There is no warrant for the extreme proposition that if a
man sees the perpetration of a crime and does not give
information of it to anyone else, he might well be regarded
in law as an accomplice and that he could be put in the dock
with the actual criminals.
A person may be present, and, if not aiding and abetting,
be neither principal nor accessory; as, if A, happens to be
present at a murder and takes no part in it, nor endeavours
to prevent it, or to apprehend the murderer, this course of
conduct will not of itself render him either principal or
accessory.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VEMIREDDY SATYANARAYAN REDDY AND THREE
Vs.
THE STATE OF HYDERABAD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
14/03/1956
BENCH:
AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA
BOSE, VIVIAN
CITATION:
1956 AIR 379 (SC) 1956 SCR 247
ACT:
Crime, perpetration of-A person present but not aiding or
abetting-Whether principal or accessory-Corroboration of the
statement of a single witness against accused-What the law
requires.
HEADNOTE:
There is no warrant for the extreme proposition that if a
man sees the perpetration of a crime and does not give
information of it to anyone else, he might well be regarded
in law as an accomplice and that he could be put in the dock
with the actual criminals.
A person may be present, and, if not aiding and abetting,
be neither principal nor accessory; as, if A, happens to be
present at a murder and takes no part in it, nor endeavours
to prevent it, or to apprehend the murderer, this course of
conduct will not of itself render him either principal or
accessory.
Russell on Crime, 10th Edition, p. 1846, referred to.
In the matter of corroboration of the evidence of a single
witness against the accused what the law requires is that
there should be such corroboration of the material part of
the story connecting the accused with the crime as will
satisfy reasonable minds that the man can be regarded as a
truthful witness. The corroboration need not be direct
evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is
sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his
connection with the crime. The nature of the corroboration
will depend on and vary according to the particular
circumstances of each case.
Rex v. Baskerville (1916) 2 K.B.D. 658, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
The four appellants and two others
named Sheshaya and Pitchi Reddy, who are all communists,
were charged with the murder of one Venkatakrishna Shastry
who was a Congress worker or leader.
The appellants were convicted of the offence but the other
two were acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Warangal,
Hyderabad State, on the astounding ground that no overt acts
were proved against them. The appellants preferred appeals
to the High Court at Hyderabad and there was the usual
reference for confirmation of the death sentences imposed on
them. The appeals were heard by a Bench consisting of
Deshpande J. and Dr. Mir Siadat Ali Khan J. and
they disagreed with each other. Deshpande J. held that the
evidence did not establish the guilt of the appellants and
be acquitted them. On the other band, Dr. Mir Siadat Ali
Khan came to the conclusion that the prosecution had
established its case beyond reasonable doubt. He confirmed
the convictions but reduced the sentences to imprisonment
for life. Owing to this difference of opinion, the matter
was referred to a third Judge, Manohar Pershad J. and be
agreed with the finding of guilty given by his learned bro-
ther Dr. Mir Siadat Ali Khan. We granted special leave to
the appellants to come before this court.
The facts of the occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution,
are these. On the evening of 19-1-1949, the deceased
Venkatakrishna Shastry of the village of Maturpeta and five
other persons, who were Congress workers like him, were
returning to the village from a tank. One of the communist
leaders called Nagabhushan Rao had been arrested a month or
two previously and the communist party believed that
Venkatakrishna Shastry was responsible for the arrest. So a
large group of communists, about 25 or 30 in number
including the accused, armed with guns and swords, paid a
visit to Maturpeta to wreak vengeance against the Congress
group led by Venkatakrishna Shastry. They ran into the
Congress group as they were getting back to the village
after the evening stroll. P.W. 14, a dhobi boy named Gopai
was one of the camp followers of this communist group.
Venkatakrishna Shastry and his co-workers were tied up with
their own clothes and were led to the village chavadi over
which a Congress flag was flying. A rope was brought from
the house of P. W. 17 and the members of the Congress group
were tied with this rope and led some distance away from the
village to a red-gram field, and all of them were beaten by
their enemies; except Shastry, the rest were driven away
from the place. Shastry was tied with the rope and taken in
the eastern direction by Mangapaty (the dalam or troup
leader) and the accused. P. W. 14 was following the group
carrying a bundle of their clothes on his head. After a
short halt at the village of
Suknevedu, where some food was taken, the party went towards
a mango-tope near a brook, four or five miles away leading
Venkatakrishna Shastry as the captive. The deceased, Gopai
(P.W. 14) and some of the accused remained on the bank of
the brooklet. The others went a little beyond and one of
them came back with orders that Venkatakrishna
should be fetched. Venkatakrishna Shastry was taken along
and when the moon was at the meridian, the rope with which
he was led was tied round the neck of the deceased into a
noose. Two of the accused pulled one end of the rope and
two others at the other end in opposite directions.
Venkatakrishna Shastry was thus strangled to death. A pit
was dug and the body of Venkatakrishna Shastry was buried in
the river-bed. P.W. 14 saw all this from a distance of
twenty yards in clear moonlight.
Two or three days later, after some wanderings in the jungle
and mountain-dens P.W. 14 left the company of his masters
who were implored by the boy’s father P.W. 7 to permit him
to take the boy away.
Next morning a report was sent by P.W. 2 the police patel
about the abduction of Venkatakrishna Shastry and
investigation was begun. On 8-2-1949, that is about twenty
days after the occurrence, some bones of a human-body were
discovered in the riverbed as the result of crows and
vultures hovering round the place. The police Patwari (P.W.
10) sent a report about this discovery. The police arrived
on the scene and exhumed the body which was identified as
that of Venkatakrishna Shastry. This was on 9-2-1949. It
was sent for postmortem examination. The condition in which
the body was at the time of exhumation is stated in a
panchnama that was then prepared. The results of the
postmortem examination are spoken to by the doctor P.W. 7.
Being the only witness for the commission of the crime, the
dhobi boy (P.W. 14) was subjected to severe criticism by Mr.
Umrigar who held the dock brief for the appellants. He
described him as an accomplice and as an unmitigated liar
and he asked us not even to look at his evidence. P.W. 14
does not satisfy the
definition of an accomplice; he falls somewhat short of the
requirements which would confer on him this status.
According to the evidence, he left his parents’ roof after a
quarrel with his father and while wandering in the jungles
he was picked up by the communists only 3 days before and
taken as their servant on promise to give him food. His
main duty appears to have been to go with the group carrying
their bundles of clothes on his head. It was in this
capacity that he was not only able to see the abduction of
the deceased but also to witness the actual murder. He took
no part whatever in the commission of the offence or in any
active or passive preparations for the same. He was not a
particeps crimines. After securing his release from his
temporary masters, he went back with his father to the
village. It is true he did not divulge the secret of the
murder to any one else except to his own father. But who
would, in view of the atrocities and terrorism that
prevailed in that region during the relevant time? It
required a very courageous man to have proclaimed the truth,
needless of consequences to himself, And we cannot credit
the dhobi boy with so much of fearlessness. The learned
counsel urged that if a man sees the perpetration of a crime
and does not give information of it to anyone else, he might
well be regarded in law as an accomplice and that he could
be put in the dock with the actual criminals. There is,
however, no warrant for such an extreme proposition. On the
other hand, the following short passage from Russell on
Crime, 10th Edition, page 1846, will show its untenability:-
"But a person may be present, and, if not aiding and
abetting, be neither principal nor accessory; as, if A,
happens to be present at a murder and takes no part in it,
nor endeavours to prevent it, or to apprehend the murderer,
this course of conduct will not of itself render him either
principal or accessory".
Indeed, there can be no doubt that the evidence of a man
like P.W. 14 should be scanned with much caution and we must
be fully satisfied that he is a witness of truth, especially
when no other person
was present at the time to see the murder. Though he was
not an accomplice, we would still want corroboration on
material particulars in this particular case, as he is the
only witness to the crime and as it would be unsafe to hang
four people on his sole testimony unless we feel convinced
that he is speaking the truth. Such corroboration need not,
however, be on the question of the actual commission of the
offence;, if this was the requirement, then we would have
independent testimony on which to act and there would be no
need to rely on the evidence of one whose position may, in
this particular case, be said to be somewhat analogous to
that of an accomplice, though not exactly the same. What
the law requires is that there should be such corroboration
of the material part of the story connecting the accused
with the crime as will satisfy reasonable minds that the man
can be regarded as a truthful witness. In the leading case
of Rex v. Baskerville(1) it was pointed by Lord Reading C.J.
that "the corroboration need not be direct evidence that the
accused committed the crime; it is sufficient if it is
merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the
crime. The nature of the corroboration will depend on and
vary according to the particular circumstances of each case.
What is required is some additional evidence rendering it
probable that the story of the accomplice is true and that
it is reasonably safe to act upon it.
Judged by this test, we can say that the evidence given by
P.W. 14 has been amply corroborated. It was not disputed
for the appellants that there is abundant evidence
consisting of the testimony of several witnesses in support
of the truth of the narrative given by P.W. 14 regarding the
abduction of the deceased. This evidence was given not by
mere onlookers but by men like P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9, who
were with the deceased when the communist group came upon
them and who were themselves badly beaten up by the gang
before being released from, impending death at the merciful
intervention of
(1) [1916] 2 K.B.D. 658
some one of them. They say that at the time of the release
the accused retained the deceased with them and took him
away in the direction of Mulgupad.
