Supreme Court of India· 10 August 2026
Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 restored on appeal where there are material inconsistencies among prosecution witnesses regarding the site of occurrence and how the victim reached hospital?
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT v. Ponthati Siva Rami Reddy and Others
2026 INSC 820 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2120 OF 2017
Coram: Ujjal Bhuyan; Atul S. Chandurkar
Answer
No. Where prosecution witnesses give conflicting accounts of the site of occurrence and of whether the victim was taken to his residence or to hospital in a jeep, and where the victim's last statement recorded shortly before his death raises doubt because of overwriting in the intimation record, these material inconsistencies are sufficient ground not to restore a Section 302 conviction; the alteration to Section 304 Part II stands undisturbed.
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.304 Part II — s.34 — Alteration of conviction — Appreciation of evidence — Surmises and conjectures —
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.304 Part II — Section 302 conviction not restored on inconsistent evidence —
Held: Material inconsistencies among prosecution witnesses and doubt surrounding the victim's last statement are insufficient to restore the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34; the High Court's alteration to Section 304 Part II is not disturbed. (¶14, 16)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.304 Part II — Appellate observations disapproved as surmises and conjectures —
Held further: The High Court's observations on how the accused would ordinarily have acted, though no witness had deposed to that effect, rest on surmises and conjectures and do not affect the outcome of this appeal. (¶17)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.304 Part II — Sentence already undergone — Quietus —
Held further: A1 to A4 having already suffered the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed by the High Court and not having challenged the modified conviction, the matter deserves a quietus; the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (¶18)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 11These are the material witnesses who according to the prosecution had either witnessed the incident or had immediately come to the site on getting information of the attack on the victim. It is seen that insofar as the site of the occurrence is concerned, PW1 had categorically stated that the victim was assaulted in his fields. PW1 had, thereafter, carried him to the graveyard and laid him on the tomb. It was thereafter that Chinna Koulai had come at that place and both of them had carried the victim to his residence. Insofar as PW2 is concerned, his presence is not acknowledged by PW1 despite the fact that PW2 states that he and PW1 had shifted the victim to his house. PW3, the brother of the victim claims to have seen A1 to A4 escaping from the site of the incident after the assault. He further states that the assault took place at the graveyard. He further states that a jeep was brought to the graveyard from where the victim was shifted to the hospital. This version is completely belied by the depositions of PW1 and PW2 inasmuch as they do not refer to the presence of PW3 at the site. On the contrary, they state that they carried the victim from the graveyard to his house. They also do not refer to any jeep being brought at the graveyard to carry the victim to the hospital. A doubt is, thus, created with regard to the site of occurrence of the attack on the victim as well as the actual presence of A1 to A4 immediately thereafter. There is also inconsistency as to whether the victim was taken to his residence as per PW1 and PW2 or whether he was taken to the Government Hospital in a jeep as per PW3 and PW4.
Paragraph 14When the depositions of PW8, PW9 and PW10 along with the relevant exhibited documents are considered, it is seen that while PW8 stated that he had given intimation to the police at 05.30 a.m., PW10 who acted on the said intimation, stated that the time mentioned of receiving the intimation at Exhibit P6 was originally written as 06.50 a.m., which was then corrected to 05.50 a.m. There is a doubt created with regard to the time when such intimation was actually given by PW8 and received by PW10. The overwriting on Exhibit P6 at the instance of PW10 further enhances such doubt. 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.
Paragraph 16The 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 re- appreciation 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. We do not find any sufficient ground raised in the appeal in that regard. In the absence of any challenge being raised by A1 to A4 to their conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code, we are inclined to dismiss the criminal appeal.
Acts & Sections
s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.304 Part II Indian Penal Code, 1860s.34 Indian Penal Code, 1860One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT v. Ponthati Siva Rami Reddy and Others — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →