LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in overturning the trial court’s conviction of the accused in a murder case based on minor inconsistencies and the status of witnesses.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: M. Nageswara Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Judgment Date: 7 March 2022
Date of the Judgment: 7 March 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 209
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the fact that witnesses are relatives of the victim be sufficient grounds for a High Court to overturn a trial court’s conviction in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, examining the evidence and reasoning of the High Court. This case involves a brutal attack where the deceased was hacked to death, and the Supreme Court had to decide whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused. The bench consisted of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
On January 18, 2007, at approximately 8:30 p.m., the deceased, Rajasekhar Reddy, along with his brother M. Nageswara Reddy (PW1), and other supporters, were traveling in a sumo vehicle near Dr. Kabir Clinic in Kurnool. They were ambushed by a group of individuals armed with hunting sickles. According to the prosecution, the accused, including Kasireddy Ramakrishna Reddy, Kasireddy Rambhupal Reddy, and Kasireddy Venkateswara Reddy (Accused Nos. 1 to 3), forcibly dragged Rajasekhar Reddy out of the vehicle and attacked him with sickles, leading to his death on the spot. Other individuals in the vehicle, including the driver, Rajesh (PW6), and P. Sekhar (PW7), sustained injuries during the attack.
M. Nageswara Reddy (PW1) lodged a complaint, and a case was registered against the accused. The police investigation led to charges against eleven individuals under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 427, and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was committed to the District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Kurnool.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 18, 2007, 8:30 PM | Attack on Rajasekhar Reddy and others near Dr. Kabir Clinic, Kurnool. |
| January 18, 2007, 9:30 PM (as per prosecution) | FIR lodged by M. Nageswara Reddy (PW1). |
| January 19, 2007, 4:30 AM | FIR received by the learned Magistrate. |
| Trial Court | Accused Nos. 1 to 3 convicted, Accused Nos. 4 to 11 acquitted. |
| High Court | Accused Nos. 1 to 3 acquitted, acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 upheld. |
| March 7, 2022 | Supreme Court reinstates conviction of Accused Nos. 1 to 3, upholds acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. However, Accused Nos. 4 to 11 were acquitted of all charges. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 appealed their conviction to the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (Criminal Appeal No. 611/2011), while the original complainant, M. Nageswara Reddy, appealed the acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 (Criminal Appeal No. 659/2011). The High Court allowed the appeal of Accused Nos. 1 to 3, acquitting them, and dismissed the appeal of the complainant, thereby upholding the acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 147: “Punishment for rioting”.
- Section 148: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon”.
- Section 302: “Punishment for murder”.
- Section 149: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object”.
- Section 324: “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”.
- Section 326: “Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means”.
- Section 307: “Attempt to murder”.
- Section 427: “Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees”.
These sections define the offenses of rioting, murder, and causing hurt, and are used to establish criminal liability in cases involving unlawful assemblies and violence.
Arguments
Arguments on behalf of the Complainant and the State:
- The High Court erred in acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 by giving undue weightage to an alleged interpolation in the FIR regarding the time of lodging, which was not raised before the trial court.
- The FIR was lodged at 9:30 p.m. on 18.01.2007, and sent to the learned Magistrate within 24 hours, fulfilling legal requirements.
- The prosecution proved its case through the testimonies of PW1, PW3, PW5, PW6, and PW7, who were either eye-witnesses or injured eye-witnesses.
- The High Court wrongly discredited PW1 and PW3 based on minor contradictions and their status as “interested witnesses” (relatives of the deceased).
- The High Court failed to re-appreciate the evidence of PW5 and did not consider the credibility of PW6 and PW7 as injured eye-witnesses.
- Accused Nos. 4 to 11 were part of the unlawful assembly and should have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Arguments on behalf of the Accused:
- The FIR contained an interpolation, changing the time from 0:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., suggesting a false implication of the accused.
- There was a delay of seven hours in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, raising doubts about its authenticity.
- The High Court correctly disbelieved the testimonies of PW1, PW3, PW6, and PW7, as they were not credible.
- The High Court did not commit any error in acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and confirming the acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions (Complainant/State) | Sub-Submissions (Accused) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of FIR | ✓ Alleged interpolation not raised in trial court ✓ FIR lodged within 24 hours as required ✓ FIR was lodged at 9:30 PM on 18.01.2007 |
✓ Interpolation of time from 0:30 AM to 9:30 PM ✓ Delay of 7 hours in sending FIR to Magistrate |
| Credibility of Witnesses | ✓ PW1, PW3, PW5 are eye-witnesses ✓ PW6 & PW7 are injured eye-witnesses ✓ Minor contradictions do not affect credibility ✓ Being relatives does not make them unreliable ✓ High Court did not re-appreciate evidence of PW5 ✓ High Court did not consider credibility of PW6 & PW7 |
✓ PW1, PW3, PW6 & PW7 not credible ✓ Prosecution case rests on these witnesses |
| Role of Accused | ✓ Accused Nos. 1-3 identified by witnesses ✓ Accused Nos. 4-11 part of unlawful assembly ✓ Accused Nos. 4-11 should be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC |
✓ High Court rightly acquitted Accused Nos. 1-3 and upheld acquittal of Accused Nos. 4-11 |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 by reversing the trial court’s conviction.
- Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 | No | The High Court gave undue weightage to minor contradictions and wrongly discredited the testimonies of key witnesses. The High Court failed to re-appreciate the evidence of PW5 and did not consider the credibility of PW6 & PW7 as injured eye-witnesses. |
| Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 | Yes | Concurrent findings by the trial court and High Court, with no compelling reasons for interference. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the testimonies of the witnesses, including:
- PW1: M. Nageswara Reddy (Complainant and brother of the deceased)
- PW3: Shaik Akbar Basha (Supporter traveling with the deceased)
- PW5: An eye-witness
- PW6: S. Rajesh (Driver of the vehicle, injured eye-witness)
- PW7: P. Sekhar (Supporter traveling with the deceased, injured eye-witness)
The Court also considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment for rioting”.
- Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon”.
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment for murder”.
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object”.
- Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”.
- Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means”.
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Attempt to murder”.
- Section 427, Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees”.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Testimony of PW1, PW3, PW5, PW6, PW7 | Credibility and consistency of the witnesses were analysed. |
| Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Used to define the offense of rioting. |
| Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Used to define the offense of rioting with deadly weapons. |
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Used to define the offense of murder. |
| Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Used to establish the liability of members of an unlawful assembly. |
| Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Used to define the offense of causing hurt by dangerous weapons. |
| Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Used to define the offense of causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons. |
| Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Used to define the offense of attempt to murder. |
| Section 427, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Used to define the offense of mischief causing damage. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| High Court erred in acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had wrongly reversed the trial court’s conviction. |
| FIR was lodged with a delay and contained interpolations | Rejected. The Supreme Court found that the delay was not fatal and the interpolation was not raised during trial. |
| PW1, PW3, PW5, PW6, and PW7 were not credible witnesses | Rejected. The Supreme Court found that the witnesses were consistent and credible, particularly the injured eye-witnesses. |
| Accused Nos. 4 to 11 were part of the unlawful assembly | Rejected. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts acquitting Accused Nos. 4 to 11. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The testimonies of PW1, PW3, PW5, and especially PW6 and PW7, were deemed credible. The court noted that PW6, being an injured eye-witness, had a greater reliability.
- The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were applied to establish the offenses committed by the accused.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the credibility of the eye-witnesses and injured eye-witnesses, the consistency in their testimonies, and the fact that the High Court had given undue weightage to minor contradictions. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have re-appreciated the evidence of PW5 and considered the credibility of PW6 and PW7 as injured eye-witnesses. The Court also noted that the High Court erred in discarding the testimonies of witnesses merely because they were relatives of the deceased.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Credibility of Eye-Witnesses | 40% |
| Consistency in Testimonies | 30% |
| High Court’s Error in Reversal | 20% |
| Status of Injured Witnesses | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
Key Takeaways
- Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies are not sufficient grounds to discard their evidence, especially when the core facts are consistent.
- The testimony of injured eye-witnesses holds greater credibility and reliability.
- The High Court should re-appreciate all evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses that the trial court may have disbelieved.
- The status of witnesses as relatives of the victim does not automatically make them unreliable.
- The delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal if the FIR is lodged within a reasonable time and the delay is explained.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed Accused Nos. 1 to 3 to surrender within four weeks to serve the remainder of their life imprisonment sentence.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should not reverse a trial court’s conviction based on minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies or the fact that witnesses are relatives of the victim, especially when injured eye-witnesses corroborate the prosecution’s case. This judgment reinforces the principle that the testimony of injured witnesses holds greater evidentiary value. This case does not introduce any new legal principle but reinforces the settled principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the original complainant and the State, setting aside the High Court’s judgment that had acquitted Accused Nos. 1 to 3. The Court reinstated the trial court’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for Accused Nos. 1 to 3, while upholding the acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering the credibility of injured eye-witnesses and the need for a thorough re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court.