From this stage, P. W. 14 takes us to the river bank where
the deceased and he were allowed to sit. The accused went
into the river bed and later on orders were issued by the
appellant No. 1, the deceased was led by a rope from the
bank by Muthyalu (4th appellant). The rope was tied round
the neck of the deceased into a noose and pulled in opposite
directions by two of the accused on each side and Shastry
was thus strangled to death. His body was buried in a pit
dug in the river bed. The rope which was found round the
neck of the dead body when it was exhumed is said to be the
rope with which P.Ws. 3 to 6 and 9 were tied up and as the
one that the members of the gang brought from the house of
Silam Brahmareddi (P.W. 17) earlier that evening when the
village was raided and the Congress workers were marched to
the Congress flag.
There is also evidence that the party of the accused when
they first encountered the party of the deceased asked who
and where was Venkatakrishna Shastry. The assailants, who
were armed to the teeth, indulged in threats to kill all of
them. The deceased was a Congress leader and it is not
surprising that he was singled out for terrific punishment,
while the others were let off with a good thrashing and
admonitions that they should give up their Congress affi-
liations. It is but natural in the circumstances that they
should take away the deceased to a distant place to do away
with him. That he was so led by the group of the accused is
also corroborated by the evidence of Yesob (P.W. 12) who was
watching his jawar crop on the night in question in a
neighbouring field.
Let us now turn to the exhumation of the dead body, the
inquest report, the postmortem certificate, and the evidence
of the doctor (P. W. 7). The patwari of Sakrivedu (P.W.
10) sent a report on the 8th February, 1949, that he had
information that a dead body lay buried in the river-bed.
The report has not
been filed but its purport about the condition of the body
is given in the inquest report as unidentifiable. Two
police sub-inspectors and some constables reached the river-
bed the same day and exhumed the body. Its then condition
is described in these words in the inquest report:
"It was noticed that a rope of Chinna and Ambara was wrapped
from neck to the waist. Both hands were missing and out of
the two legs one was attached to the body with little flesh.
The bones of the other separated leg (the down part of the
knee) and the bones of one hand were found in the pit.
There were some hairs in the head. The flesh of the face
was rotten and decayed. Teeth are safe and sound. There is
rotten flesh from the neck to the buttocks. It appears that
this dead body is of a Hindu Brahmin".
The panchnama is signed by two persons, one of whom HAS BEEN
EXAMINED AS P.W. 16. He, along with the witnesses who gave
evidence as co-sufferers with the deceased in the communist
raid of that evening, have identified the body as that of
Venkatakrishna Shastry. The doctor’s postmortem certificate
is exhibit 2 and according to it the body was petrified and
even the marks of strangulation could not be detected; both
the palms had been cut out, the left hand was severed
completely; there was only the left eye in a rotten
condition; the right eye was not found, the right ear was
not there. Examined as P.W. 7, the doctor has said that the
face of the corpse could not be identified, as the scalp was
eaten away by mud, and the bony structure of the face was
present.
In the face of this evidence, the learned counsel for the
appellants contended with much force that identification
must have been impossible and that the witnesses who speak
to the same should be disbelieved. Two factors are,,
however, overlooked in this argument. Though the body was
in an advanced state of decomposition and many parts of the
limbs were missing and even the flesh in the face was gone,
it would not have been difficult for close associates of
Venkatakrishna Shastry to say that it was his corpse, from
the general features form, outline, contour build of the
body, and the appearance of such of the limbs as were
available to see. His friend Madhusudhana Rao, P.W. 15, was
working with the deceased for some years in the Congress
office and knew him well indeed. There is his evidence
about identification. More important still is the
identification of the rope round the neck of the body, the
dhoti with the violet border that was on its waist, and the
janjam or the holy thread. The rope was brought from the
house of Brahma Reddy (P.W. 17). It was the one which was
tied in loops round each member of the Congress group as
they were led from the village to the redgram field; it was
the rope that was used to lead Venkatakrishna Shastry to the
brooklet; and it was the rope that was found round the neck
of the dead body when it was unearthed. The bordered dhoti
which was on the corpse belonged to Venkatakrishna Shastry.
From these external marks, and the general features, friends
of the deceased like P.Ws. 3 to 6 and 9 and P.W. 17 in whose
house Shastry was living could say, we think, that the body
buried in the waist-deep pit in the bed of the river was
that of Venkatakrishna Shastry.
Whether he is regarded as an accomplice or as the sole
witness of the offence P.W. 14 has been corroborated in such
a manner that his evidence about the steps taken by the
accused immediately prior to the perpetration of the murder
carries conviction to our minds. The connection of the
accused with the crime must be held to have been made out.
We have also to accept that the dead body recovered was that
of Venkatakrishna Shastry and no question of the absence of
the body arises.
For this gruesome and revolting murder the appellants have
got only imprisonment for life for which they must be
thankful to the difference of opinion that arose among the
learned Judges of the High Court.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment