accused. | The Court acknowledged this fact but held that even if some accused are acquitted on the ground that the evidence of a witness is unreliable, the other accused can still be convicted by relying on the evidence of the same witness. |
| Respondent’s argument that all the eyewitness put forth by the prosecution are members of the opposite faction. The credibility of the witnesses is also suspect as they are accused in several cases filed by the Respondents. There is a clear motive to falsely rope in the Respondent/Accused. The evidence of partisan witnesses merits acceptance only after a careful scrutiny of the same. | The Court acknowledged this fact but held that in faction-ridden villages, relatives are the most likely to come forward as witnesses. |
| Respondent’s argument that this Court should take a compassionate view of the fact that the incident took place a long time ago and the Respondent/Accused have suffered the agony of trial for almost 25 years. | The Court did not accept this submission and held that the accused should be convicted. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor [AIR 1934 PC 227]*: The Court acknowledged the submission of the counsel for the respondent that though the Privy Council in this case held that there was no real distinction between appeal against acquittal and an appeal against a conviction, the approach of this Court has been qualitatively different in cases of appeals against acquittal.
- Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra [(2016) 10 SCC 537]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the principle of ‘Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ has not been accepted in India.
- Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa [(2002) 8 SCC 381]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that even if some accused are acquitted on the ground that the evidence of a witness is unreliable, the other accused can still be convicted by relying on the evidence of the same witness.
- State of U.P. v. Dan Singh [(1997) 3 SCC 747]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of a witness are to be ignored if there is a ring of truth in the testimony of a witness.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Rejection of “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus”: The Court explicitly stated that the principle of “false in one thing, false in everything” is not applicable in India. This means that even if a witness is found to be untruthful about some aspects of their testimony, their entire testimony cannot be discarded.
- Consistency in Material Particulars: The Court observed that the eyewitness accounts were consistent in material aspects, even if there were minor contradictions. These minor contradictions were not enough to discredit the entire testimony.
- Corroboration by Medical Evidence: The medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts, which further strengthened the prosecution’s case.
- Factional Nature of the Crime: The Court acknowledged the factional nature of the crime and the likelihood that only relatives and supporters of the deceased would come forward as witnesses. This is why the court did not reject the testimony of the eyewitnesses merely because they were relatives of the deceased.
- Gravity of the Crime: The Court emphasized that four people were killed in broad daylight, and the High Court’s focus on minor contradictions had overlooked the gravity of the crime.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Rejection of “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus” | 25% |
| Consistency in Material Particulars | 25% |
| Corroboration by Medical Evidence | 20% |
| Factional Nature of the Crime | 15% |
| Gravity of the Crime | 15% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning:
Issue: Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the trial court’s conviction and acquitting all the accused?
Step 1: Evaluate eyewitness testimony for consistency and credibility.
Step 2: Check if medical evidence corroborates eyewitness accounts.
Step 3: Consider the factional nature of the crime and the likelihood of biased witnesses.
Step 4: Determine if minor contradictions should invalidate the entire testimony.
Step 5: Conclude that the High Court erred in rejecting the eyewitness testimonies and acquitting the accused.
The court considered the alternative interpretation that the eyewitnesses were unreliable due to their relationship with the deceased and minor inconsistencies in their testimonies. However, the court rejected this interpretation stating that the principle of “false in one thing, false in everything” is not applicable in India and that minor contradictions should be ignored if there is a ring of truth in the testimony.
The Supreme Court, therefore, reversed the High Court’s decision and convicted some of the accused, while upholding the acquittal of others. The court held that the High Court had erred in discarding the testimonies of the eye witnesses based on minor contradictions and their relationship with the deceased. The court also held that even if some accused are acquitted on the ground that the evidence of a witness is unreliable, the other accused can still be convicted by relying on the evidence of the same witness.
The Court stated, “The principle of ‘Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ has not been accepted in our country.”
The Court also stated, “Minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of a witness are to be ignored if there is a ring of truth in the testimony of a witness.”
The Court further stated, “Even if some accused are acquitted on the ground that the evidence of a witness is unreliable, the other accused can still be convicted by relying on the evidence of the same witness.”
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice L. Nageswara Rao. There were no dissenting opinions.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the principle of “false in one thing, false in everything” is not applicable in India.
- Minor contradictions in eyewitness testimony should not be a basis for rejecting the entire testimony if there is an overall ring of truth.
- In faction-ridden villages, the testimony of relatives and supporters of the deceased may be crucial and should not be rejected solely on that basis.
- Medical and forensic evidence can corroborate eyewitness accounts, strengthening the prosecution’s case.
- The High Court should not interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court unless it is perverse.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the convicted accused to surrender within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that minor contradictions in eyewitness testimony should not be a basis for rejecting the entire testimony if there is an overall ring of truth. The court also reiterated that the principle of “false in one thing, false in everything” is not applicable in India. This case reaffirms the principle that the evidence of relatives and supporters of the deceased may be crucial in faction-ridden villages and should not be rejected solely on that basis. There is no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case highlights the importance of evaluating evidence in its totality, especially in cases involving factional violence. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that minor inconsistencies should not undermine the credibility of eyewitnesses when their core testimony is consistent and corroborated by other evidence. The judgment underscores the need for a balanced approach in assessing evidence, particularly in situations where witnesses may have biases or relationships with the victims. The Court convicted Pullagummi Kasireddy Krishna Reddy(A-13), Kondapuram Narayana Reddy(A-16), Vade Malesh(A-18), Yedula Rami Reddy(A-19), Perugu Pedda Venkateswarlu(A-20), Mulla Sha Hussaini(A-21), Mulla Moula Peera(A-22), Vade Hanumanna (A-26), Vadde Venkatesu(A-28) of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. The rest of the accused were acquitted.