Vemireddy Satyanarayan Reddy and Three Others v. The State of Hyderabad.

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 Shastry

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, 10^th 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 (4^th 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 8^th 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.