Anisetti Veerabhadra Rao v. State of A.P. (SC) BS337915
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 1274 of 2009. D/d. 25.1.2011.

Anisetti Veerabhadra Rao and another - Appellants

Versus

State of A.P. - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Mr. B. Suyodhan, Mr. Bharat J. Joshi, Mohd. Wasay Khan for Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- Mr. Shishir Pinaki and Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Advocates.

Indian Penal Code, Section 302 - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Murder case - Accused convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment - Held :-

(i) Two dying declarations made by deceased one before Police and the other before Magistrate - No material difference between the two

(ii) 13 injuries found on person of deceased most of them were caused with a cutting weapon - Medical evidence supporting the ocular evidence.

(iii) Mother of deceased and servant of deceased were natural witnesses - Their testimony reliable.

[Paras 6 to 9]

ORDER

Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ. - This appeal arises out of the following facts :-

2. The trial court relying on the eye-witness account of PWs- 1, 3 and 4 and on the two dying declarations, one recorded by the police officer and the other by the Magistrate, convicted A- 1 and A-2 for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for one year and life respectively. A-3 and A-4 were, however, acquitted.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellants herein filed an appeal before the High Court. During the course of arguments on the 27th January, 2006 the High Court found that the statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been properly recorded as all the incriminating circumstances had not been put together, particularly the dying declaration Exhibit P-12. The matter was thereafter remitted to the trial court for framing fresh questions with regard to the dying declarations Exhibit P-12 and P-18.

The trial court recorded the statements of the appellants on the 17th May, 2006 by putting question Nos. 88 to 94 to them with reference to the two dying declarations. The appellants stated that they were the fourth and second sons of their parents and they also filed several documents including birth certificates with respect to their identities. The trial court, however, chose not to rely on these documents as they had been produced at a belated stage and also observed that this evidence was not trustworthy. The appellants were again sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 448 and to life imprisonment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. An appeal was thereafter filed before the High Court impugning the judgment on remand made by the Sessions Court. This appeal too has been dismissed, leading to the present appeal before us.

4. Before us today, the learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the stand of the appellants taken in the High Court that in the dying declaration Exhibit P-12, the deceased had made a statement that the appellants were the first and third sons of A-3 but in the light of the evidence on record it was clear that they were in fact the second and fourth sons of A-3, and as such their very identification was in doubt. It has further been highlighted that as the incident had happened during the hours of darkness it could not have been possible for PW-1 and PW-3 to have identified the appellants. It has also been submitted that the two dying declarations were discrepant in material particulars and that they too could not be relied upon.

5. The learned counsel for the State has, however, supported the judgment of the trial court and has contended that there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to discard the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 and as the incident had happened at about 6:30 p.m. and as darkness had not fully set in, there could be no mistake as to the identity of the as the rival parties as they were neighbours. It has also been submitted that the dying declarations had been recorded by entirely independent observers and that there was no material difference between the two. It has further been pleaded that the medical evidence supported the ocular version.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the arguments advanced by them. We find that there is no material difference between the two dying declarations Exhibits P-12 and P-18. In Exhibit P-18, which is earlier in point of time and which had been recorded at about 9:15 p.m. on the 12th August, 2001 in the presence of the medical officer who had attested the same, the deceased had specifically named the two appellants as his assailants. The dying declaration Exhibit P- 12 was recorded about an hour later in which the deceased referred to the accused as the eldest and the third sons, but otherwise he virtually reiterated what he had said in the dying declaration Exhibit P-18. As a consequence of this somewhat uncertain identification, the High Court, had at the first instance, remanded the matter to the Sessions Court to render an opinion afresh. The Sessions Court, on a reconsideration of the evidence now produced on behalf of the appellants, held that the plea that the appellants were the first and third sons of their parents could not be accepted as this defence was an after thought and more particularly as the appellants had been specifically named as the assailants in the dying declaration Exhibit P-18.

7. In any case, we have absolutely no doubt that the prosecution story is even otherwise proved by the evidence of PW-1, the mother of the deceased and PW-3, a servant of the deceased. The medical evidence clearly supports the eye- witness account. The deceased had 13 injuries on his person most of them incised wounds which could have been caused with a cutting weapon. It is also evident that PWs 1 & 3 presence at the spot was natural as the incident had happened in the house of the deceased at about 6:30 p.m. For this reason also there could be no confusion about the identity of the appellants.

8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.