Thursday 17 January 2013

A mute spectator of crime is not accomplice in crime


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.
       

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment