Blow By Blow Account Of Seriously Injured Victim Raises Serious Doubt: Supreme Court Refuses To Restore Conviction U/S.302 IPC

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh through its Home Department against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Criminal Appeal altering the conviction of the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment to one under Section 304 Part II with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years.

The Division Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held, "Further, if the statement of the victim at Exhibit 10 is perused, it is seen that the same is in great detail. It narrates the previous history as well as enmity between the victim and A1 to A4. The said statement runs into a page and a half. It is in fact a ‘blow by blow’ account given by the victim vividly describing the attack in detail. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the victim, which were twenty-two in number with many of them being grievous, such detailed narration by a seriously injured victim does raise a serious doubt. The victim was under treatment for serious injuries suffered by him and as suggested to the Doctor on duty, the likelihood of the effect of tranquilizers on the victim cannot be ruled out."

“The High Court on re-consideration of the evidence on record proceeded to modify the conviction of A1 to A4 from one under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code. On reappreciation of the entire evidence led by the prosecution, we do notice that there are material inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution that impel us not to restore the conviction of A1 to A4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code as urged on behalf of the appellant”, it added.

Advocate Prerna Singh represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Sirajuddin represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that there were differences between Atla Siva Govinda Reddy and Ponthati Siva Rami Reddy for many years. The father of Atla was stated to have been murdered by the father of Siva Rami in 1997. There was also previous enmity between the family of the victim and Siva Rami Reddy and his brother Dasthagiri Reddy. It was alleged that one night, when the victim was accompanied by the first witness (PW1) for watering their crops, the respondents, who were armed with deadly weapons, attacked the victim with sickles and iron pipes. As a result of this assault, the victim suffered serious injuries as he lay at the spot. The first witness proceeded to inform the family members of the victim, who thereafter shifted him to a Government Hospital. The victim succumbed to his injuries. The Investigating Officer undertook investigation of the crime and on completion thereof, filed the charge sheet.

The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses in support of the charge. At the conclusion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge recorded a finding that A1 to A4 were guilty of assaulting the victim, which resulted in his death. They were, accordingly, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. They were sentenced to life imprisonment. A1 to A4 challenged their conviction by preferring an appeal before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that there were various discrepancies in the prosecution evidence brought on record. The order of conviction rendered by the Sessions Court was, accordingly, modified and the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years with fine. The State of Andhra Pradesh thus assailed the aforesaid judgment.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that doubt was created with regard to the time when the intimation was actually given by Civil Assistant Surgeon (PW8) and received by the Police Officer (PW10). As per the Bench, the overwriting on the medical intimation from the Government Hospital at the instance of the Officer further enhanced such doubt.

Referring to the statement of the victim, the Bench stated that a detailed narration by a seriously injured victim did raise a serious doubt. 

The Bench stated, “Coming to the deposition of PW17, the IO, it is seen that he failed to explain the absence of any reference to the bloodstains of the victim on the clothes of PW1 or PW2 or other witnesses, who claimed to have brought the victim to the hospital. He further stated that he did not make any enquiry as to who brought the victim from the scene of occurrence to the Government Hospital. He admitted that PW3 and PW4 did not state to him that they had gone to the graveyard with a torchlight, nor did he state that he was informed by PW1 about the attack by A1 to A4. Numerous omissions in this regard have been brought on record in his cross examination.”

Considering the omissions brought on record in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer and the aforesaid circumstances, the Bench dismissed the criminal appeal.

Cause Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh Home Department v. Ponthati Siva Rami Reddy (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 820)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Prerna Singh, AOR Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advcoate Vanshika Singh

Respondent: Senior Advocate Sirajuddin, AOR G. N. Reddy, Advocate P. Prabhakar

Click here to read/download Judgment