Murder Conviction Reinstated: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Acquittal

The case of M. Nageswara Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and related appeals revolves around a brutal murder that took place in 2007. The case involved a long legal battle, from the Sessions Court to the High Court and finally to the Supreme Court, which reinstated the conviction of the accused for murder.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is significant as it highlights the importance of evidence given by eyewitnesses, the role of procedural delays in FIR registration, and the reliability of prosecution witnesses. The judgment also sets a precedent on how courts should treat minor contradictions in witness testimonies and weigh them against the broader picture of the case.

Background of the Case

The incident occurred on January 18, 2007, when Rajasekhar Reddy, along with his brother M. Nageswara Reddy (PW1) and others, were attacked by a group of assailants in Kurnool. According to the prosecution, a group of accused, armed with hunting sickles, stopped their vehicle and brutally hacked Rajasekhar Reddy to death, causing fatal injuries. Several others, including the driver, suffered serious wounds.

Trial Court Proceedings

The police charged eleven accused under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 427, and 302 read with 149 IPC. During the trial, the prosecution presented key eyewitnesses, including the injured survivors.

The Sessions Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while Accused Nos. 4 to 11 were acquitted due to lack of evidence.

High Court Proceedings

The accused challenged the conviction in the High Court of Hyderabad. The High Court overturned the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and acquitted them, citing procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The High Court ruled that:

The FIR was allegedly registered later than claimed, creating doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution’s timeline.
The prosecution’s key witnesses were “planted,” suggesting that their testimonies could not be relied upon.
Eyewitnesses, including the injured ones, could not properly identify the accused.
The prosecution had falsely implicated the accused due to political rivalry.

As a result, the High Court not only acquitted the convicted accused but also upheld the trial court’s acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

Both the complainant and the State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the acquittal was unjustified and that the trial court had correctly convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 3.

Petitioner’s Arguments (State and Complainant)

The High Court erred in disregarding the evidence of eyewitnesses, particularly PW1, PW3, PW5, PW6, and PW7, who consistently identified Accused Nos. 1 to 3 as the main attackers.
The alleged delay in FIR registration was not substantial enough to dismiss the case entirely, especially when it was filed within seven hours.
Minor contradictions in witness statements should not have been a ground for acquittal, as they did not alter the overall prosecution story.
The High Court failed to distinguish between the roles of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Accused Nos. 4 to 11, wrongly treating them as one group.

Respondent’s Arguments (Accused)

The FIR was manipulated to frame the accused.
The prosecution’s key witnesses were unreliable and had personal motives to falsely implicate them.
The delay in registering the FIR and presenting it to the Magistrate raised serious doubts about the integrity of the case.
The acquittal was justified given the weak and contradictory evidence against them.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, ruled in favor of the complainant and the State, setting aside the High Court’s acquittal of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and restoring their conviction for murder.

In its ruling, the Court made several critical observations:

“The prosecution examined five important and relevant witnesses – PW1, PW3, PW5, PW6 & PW7, out of which PW1, PW3 & PW5 were the eye-witnesses and PW6 & PW7 were the injured eye-witnesses. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were identified by PW1, PW3 & PW6.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had wrongly discounted credible evidence from multiple sources, including injured witnesses. The Court further noted:

“The High Court has unnecessarily given weightage to some minor contradictions. The contradictions, if any, are not material contradictions which can affect the case of the prosecution as a whole.”

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

The conviction of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 was reinstated, and they were sentenced to life imprisonment.
The acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 was upheld.
The Supreme Court reiterated that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies should not be a basis for overturning a well-founded conviction.
The reliability of eyewitness and injured witness testimony was upheld, reinforcing the importance of direct evidence.

Implications of the Verdict

This judgment serves as a landmark ruling on how courts should handle witness testimonies, especially those of injured witnesses. It reinforces the principle that minor inconsistencies in testimonies should not lead to the acquittal of accused persons when there is strong supporting evidence.

For the criminal justice system, this decision underscores the importance of correctly distinguishing between procedural lapses and substantive issues, ensuring that justice is not denied due to technicalities.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s verdict restores faith in the legal process by ensuring that those responsible for serious crimes do not escape justice on flimsy grounds.

Petitioner Name: M. Nageswara Reddy.
Respondent Name: The State of Andhra Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 07-03-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: m.-nageswara-reddy-vs-the-state-of-andhra-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-07-03-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category